City Council

Minutes of Work Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, June 11, 2015 Page Minutes of the Work Session of the Ogden City Council held on Thursday, June 11, 2015 at 5:32 p.m., in the Council Work Room located on the third floor of the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard, Ogden City, Weber County, Utah. Present: Chair Richard A. Hyer Vice Chair Marcia L. White (participated via telephone) Council members Bart E. Blair Neil K. Garner Caitlin K. Gochnour Doug Stephens Amy L. Wicks (arrived at 5:39 p.m.) Council Executive Director Bill Cook Council Deputy Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Manager Amy Sue Mabey Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Management Services Director David G. Buxton Comptroller Lisa Stout Deputy Finance Manager Camille Cook Deputy City Recorder Abbie Zampedri The purpose of the Work Session is to discuss the Proposed FY2015-2016 Budget and Council Business. Proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2015-2016 Budget Union Station Foundation: Council Executive Director Cook noted the first item of discussion for tonight is the request from the Union Station Foundation for $100,000; there has been much discussion regarding this topic to date and he provided a brief review of those discussions. He added City Administration has offered to provide $23,000 of in-kind service and actual money to offset expenses associated with the Union Station, such as maintenance. The City currently does not have a contract with the Foundation and Council staff recommends that any funding decision be contingent upon the successful negotiation and execution of an agreement. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson reported the same as in the past, City Administration has continued to offer support to the Foundation and would like to provide some additional funding contingent upon execution of a contract, but the Foundation has refused to sign the contract. Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith clarified that the Foundation was not aware of the offer to provide an additional $23,000 of support; the Foundation Board planned to discuss that offer during their meeting yesterday. Mr. Johnson added that the budget includes $50,000 for an economic study relative to the facility. City Administration understands that it will be necessary to raise funding to renovate the building, but there are significant concerns that the State will not continue to provide operating money for the facility. Council member Gochnour asked if the $50,000 was already in the budget for the Union Station, but assigned to something other than the study. Mr. Johnson answered no and stated that City Administration considers the $50,000 a one-time funding source for the economic study. Council member Gochnour asked if the intent of the State funding is to cover operations, to which Mr. Johnson answered yes. He added that some operating costs should be covered by rental income, but City Administration is unaware of how that rental income is being used. Council member Gochnour asked if the contract between the City and Foundation expired. Mr. Johnson answered yes. Council member Gochnour asked if the last year has been spent negotiating the terms of a new agreement. Mr. Johnson stated negotiations have been going on for over a year. Council member Gochnour asked if the City is offering to operate as if the old contract were still in place while a new contract is negotiated. Mr. Johnson stated the City has requested a couple of deviations from the old contract, but they are not significant. He stated the Foundation wants the City to take responsibility for all aspects of the Union Station with the exception of the museums, but the City does not have the funding to do that this year; however, eventually he feels it will be necessary for the City to assume responsibility for the facility and lease the museums to the Foundation. Management Services Director Buxton added the Foundation has indicated they are preparing a business plan, which should be completed in August. The City will compare the Foundation’s plan with the City’s plan to ensure the two plans combined together create a self-sustaining model at the Union Station before embarking on the capital campaign to raise funds for the renovation of the facility. Ms. Eller-Smith stated she is confused by the fact that the Foundation is completing their own business plan. Mr. Buxton stated that the Foundation was unwilling to accept the City’s business plan for the facility and they executed a contract to get their own plan. Mr. Johnson added that the scope of the City’s business plan for the Union Station was much larger than the Foundation’s; the City’s plan encompasses the building and all property surrounding it with a focus on creating new business opportunities there, while the Foundation was only focused on utilization of existing space. Council member Garner commented he would like to list all of the things the City has done for the Foundation at the Union Station besides simply paying operational costs. Mr. Johnson stated that if the financial contributions the City has made to the Foundation were to be examined over the past three years, one would find that the City’s contributions are much more substantial than what is being represented. He added that the members of the Foundation are fairly new and they do not have an understanding of the history between the City and the Foundation over the past 10 years. Council member Wicks added that when the Foundation assumed responsibility for the Union Station in 2004 the Council budgeted funding of $50,000 to pay operational costs. Mr. Johnson agreed and noted that the funding source tapered off over the next several years. Mr. Cook noted over the past three years the City has provided $637,000 in funding to the Foundation. Mr. Buxton added that the Foundation also receives several State and Federal grants; in the years past they have received $1.9 million from various entities to upgrade the building. Chair Hyer stated that if the Council’s funding decision is contingent upon the execution of a contract between the City and the Foundation, the Council should be aware of the terms of the contract and the responsibilities both parties are committing to. Discussion ensued regarding contract negotiations that have taken place to date, with Mr. Johnson concluding that financially the City cannot afford to offer any additional funding over what has already been offered. Council member Garner asked if City Administration is comfortable with the Foundation’s accounting of the revenues they receive from building rentals and the restaurant. Mr. Johnson stated he would prefer not to discuss financial accounting in this meeting and reiterated that the Foundation’s focus has been solely on the museums at the facility. He concluded City Administration is placing a high value on the economic study pertaining to use of the facility because it is necessary to determine how the facility should be improved and maintained well into the future. Council member Gochnour stated she appreciates the City’s position relative to funding the facility, but it is important to remember that the Union Station was ‘dumped in the laps’ of the Foundation and they rose to the challenge to keep the facility operating. The matter of properly maintaining or renovating the Union Station has not been a high priority for the City for a variety of reasons. Mr. Johnson argued that the City has been instrumental in facilitating many deals between the Foundation and other entities to ensure that operating funding would be available. He added that he remembers the transaction between the City and Foundation somewhat differently than Council member Gochnour; the Foundation was very aggressive in their position of wanting to assume responsibility for the facility. He concluded by saying that the responsibility nor the facility was not thrust upon the Foundation as it is being represented. Council member Gochnour suggested increasing the support amount from $23,000 to $50,000 to send the public message that the City is supporting the Foundation and the Union Station. Mr. Johnson stated that many areas of the City are underfunded and he hesitates to dedicate more money to the Union Station Foundation simply because of a negative article in the local newspaper regarding the relationship between the Foundation and the City. Council member Wicks commented there are many other areas of the City that could benefit by increased funding, such as the Dinosaur Park, and if the City gives the Foundation more money because of negative press other foundations or committees may ask the City for additional funding or they may also turn to the press. Mr. Johnson stated that he understands that the situation between the City and the Foundation is far from ideal, but it is not possible to fix it in one year. Mr. Buxton clarified that there is a surplus of $31,000 in what was budgeted for the Union Station last year and that amount, combined with the new contribution of $23,000 makes $54,000. Discussion ensued regarding actual operation costs at the Union Station with Mr. Buxton noting that the City pays roughly $8,000 to $10,000 per month for utilities. Council member Gochnour asked how public the $54,000 contribution will be. Mr. Johnson stated that the Council can make it as public as they like. Mr. Cook added the $54,000 is in addition to the contribution of $50,000 from the City for the business plan and another $100,000 from the State; the Foundation will receive $204,000 in funding and Council staff can include information regarding that amount in their public budget message. Council member Gochnour asked that the message be clear that the $100,000 is from the State. Vice Chair White stated that the City worked hard to get the $100,000 contribution from the State, with Mr. Cook noting that staff will make that message very clear. Consumer Price Index (CPI): Mr. Cook noted the next budget issue for discussion this evening deals with the CPI. Chair Hyer noted utility rates are closely tied to the CPI, but when the CPI falls at or below zero, residents do not get a break in their rates. Mr. Johnson noted that if the CPI were to fall and utility rates were cut, there could be serious negative implications for the City’s utility infrastructure. Council member Gochnour added that less than 50 percent of the City’s infrastructure has been improved and there is much work to be done; a rate decrease could be very detrimental; she feels this is an issue the City could consider when all infrastructure has received necessary improvements. Mr. Johnson agreed and added that it would be more appropriate to consider a rate decrease after several years of a negative CPI, but one or two years should be considered an anomaly. Chair Hyer noted that his feeling is simply that ‘everyone is in the same boat’; if a downturn in the economy negatively impacts residents and they are forced to reevaluate their budget, maybe the City should do the same. Council member Blair added that it is important to note that rates were not increased for several years during difficult economic times. Mr. Cook concluded that it may be appropriate to discuss and further consider the topic during the next utility rate model. Quality Neighborhoods Strategy: Mr. Cook reported Council staff will be developing a communications plan for this project. He noted he has met with the diversity group of the College Town Advisory Committee regarding the issue and there will be an additional meeting to discuss the communications plan with the goal of building community support for the project over the next year. Pioneer Days Hospitality Tent Funding: Mr. Cook noted last year the City dedicated $5,000 to the Pioneer Days Foundation for a hospitality tent at the Pioneer Days Rodeo. Funding has not been included in the proposed budget for the same purpose, though there is funding for the fireworks in the budget. He reviewed survey results from rodeo participants and discussed the feedback the City received from the Pioneer Days Foundation, after which he asked if the Council wanted to consider funding the tent again this year. Council member Wicks stated that the majority of the hospitality tent users were from Utah. Council member Gochnour asked if the hospitality tent can be credited with earning the rodeo a high rating and whether that high rating results in drawing a larger crowd to the rodeo. Council member Stephens noted the higher rating draws higher caliber participants, which, in turn, draws a higher crowd. Discussion regarding the survey results continued, with Council member Wicks noting she feels it would be more appropriate for private businesses to sponsor the hospitality tent; she wondered if it is the proper role of the City to fund hospitality for rodeo participants. Council member Gochnour clarified the Foundation is asking for $5,000 for the hospitality tent, $1,000 for the VIP tent, and $5,000 for the fireworks show. Discussion of the request ensued, with Council members Blair, Gochnour, and Stephens offering support for the funding requests as the Pioneer Days celebration is a significant event for the entire City. Mr. Johnson noted that the reason Administration did not include $5,000 for the hospitality tent is that they feel the City already contributes to the event by offering funding and staff; he feels it would be more appropriate for the City to fund the VIP tent than the hospitality tent. Council member Gochnour suggested dedicating less than $5,000 to the hospitality tent as she feels that the tent is one of the reasons the rodeo received a higher ranking last year than in years past. She stated she would like to offer $2,500 for the hospitality tent and asked that the same survey be conducted again to determine whether the tent is part of the reason for the higher ranking the rodeo received. She stated she would also support offering $1,000 for the VIP tent and $5,000 for the fireworks. After discussion about the validity of the survey and whether all who entered the tent were asked to participate in the survey, the Council concluded to support Council member Gochnour’s proposal, but no survey will be conducted this year. Council Project Scoring FY2016: Mr. Cook distributed a document to each Council member that provided the results of the Council’s ranking of projects to potentially be included in the FY2016 budget. He reviewed the data contained within the document and facilitated a discussion regarding the best way to proceed with the information available. Vice Chair White advocated for a new project she recommended: waterwise plan percentage changes, with the goal of reducing City water usage by a certain percentage. She stated she feels the City should be a leader in promoting water conservation. She added another project she would like to work on is development of a policy that would require a certain percentage of subcontractors to be local businesses. Mr. Johnson indicated there could be some legal implications of such a policy, especially when using State or Federal grant dollars to fund a project. Council member Stephens noted he is supportive of the waterwise plan project as well as a project geared towards making changes to the City’s fleet to ensure the most fuel efficient vehicles are being used to complete necessary work. Mr. Cook stated there is currently a standard in place within the City that requires a focus on fuel efficiency when considering the purchase of fleet vehicles. He added that relative to the waterwise plan, it may be difficult to identify the percentage by which the City’s water usage could be reduced; he concluded more discussion about both projects is necessary. The Council discussed the idea of improving the City’s fleet by using more fuel efficient vehicles, with Mr. Buxton noting that City Administration is currently working within a program that will introduce fuel additives into the City’s fleet vehicles that should reduce fuel consumption by five percent as well as produce cleaner emissions. He stated the program is a pilot program and results will be evaluated after six months. Discussion centered on the use of hybrid vehicles, with Mr. Buxton noting that hybrid vehicles are so expensive and the return on investment is rarely recognized in this type of application. Mr. Johnson added that the City continues to under-fund the Fleet Division by $1 million and it is not possible to spend more money on hybrid vehicles. Council member Gochnour commented that in California there was a state-wide mandate that municipalities were to cut their water usage by 25 percent and there is a significant fiscal note attached to that mandate. Mr. Johnson stated the City has greatly reduced water usage this year; he used the City’s golf courses as an example and indicated they are being watered much less than in the past. Council member Wicks added that it may be possible to tie a rain barrel program to the project that is being recommended by Vice Chair White to get people thinking about their water consumption. Mr. Cook noted the City currently has a water conservation plan and he suggested the Council schedule a work session to talk about the goals of the plan and possible amendments relative to further water conservation efforts. Discussion regarding a rain barrel program continued, with Council member Wicks noting the Council needs to decide if they are willing to dedicate funding to subsidize such a program. Vice Chair White expressed her concern that the program may not be heavily utilized because people will be unwilling to pay for the rain barrel. Council member Wicks noted that many residents in Ogden do not have access to secondary water and are forced to use culinary water to water their landscaping; many of them may participate in the rain barrel program to reduce the amount of money they spend on culinary water. She noted that the program could be part of the material provided by the City’s Water Conservation Specialist when discussing water conservation opportunities with citizens. Council member Gochnour agreed a water barrel program is another tool citizens could use to reduce water usage and she feels the City should embrace the program. Discussion continued regarding funding the program, with four Council members offering support for the dedication of $4,000 to a rain barrel program. Mr. Cook continued his review of the project ranking data, with a focus on a project pertaining to River Parkway resurfacing and widening from Rainbow Gardens to Washington Boulevard as well as a project to construct safety sidewalks for schools throughout the City. The Council concluded more information is needed regarding both projects in order to determine an appropriate funding amount, if any. Mr. Cook clarified with the Council that they will not be adding any new projects to the list at this time, with the Council responding no they will not. Mr. Cook stated he will finalize the project list using the feedback received tonight. Council Budget Message: Ms. Eller-Smith provided the Council with an overview of the budget message for the proposed budget. She asked each Council member to review the section containing their comments and provide her with feedback by tomorrow morning regarding any changes that need to occur. Mr. Cook complimented Ms. Eller-Smith on her work. He then noted a section of the document including information about The Arts and funding of arts programs. The document indicates funding for grants is increasing to $60,000 with a goal to add $10,000 each year until there is at least $100,000 available for qualifying arts organizations. He indicated this is a policy issue and wanted to ensure the Council is comfortable with it being included in the budget overview. Council Budget Goals: Ms. Eller-Smith noted she used the budget goals from last year’s budget as a starting point for the FY2016 document and simply removed the goals that are no longer applicable. Council member Gochnour stated she would like to strengthen the language relative to open space preservation. Ms. Eller-Smith welcomed additional feedback regarding the document prior to tomorrow morning. Council Budget Guidelines: Ms. Eller-Smith provided a review of the budget guidelines document and, again, asked for feedback regarding the document no later than tomorrow morning. She thanked the Council for all of their input and assistance in assembling all data needed to provide an adequate budget message to the public. Council Business Council Calendar: Mr. Cook discussed the timeline for proceeding with making a decision regarding the transit project in the City, with the goal of including an item on the July 7, 2015 meeting agenda to invite public input regarding the project. An item could then be added to the July 28, 2015 meeting agenda for consideration of adoption of a joint resolution for the transit project that would be signed by all stakeholders. There was a brief discussion regarding noticing the meetings during which transit decisions will be made, with Mr. Cook noting the typical noticing measures will be taken, with additional noticing done through the Standard-Examiner and on various entities websites. The meeting adjourned at 7:40 p.m. ________________________________________ ABBIE ZAMPEDRI DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ RICHARD A. HYER, CHAIR APPROVED: August 18, 2015