City Council

Minutes of Regular Meeting of Council of Ogden City, Utah, March 1, 2016 Page Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, March 1, 2016 at 6:02 p.m., in the Council Chambers on the third floor of the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard, Ogden City, Weber County, Utah. Present: Chair Marcia L. White Vice Chair Bart E. Blair Council members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski Doug Stephens 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 City Attorney Gary Williams Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Community and Economic Development Deputy Manager Brandon Cooper Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Public Services Director Jay Lowder City Urban Forester Monte Stewart Deputy City Recorder Julia LaSeure At the request of the Chair, all present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chair Blair. A moment of silence was observed. YMCA Presentation by Ann Nelson, Weber County Regional Director Ann Nelson, Weber County Regional Director of the Young Men’s Christian Association (YMCA), made a presentation about the vision and role of the YMCA and how these services impact the greater Ogden community. She reported the mission of the YMCA is “to put Christian principles into practices through programs that build healthy spirit, mind and body for all”. YMCA headquarters is located in Chicago, IL and the local YMCA is the only branch in Northern Utah. Many people in the area are not familiar with the association and the services it provides. The association no longer serves only young men or only Christians. Instead their areas of focus include youth development by nurturing the potential of every child and teen, healthy living, and social responsibility by giving back and providing support to neighbors. The YMCA’s core values are caring, honesty, respect, and responsibility and these four core values are attached to each program offered by the association. There are more than 2,633 chartered YMCAs throughout the world, with the greatest concentration being on the east coast of the United States. The YMCA serves everyone from infants to seniors. Ms. Nelson reviewed a graph identifying the age and demographic groups served, and provided the following largely unknown data about the association: • YMCA has had the No. 1 spot on The NonProfit Times “Top 100” list of nonprofit organizations for four consecutive years • YMCA is the largest provider of health & well-being and child care programs • YMCAs give financial assistance to anyone who cannot afford the full cost • YMCAs have been meeting community needs for over 150 years • Y-USA Goal: To engage 25 million children and adults by 2012, which was accomplished Ms. Nelson reviewed the history of the YMCA, noting that it was founded in London in 1844 with the first United States YMCA opening in Boston in 1851. Independence and autonomy have been cornerstones of the YMCA movement and the association has been volunteer-driven throughout history. YMCA inventions include basketball, volleyball, capital campaigns, resident camping, professional football, campfire girls, fitness classes, YMCA residences, Armed Services YMCAs, and Transportation YMCAs. The core of YMCA responding to the ever changing needs and programming at each YMCA is community driven. The YMCA in Ogden has considered what the community needs and is working to address the following: • Academic disparity (Achievement Gap) • Childhood obesity • Bringing communities together through 29 partners • Diabetes prevention • Kindergarten readiness  • Volunteerism needs • Youth hunger • Lack of family time • Child care needs – serve over 2,400 children per day  Before and after school programs serving youth in grades K-9  All day Early Childhood programs serving youth ages 3-5  Holiday Day Camp programs serving youth ages 3-15  Summer Camps – Camp Roger and day camps  Kindergarten Academy  Stem programs in Jr. High and High schools  Meals – last year over 125,000 meals were served The YMCA also offers health and wellness programs through community open houses and other events such as Healthy Kids Day and Safe Kids Day, adult classes, skiing programs, a diabetes prevention program, and the Girls on the Run program. She noted the YMCA is constantly looking ahead to respond to the communities needs with a goal to grow the YMCA’s local presence. YMCA Administration would like to grow its physical presence in Utah by providing a full facility, expanding the number of early childhood program sites, expanding the number of summer day camp programs, expanding the number of sites with afterschool programs, and bringing additional health and wellness programs to the community. She concluded her presentation by showing a photograph of a note the local YMCA received from a local first grader thanking them for helping her get healthy. She thanked the Council for their attention this evening. Chair White asked what a ‘full facility’ would include or entail. Ms. Nelson replied a full facility includes a pool, gymnasium, indoor track, and classrooms for social or physical programs. YMCA full facilities differ from similar private facilities in that YMCA is non-profit and offers financial assistance. Full facilities may have a 10 percent penetration rate in the community, but up to 40 percent of that membership may be on financial assistance, though no one would ever know that. Council member Hyer thanked Ms. Nelson for the work the YMCA has done at Lincoln Elementary. He asked if she has a list of the partners the YMCA works with in Ogden and whether some of those partners may also be competitors with the YMCA. Ms. Nelson responded she can provide the Council with a list of the 29 partner organizations she works with and noted none of them are true competitors as most of them are also non-profit organizations. The partners often provide various services in the many afterschool programs. Council member Hyer stated the YMCA does a wonderful job for the community. Council member Nadolski thanked Ms. Nelson for the work she does for the community. He mentioned his daughter attends a class taught by Ms. Nelson and the experience his family has had has been wonderful. The YMCA and its staff have provided very profound learning experiences for his family and he is grateful for that. He noted that he has been heavily criticized for the schooling choices he has made for his children, but one reason he chose Ogden Preparatory Academy was the fact that it includes YMCA programs. He stated that is a reality for many families in the Ogden community and is one thing that came up several times as he was campaigning for office. The fact that YMCA programs are optional at some of the community’s local schools gives families an option. He referred to Ms. Nelson’s comments about the YMCA’s desire to grow its physical presence in Utah and asked if that means expanding to other communities as well. Ms. Nelson answered yes. Council Member Nadolski asked if there is a desire to first grow in Ogden and provide services at other schools before branching out to other communities in the State. Ms. Nelson replied she is meeting with Ogden School District tomorrow about possibly expanding programming to other schools in the District and that expansion will truly be based upon need. Each year she would like to expand to one or two schools. She stated the YMCA is very proud of the quality of its programs. Council member Stephens welcomed Ms. Nelson to Ogden and commented that he appreciates everything the YMCA does. He mentioned one of his daughters worked for a YMCA after school program. He asked if the YMCA is looking for a place to construct a full facility. Ms. Nelson replied the YMCA is exploring different options with a focus on available land, a potential capital campaign, and partnerships that would facilitate such a project. She stated many communities have public centers with many of the amenities that would be included in a full facility, but it is her opinion that Ogden needs a facility that welcomes people from all different cultures and gives them the opportunity to participate for free or at a reduced cost. Chair White asked how those interested in volunteering for the YMCA would go about doing so. Ms. Nelson replied information on volunteer opportunities is yet to come. She again thanked the Council for their attention this evening. Proposed Ordinance 2016-14 amending the Ogden City General Plan by amending Subsection 8.F.4.E regarding properties along Glasmann Way in Area 5 of the Annexation Plan; and Proposed Ordinance 2016-15 amending the Ogden City General Plan by amending Subsection 8.F.4.F regarding properties along Old Post Road and Cherokee Circle in Area 6 of the Annexation Plan A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department regarding proposed amendments to the City’s Annexation Plan (Plan) came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated the current proposal involves changes to two areas of the Plan. Regarding the first, Ogden City has been working with South Ogden City to amend a portion of both cities’ Plans to reassign property from Ogden to South Ogden. The change was initiated when a review of the property showed that Ogden City could not adequately provide services to the area even though it was included in Ogden’s plan for future annexation. The property owner is pursuing annexation into South Ogden as that City is in a better position to provide services to the property. The second amendment to the Plan is specific to several properties on Glasmann Way in which the rear portion of the properties are actually located in unincorporated Weber County with the main portion of the properties located in Ogden City. The amendment would add the rear portions of these properties to the Plan. The Council received a presentation on the proposed annexation amendments at the February 16, 2016 regular City Council meeting during a properly noticed public hearing. During the hearing, several residents affected by the Area 5 amendment (Glasmann Way) spoke in opposition to the proposal citing the potential for an increase in taxes if the property were to be taxed under Ogden City rather than Weber County. Staff explained that the proposal was simply to amend the Plan and not to annex the property; however, the residents were still opposed to the amendment. It was determined at that meeting it would be best to continue the item to March 1, 2016 to allow staff time to review the tax situation as well as create a separate ordinance document for Area 5 to allow the Council to take separate actions on the two Plan amendments. The item was continued to March 1, 2016 and direction was given to provide a second notice the residents affected by the Area 5 Plan amendment. The current proposal is to amend Areas 5 and 6 of the City’s Plan. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at the October 7, 2015 meeting. At that meeting, the Commission voted to recommend approval of the amendments. The recommendation was made with the finding that the amendments are consistent with the ability of the City to provide service to the land, that the Plan amendment eliminates unincorporated islands, and that the changes are consistent with state law. Planning Manager Montgomery summarized the memo and stated questions were raised at the February 16, 2016 Council meeting regarding the proposed Plan amendment to amend the policy declaration of Area 5. The purpose of the amendment is to show that Ogden City is the only community able to provide service to the unincorporated island of county that is west of Glasmann Way between 4723 South and 4783 South. There are eight properties ranging in size from 2,178 square feet to 5,662 square feet. The properties function as extended rear yards to homes located in Ogden City. Several questions were raised at the hearing, the main question being why the City is considering this action. He explained the City was unaware that this condition existed until it was brought to our attention by petitioner Fred Galvez during the discussions made while adjusting our borders with South Ogden City in 2014-15. He pointed out that further to the south, his subdivision had the same condition and wondered if he could have the same thing done because he receives two tax notices. Upon further review staff found that the situation was a little different in that the division was not between two cities but between the City and unincorporated Weber County. The process for having the properties in two taxing jurisdiction was a bit different in this case because it was not a boundary adjustment between two cities but was actually unincorporated land. Islands of unincorporated land should be annexed into the municipality that provides services to the property such as water, fire, and police services so the property is paying for those services. The first step required to consider bringing the properties into the City would be to amend the policy declaration to show that Ogden City recognizes they are the only municipality that can provide services to the entire lot. The homes that face Glasmann Way in Ogden City and the canal behind the properties prevent any other jurisdiction from providing services to the property. Staff told Mr. Galvez they would take the first step to amend the Plan which normally would require a petition costing $625. This would reduce one step needed to bring the rear properties into the City. The reason Planning staff is recommending this amendment to the Plan is to reduce one of the steps and the cost of bringing the properties into the City. Mr. Montgomery stated an additional question is whether the action currently being considered by the Council would annex the Glasmann Way properties into the City. He noted the policy declaration is the first step needed to consider annexation but does not bring the properties into the City. A petition to annex filed by the property owners would be required and public hearings held to actually annex properties. That petition costs $600 and requires the development of an annexation plat. That is not what this consideration is about. If a property owner decides they want to annex into the City and the Plan amendment has not happened, that property owner would need to first amend the Plan and pay the $625 and go through the hearings. The next step would be to pay the $600 fee for the annexation petition and go through the annexation process. A third question was why a property owner living on Glasmann Way would want to annex their property into the City. He explained these properties in unincorporated county do not have any zoning designation. In 2009 the Weber County removed any zoning designation from these properties as a means to direct the properties to annex into Ogden. If someone wanted to build in the back yard, the county would not issue a building permit and would require the individual to seek annexation into Ogden City so a building permit could be issued. The second reason would be enforcement of inappropriate activities on the unincorporated parcel. By the county not issuing permits this creates an opportunity to take advantage of this situation and do things without permit. The county will not patrol this area because of its isolation and would not have anything to enforce since there is no zoning in place on the property. If a neighbor wants to put a kennel on the back portion of the land or something else not allowed within Ogden City there would be no enforcement because of its present status. One of the reasons to annex would be to provide a means to keep inappropriate uses from happening and having a way to enforce action against those inappropriate uses. The third reason is that having two separate parcels can create a possibility over time of an owner ignoring the small tax notice which would result in the property going up for tax sale. The properties cannot be combined into one since they are located in separate taxing units. Another person owning the back portion can create its own problems. While not a direct property owner concern, having properties in one jurisdiction makes things simpler in terms of general services of police, fire and other issues of who has jurisdiction. Mr. Montgomery stated during the February 16, 2016 meeting there was also a heavy focus on potential property tax impacts if the properties were annexed into Ogden City. One particular comment was that the only reason the City wants to do this is to get more money because it will raise property taxes. The comment was that that a property owner had paid $2,300 in property tax to the City already and did not want to pay more. Mr. Montgomery explained, for the record, of the $2,300 paid in taxes, $409 was received by the City. He reviewed a table illustrating the tax impact of annexing these properties into the City and indicated the largest property would only experience a $10 increase. These differences are related to a change in the tax rates between unincorporated and incorporated property, but Ogden City would not receive any increased property tax revenue. Mr. Montgomery concluded residents also commented that this action is a way for the City to gain control of the property and the residents do not want that to happen. He explained the reason the City is still pursuing this action is that the general purpose of annexation into cities based on the declaration process is to define who can provide municipal services to the properties and then provide the opportunities to pay their fair share of the services they receive by annexation. When unincorporated islands exist they generally receive City services but are not paying their fair share. While the bottom line for property owners is the amount of taxes, the expanded services are the important focus for the City. State law allows cities to consider annexation without a petition in cases where they have been providing general municipal services for one year. He explained that even in that process the people being annexed have the final say because even if the City is providing the services such as police and fire protection and the City decided to begin an annexation process, unless owners of fifty one percent (51%) of the land area who have fifty percent (50%) of the total land value agree to the annexation it still cannot happen. Council member Garner asked about the number of properties in the City that are similar in nature to the Glasmann Way properties, in that they are unincorporated islands of property. Mr. Montgomery replied there are approximately 180 acres of unincorporated islands in the City, but the Glasmann Way properties make up the only island that is divided. Council member Hyer referred to the aerial photograph of the Glasmann Way properties and stated it appears there is a road behind the properties. Mr. Montgomery responded there is a canal behind the properties with a service road for the canal company. Council member Hyer mentioned it appears that some of the properties have accessory buildings, but the properties are technically two separate properties and he wondered if the home complies with zoning regulations due to the fact that the two properties are independent of one another. Mr. Montgomery answered the subdivision plat and building permits approved for the properties conform to the City’s zoning regulations and staff would still treat it as if it were a conforming property. Council member Hyer mentioned the road behind the properties and asked if property owners could sell their back parcels given that it has access. Mr. Montgomery reiterated it is not a road, it is private property and the access road is only intended for use by the canal company that maintains the canals. There is no public access. Council member Stephens stated it is his understanding from Mr. Montgomery’s presentation that the differences in property tax based upon whether the properties are incorporated or unincorporated, is very small. Mr. Montgomery replied that is correct. He reported that he met with the Weber County Assessor who indicated that the property value would remain the same regardless of whether it is located in Ogden City or Weber County. The only change would be to the taxing unit rate structure. Council member Stephens asked if property owners’ insurance rates could increase as a result of annexation. Mr. Montgomery replied he does not know the answer to that question. Council member Stephens asked if property owners will still have the right to use the rear portion of their property in the manner they see fit if the annexation declaration is amended. Mr. Montgomery emphasized the only thing a change to the Plan accomplishes is allowing property owners to proceed with annexation of their property in the future. If the property is included in the Plan, the City will accept the annexation petition. If the Plan is not amended at this time of the subject properties and a property owner decides at a future date they want to proceed with the annexation, they would be required to go through this process again before submitting an annexation petition. That would increase their costs by $650 and lengthen the annexation period from three months to at least six months. Chair White asked if property values would be reassessed if the Plan were amended. Mr. Montgomery answered no and reiterated that the Weber County Assessor indicated that property valuations would not change as a result of this action. Formulas are used to determine property values and that would not change simply because a property was included in the City rather than the County. Chair White referred to an accessory structure that is currently on property located in the County and asked who would respond if that structure caught fire. Mr. Montgomery replied Ogden City would most likely respond due to interlocal agreements between the City and County and the fact that Weber County does not have a fire station in close proximity to the subject properties. He noted water and sewer to the property is currently being provided by Ogden City. Council member Hyer asked if the property across the street to the west of the subject properties is located in South Ogden. Mr. Montgomery answered yes and indicated these subject properties on Glasmann Way make up a small sliver of unincorporated property between South Ogden and Ogden City. Council member Stephens clarified that the actual annexation of any of the properties on Glasmann Way would need to be initiated by the property owner. Mr. Montgomery answered that is correct. Council member Nadolski stated it is his understanding an annexation can be initiated by the City if a certain number of surrounding property owners consent to the annexation. Mr. Montgomery explained that State Law provides a clause which allows a municipality to initiate an annexation petition if they are providing services to a certain property; however, the municipality cannot approve the petition unless 51 percent (51%) of the landowners of land size and property valuation consent. Council member Nadolski stated there seems to be some concern among the residents on Glasmann Way that the City could proceed with annexation without their consent. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-14, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the Ogden City General Plan by amending Subsection 8.F.4.E of the General Plan; and providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” Chair White introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-15, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the Ogden City General Plan by amending Subsection 8.F.4.E of the General Plan; and providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” Copies of the proposed ordinances were deposited with the Deputy City Recorder and ordered that the City Recorder have at least one copy of each available for public inspection in her office during all business hours. Chair White then called for public input regarding the proposed ordinances.  Carleen Martell stated she lives on Glasmann Way and noted there have been many references to Ogden City and Weber County and she wondered how South Ogden relates to this issue. She explained her property has always been in Weber County and she went back ten years and cannot find any tax notice that references South Ogden City. She asked if this action has anything to do with South Ogden City. Vice Chair Blair explained that the Glasmann Way properties are in unincorporated Weber County, not South Ogden City, and the action before the Council tonight would allow property owners on Glasmann Way to proceed with annexation of their property in the future. Council Executive Director Cook stated it would be more appropriate to allow one member of the public to speak at a time and then allow a member of staff to respond to questions asked at the conclusion of the public comment period. William Hills stated he lives on Glasmann Way and two weeks ago the Council agreed to put a stop to this action, but then he received a notice indicating the action was still being pursued. He reported that the resident that initiated the entire issue, Fred Galvez, is against it as well. Mr. Hills has reviewed his property tax statement and he found it includes land values and building values. The property located in unincorporated Weber County is just a hillside with no access from the rear and all he wants is for the Council to put a stop to this issue because it would not be possible for anyone to build anything on their rear property. He feels that doubling the land size will result in an increase of property valuation and taxes. Chair White asked Mr. Montgomery to respond to the questions raised by Mr. Hills and Ms. Martell. Mr. Montgomery first addressed Ms. Martell’s questions about the relationship between South Ogden, Ogden City, and Weber County relative to the subject properties. He reviewed an aerial photograph to identify the South Ogden and Ogden City boundaries and stated that the back portions of the properties located on Glasmann Way are located in unincorporated Weber County and the property owners there receive two tax notices: one from Ogden City and one from Weber County. The action to amend the Plan would adjust the City’s potential future boundary to extend to South Ogden’s boundary and there will no longer be any County property between South Ogden and Ogden City. He added the property taxes for the properties would not dramatically increase; in fact, the largest parcel would only experience an increase of $10 and the smallest would experience an increase of $4. He reiterated the assessed value of the property would not change. The only change is that the two properties would be combined as one. He continued to emphasize that the action tonight would not annex the property. The action is an amendment to the Annexation Plan Declaration to include the subject properties as being serviced by the City. Chair White addressed Mr. Hills’ comments about the action taken at the February 16, 2016 Council meeting. She noted the Council tabled the ordinance before them at that time but did not indicate that the action would not be considered. Mr. Montgomery stated that is correct and added there are two Plan amendments before the Council for consideration because during the February 16, 2016 meeting the Council directed staff to separate the two issues into two separate ordinances. Council member Lopez indicated the reasoning behind the proposed Plan amendment is clear to the Council, but he is concerned that it is not clear to the residents. Council member Hyer noted he has reviewed State Law regarding this issue. One section asks the City to eliminate islands of unincorporated County property and the first step in doing that is amending the Plan to allow for property owners to proceed with annexation of their property at some point in the future without being required to pay higher fees or wait a longer amount of time. He stated he believes the action before the Council tonight is appropriate and will not harm any property owner on Glasmann Way. Chair White invited residents to offer additional public input if they have not received answers to their questions. Ms. Martell re-approached and stated that her backyard is unique and there is a fence on her property that divides her land from land owned by Pineview Water; she is confused about what land she owns and what land will be impacted by a potential future annexation. She and Mr. Montgomery reviewed an aerial photograph of Ms. Martel’s property to try to gain an understanding of the location of property lines. Mr. Montgomery stated it is possible that fences may be placed in the incorrect location due to a surveying error, but he identified the boundary of Ms. Martel’s land that would be subject to the Plan amendment and could eventually be annexed into Ogden City. Any dispute about the location of the property line would need to be settled by and between the property owner and the other jurisdiction. Council member Lopez asked Ms. Martell if it is clear to her that the action being taken by the Council this evening would not force the annexation of her property. Ms. Martell stated she understands that. Council member Lopez stated he feels the action would benefit the residents on Glasmann Way in the future because any resident wishing to annex would not need to request a Plan amendment and wait a longer period of time for the annexation to be approved. Ms. Martell stated that she is still undecided as to whether she supports the action because of the property line dispute relative to the rear portion of her property and she will likely hire a land attorney to resolve that issue. Mr. Hills re-approached and stated that it has been made clear to him that the annexation of his property could be forced if 51 percent (51%) of the property owners support the annexation. Council member Lopez agreed that would be the case if the City were initiating the annexation, but each property owner has the right to take action at any time to annex their property into the City. Mr. Hills stated that there are eleven (11) properties on Glasmann Way and two of them are owned by Ogden City. Council member Lopez asked Mr. Hills if he understands that the action before the Council this evening will not force the annexation of his property. Mr. Hills replied that at one point he was told that if 66 percent (66%) of the property owners supported the annexation, the annexation of his property would be forced. Mr. Montgomery explained property owned by a government entity cannot be considered in the percentage of properties needed to proceed with the annexation and, therefore, the two properties owned by Ogden City would not be considered when determining whether 51 percent (51%) of the landowners support a City initiated petition. He stated another way for annexation to take place is for a group of landowners to move forward with annexation of the entire street if 67 percent (67%) of the landowners on that street consent; however, this formula applies to resident initiated petitions rather than City initiated petitions. Mr. Hills stated that Mr. Galvez started this action, but he is now against it and he wondered if his initial support would be included in the 67 percent (67%) of landowners needed to force the annexation of the entire street. Mr. Montgomery clarified that no annexation was started by Mr. Galvez’s initial request regarding this matter. The only thing that came of Mr. Galvez’s request was for the City to consider a Plan amendment. Council member Nadolski stated the only thing that is clear to him tonight is that the people that will be impacted by the decision made by the Council tonight do not have a full understanding of the issue. He indicated the Council has had the benefit of multiple work sessions and correspondence from staff regarding this issue, but the residents have not had that same benefit. He expressed his discomfort moving forward with this action until they are comfortable. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ORDINANCE 2016-14 WAS TABLED UNTIL A DATE CERTAIN AND STAFF WAS DIRECTED TO SCHEDULE AND HOST A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING TO DISCUSS THE ISSUE WITH THE RESIDENTS BEFORE BRINGING THE ITEM BEFORE THE COUNCIL AGAIN; STAFF WAS ALSO DIRECTED TO PROPERLY NOTICE RESIDENTS OF ANY FUTURE MEETING DURING WHICH THE ITEM WILL BE RECONSIDERED. Council Executive Director Cook noted the Council needs to receive consent from City Administration in so much as the motion is directing Administrative Staff to undertake tasks and work not originally associated with the item listed on the agenda. He also suggested that Council member Nadolski’s motion include a specific date during which the item would be reconsidered. Council member Nadolski asked for the consent of City Administration to direct staff to schedule and host a neighborhood meeting, which he received. After a short review of Council and Administration calendars, Mr. Cook indicated the soonest the item could be included on a Council agenda is April 12, 2016. COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI AMENDED HIS MOTION TO TABLE THE ORDINANCE UNTIL APRIL 12, 2016. COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ INDICATED HIS SECOND OF THE MOTION STANDS. THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE WAS TAKEN: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS LOPEZ AND NADOLSKI. VOTING NO – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BLAIR, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-14 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – COUNCIL MEMBERS LOPEZ AND NADOLSKI. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-15 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. The Chair signed the ordinances as passed and adopted and the Chair’s signatures were attested by the City Recorder. The authenticated ordinances were then filed with the City Recorder for transmittal to the Mayor for review and consideration. Council member Stephens referred any resident who still has concerns about the action taken this evening to Planning staff for further clarification. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson echoed those comments and encouraged residents to meet with Mr. Montgomery as he will spend any amount of time necessary to discuss the issue with them. Proposed Ordinance 2016-12 amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Section 15-2-8 to revise definitions to include grove; amending Section 15-4-5 and Section 15-13-16 to protect significant tree groves, to revise the required caliper size of street trees and to require specific spacing of street trees based upon tree size; and Proposed Ordinance 2016-13 amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Chapter 2 of Title 6 to revise provision related to urban forestry A memo from the Public Services Department regarding proposed amendments to the City’s urban forestry regulations came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated the proposed amendments to the City’s urban forestry ordinances were, in part, prompted by a contractor’s unauthorized removal of street trees along Laurel Avenue in July of 2013. The City’s Planning Division worked with the City’s Urban Forester to develop a set of changes to the urban forestry regulations as a way to better deal with the removal and protection of the City’s street trees and park trees. The proposed amendments deal with trees on public property or those directly impacting the public right-of-way. The changes focus on correct tree size, location, spacing, and height. The changes also address permitting for pruning and trimming, the removal and protection of trees, and penalties for violations. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at their March 4, 2016 meeting and recommended approval based on the findings that the amendments are consistent with the General Plan and that they will not impact adjacent properties. Urban Forester Stewart summarized the memo and explained in order to maintain internal consistency between the proposed Urban Forestry section of the Municipal Code and the Zoning Code (Title 15), the Planning staff proposed necessary changes to the Zoning Code so there would not be any conflict of ordinances. In addition to the effort to achieve this internal consistency, additional changes are sought that will benefit the urban forest in general and the street trees in particular. He summarized the specific changes as follows: 1. To allow individual homeowners to plant street trees that are as narrow as 1.25" in caliper (trunk diameter).  2. Defined "significant grove" as five or more trees in healthy condition whose trunks are closer than twenty feet to one another and have at least one tree with a caliper of four (4") or greater, and shall also be preserved when feasible. 3. New street trees shall be spaced along streets depending on the ultimate size of the tree. Large trees shall be placed 40' on center, medium trees 30' on center and small trees shall be 20' on center. 4. When street trees are placed underneath power lines, they shall be of the "small" variety. Council member Garner thanked Mr. Stewart for the work he has done on this issue and noted the packet materials regarding the proposed ordinances were very well prepared. He referred to a section of the materials dealing with topping trees and asked if the main reason for topping a tree is when it is interfering with power lines. Mr. Stewart replied Rocky Mountain Power Company actually performs a service called directional pruning, which is intended to direct growth out and away from their utility lines. He added that topping of trees is not allowed. Council member Stephens asked if the ordinance includes the procedure a resident would need to follow if they had a desire to remove a tree. Mr. Stewart answered yes and noted that residents can contact the Public Services Department to request the removal of a tree and staff would handle the request from that point. Council member Garner asked if most of the commercial tree companies that perform work in Ogden City are familiar with the regulations. Mr. Stewart responded yes. Council member Nadolski stated he had previously asked some questions about this proposal and thanked Mr. Stewart for addressing his concerns. He said he realizes it can be difficult to convert practice to policy and he appreciates Mr. Stewart’s efforts. He addressed City Attorney Williams and referred to the section of the ordinance requiring residents to provide the City Engineering Division with notice of the displacement of sidewalk separated by at least half an inch by tree roots. He is worried this may place a legal burden on City residents. Mr. Williams indicated that the burden is only for residents to report, at which point the City Engineering Division will catalog potential repairs needed throughout the City. He does not believe there could be a claim about a resident’s failure to report making them liable for the failure to repair. Council member Nadolski asked if a resident could be found liable for an injury resulting from a trip and fall if they failed to report the trip hazard. Mr. Williams stated a third party can claim anything if they are claiming negligence and that would be true regardless of whether the proposed ordinance were adopted. Council member Nadolski asked if it is Mr. Williams’ opinion that the proposed ordinance does not add undue legal burden to residents. Mr. Williams replied it does not place a legal burden regarding the repair as far as the City is concerned, but other third parties can make claims as their imaginations allow. Council member Nadolski asked if the presence of the ordinance could make a third party’s imagination valid. Mr. Williams responded that any time someone is asked to do something for a good reason, the fact that they do not do it may suggest they failed to meet the needs of that reason and, therefore, a third party may have a greater argument against a resident. Vice Chair Blair thanked Mr. Stewart for the work he has done. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-13, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Section 15-2-8 to revise definitions to include grove; amending Section 15-2-21 to revise definitions to include significant trees; amending Section 15-4-5 and Section 15-13-16 to protect significant tree groves, to revise the required caliper size of street trees, and to require specific spacing of street trees based upon tree size; and by providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” Chair White introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-12, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Chapter 2 of Title 6 to revise provisions related to Urban Forestry; and by providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” Copies of the proposed ordinances were deposited with the Deputy City Recorder and ordered that the City Recorder have at least one copy of each available for public inspection in her office during all business hours. Chair White then called for public input regarding the proposed ordinances. No persons came forward to be heard regarding this matter. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-12 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-13 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. The Chair signed the ordinances as passed and adopted and the Chair’s signatures were attested by the City Recorder. The authenticated ordinances were then filed with the City Recorder for transmittal to the Mayor for review and consideration. Council member Comments Council member Hyer expressed his appreciation for Council members Nadolski and Lopez relative to their concern for the citizens regarding action taken to amend the Annexation Plan. He stated that the reason he supported an adoption of the ordinance is that he feels City Administration and Council staff as well as the Council has done exhaustive work on the ordinance and he feels clarity was provided tonight. Council member Nadolski indicated he respects Council member Hyer’s opinion, but disagrees. He stated he has strong feelings that the Council could and should do more to connect and communicate with citizens. He feels the Council made a decision tonight that they were comfortable with, but the residents were not comfortable and that was the basis for his motion to table. He respects the time, effort, and resources staff has dedicated to the issue and he did not want to abandon that, but he did not want to move forward tonight. He stated he respects the decision the Council made and while he has strong feelings, he will not have hard feelings. There being no further business to come before the Council, COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 7:33 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. /s/ Julia M. LaSeure JULIA M. LASEURE, MMC DEPUTY CITY RECORDER /s/ Marcia L. White MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: July 5, 2016