City Council

Minutes of Regular Meeting of Council of Ogden City, Utah, March 15, 2016 Page Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, March 15, 2015 at 6:00 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 Council Clerk Brittany Griffin Also present: Mayor Michael P. Caldwell Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson City Attorney Gary Williams Management Services Director David G. Buxton Public Services Director Jay Lowder Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Comptroller Lisa Stout Deputy Finance Manager Camille Cook Chief Deputy City Recorder Lee Ann Peterson Deputy City Recorder Abbie Zampedri City Recorder Tracy Hansen At the request of the Chair, all present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chair Blair. Chair White welcomed Boy Scout Abraham present from Troop #58, who is working on his Citizenship in the Community Merit Badge. A moment of silence was observed. Presentation of the Certified Municipal Clerk (CMC) designation to Abbie Zampedri A memo from the City Recorder regarding recognition of Deputy City Recorder Abbie Zampedri came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated representatives from the Utah Municipal Clerks Association have requested the opportunity to come before the Ogden City Council to recognize Deputy City Recorder Zampedri upon her recent designation of Certified Municipal Clerk (CMC). The International Institute of Municipal Clerks (IIMC) is a professional association comprised of clerks/recorders from the United States, Canada, and 15 other countries. Founded in 1947, IIMC has over 9,500 members. IIMC’s primary goal is to actively promote continuing education and professional development of Municipal Clerks through extensive education programs, including IIMC-approved University and College based Institutes, publications, annual conferences, and public services. Through the IIMC, Municipal Clerks are offered the ability to obtain education designations to assist and prepare them to meet the challenges of the complex role the City Recorder’s Office plays in municipal government. In order to earn the CMC designation, a Municipal Clerk must complete a recognized career development institute or a baccalaureate degree in public administration or related field, and participate in conferences, chapter leadership, and educational seminars. The clerks must also perform core duties by serving a legislative government body with at least four of the following responsibilities:  General Management  Records Management  Elections  Meeting Administration  Management of by-laws, Articles of Incorporation, ordinances or other legal instruments  Human Resources Management  Financial Management  Custody of the official seal and execution of official documents  Ms. Zampedri has been an active and valuable member of the International Institute of Municipal Clerks and the Utah Municipal Clerks Association and has demonstrated a genuine desire to learn and improve her skills. She has successfully completed the required training to receive the Certified Municipal Clerk designation. The Ogden City Recorder’s Office includes one Certified Municipal Clerk and three Master Municipal Clerks. Theida Wellman, Layton City Recorder, and Leigh Ann Warnock, Ephraim City Recorder, approached the City Council. Ms. Wellman stated she and Ms. Warnock are representing the Utah Municipal Clerks Association (UMCA) and the International Institute of Municipal Clerks (IIMC) in recognizing Ms. Zampedri for achieving the CMC designation; this is a designation offered through IIMC and it took her a number of years to achieve the certification. There are 247 cities in the State of Utah, with 261 members in the UMCA; of those 261 approximately 85 have achieved the CMC designation. She noted there are additional continuing education opportunities that Ms. Zampedri can participate in to work towards achieving her Master Municipal Clerk (MMC) designation as City Recorder Hansen and her other deputies have. She noted continuing education helps City Recorders do their jobs better and represent the City. The UMCA understands some training opportunities can be costly for cities and the support of Ms. Zampedri and other clerks in the State is very much appreciated. She then presented Ms. Zampedri with her certificate of recognition, her CMC plaque, and a plant from the UMCA. Ms. Zampedri thanked the City Council and City Administration for giving her the opportunity to receive her CMC designation. It took her 3.5 years to attain the number of education and service hours to be eligible for the designation. The UMCA and IIMC are amazing organizations to be a part of and she is looking forward to working towards her MMC designation. Recognizing Ogden-Weber Tech College Student Shawn Owens who was named the 2016 State of Utah College of Applied Technology Student of the Year A memo from Council staff regarding recognition of Shawn Owens came before the Council for consideration. Mr. Owens, Ogden-Weber Tech College Student, was named the 2016 State of Utah College of Applied Technology Student of the Year. Chair White reported this item will be discussed at a later date as Mr. Owens was unable to attend the meeting this evening. Utah State Legislator Updates. Legislators from northern Utah have been invited to address the Council regarding outcomes of the 2016 General Legislative Session Chair White reported this item will be discussed at a later date. Approval of Minutes Council member Lopez stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Study Session of January 19, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Council member Stephens stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 5, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Council member Garner stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Special Meeting of January 4, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER THEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BLAIR, ALL VOTING AYE. Proposed Resolution 2016-9 adopting Amendment #1 to the Annual Action Plan for the period July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016 A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department regarding proposed Amendment #1 to the Annual Action Plan (AAP) came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated the purpose of Annual Action Plan FY2015-16 Amendment #1 is to reconcile the budget to reflect actual carry-over from last fiscal year and update program income estimates for the current year. The public hearing to adopt AAP FY16 Amendment #1 also fulfils the City's Citizen Participation Plan requirement to hold two public hearings each year for the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan process. Regarding program income funds, estimates for CDBG, HOME and Housing Fund Program Income have increased by a net total of $587,353 as a result of unanticipated loan payoffs received. The additional Program Income funds have been programmed to complete viable projects and programs for the period July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016. Additionally, in the adopted budget, carry-over funds were estimated prior to the completion of the fiscal year. The Ogden Business Exchange Project (Trackline) made significant progress in the prior fiscal year, and as a result the Trackline project carried-over $871,967 less in HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee funds than excepted. Also, Infill projects and the HELP program carried-over less funding than anticipated. The decrease in Trackline, infill project and HELP project carry-over funding resulted in a net decrease of $892,729 carry-over funds for the AAP FY16 Budget. The AAP budget has been updated and submitted as AAP FY16 Budget Amendment #1 to reflect the changes in program budgets. In summary, Amendment #1 proposes a net decrease of $305,376 to the Annual Action Plan FY16 Budget. These changes are reflected in the budget, specifically the sources and uses of funds that are planned in the Annual Action Plan FY16 Amendment #1. A notice in the Standard Examiner was published February 23, 2016 advertising the 30-day public comment period for Amendment #1 to the Annual Action Plan 2015-2016. The 30-day comment period is February 24, 2016 thru March 25, 2016. The Community and Economic Development Department's Citizen Advisory Committee reviewed AAP FY16 Amendment #1 on February 24, 2016 and made recommendations to the City Council. Any submitted public comments will be made available to the City Council prior to adoption. The memo concluded City Administration requests the City Council hold a public hearing and adopt the resolution approving Annual Action Plan for July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 Amendment #1. Chair White then introduced in writing proposed Resolution 2016-9, entitled: “A resolution of the Ogden City Council adopting an amendment to the budget for Annual Action Plan – July 1, 2015 through June 30, 2016.” A copy of the proposed resolution was deposited with the City Recorder and ordered that the City Recorder have at least one copy available for public inspection in her office during all business hours. The proposed resolution was then read by long title. COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON APRIL 5, 2016, DURING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M. AND THAT THE CITY RECORDER BE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI, ALL VOTING AYE. Proposed Ordinance 2016-16 amending the budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 by decreasing the anticipated revenues for a gross decrease of $349,284 A memo from the Comptroller regarding a proposed budget amendment came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated City Administration presented its proposed amendments to the Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2016 on March 1, 2016. The amendments included an overall increase in Program Income of $587,353 and a total net carry-over decrease of $892,729 for a total net decrease in budget revenues of $305,376. The amended plan also shows how the funds are to be expended through the remainder of the year. The amendment to the City’s fiscal year 2016 budget proposed in conjunction with the amended Annual Action Plan budget differs slightly in the total dollar amount amended. The Annual Action Plan budget is a separate budget used for purposes of the Annual Action Plan and the tracking of federal and certain non-federal funds and programs. The City’s budget reflects the amounts in the Annual Action Plan budget but includes other city-funded and city-related items not specifically included in the Annual Action Plan budget. In this year’s proposed City budget amendment, in addition to the adjustments included in the Annual Action Plan budget, the proposal includes an adjustment to the Business Information Center, or BIC, Servicing Revenue. This adjustment is a revenue decrease of $43,875 in revenue. Also, the budget amendment documents as well as the City’s adopted budget, round dollar amounts to the nearest $25 increment while the Annual Action Plan budget uses exact dollar amounts. The differences between the actuals and the $25 increments in this year’s amendment total $33. These two factors account for the discrepancy in totals between the budget amendment schedules and the Annual Action Plan budget numbers. The total Annual Action Plan budget amendment is a decrease of $305,375 while the budget amendment to the City budget is a decrease of $349,284. The memo concluded the purpose of this action is to set the public hearing for the budget amendment that accompanies the amendments to the Annual Action Plan budget. City Administration presented the proposed amendments to the Annual Action Plan and budget during the Council’s March 1, 2016 work session. Chair White then introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-16, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City amending the budget for the Fiscal year July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 by decreasing the anticipated revenues for a gross decrease of $349,284 from sources as detailed in the body of this ordinance; and decreasing the appropriations for a gross decrease of $349.284 as detailed in the body of this ordinance; and providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” A copy of the proposed ordinance was deposited with the City Recorder and ordered that the City Recorder have at least one copy available for public inspection in her office during all business hours. The proposed ordinance was then read by long title. COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON APRIL 5, 2016, DURING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M. AND THAT THE CITY RECORDER BE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI, ALL VOTING AYE. Proposed Ordinance 2016-11 approving the Capital Improvement Plan for the Fiscal Years 2017 to 2021 A memo from Council staff regarding the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-2021 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated the CIP is presented with the Administration’s priorities for capital expenditures of the next five years. The Council has reviewed the CIP during a series of work sessions. During these work sessions, the Council considered the proposed projects and made recommendations for changes. The CIP will be adopted after allowing public input and will subsequently be used to prioritize the funding of capital projects during the FY2017 budget process. The current proposal is to approve the FY2017-2021 Capital Improvement Plan. The plan includes a total of 58 General Fund projects totaling $125,014,448. The plan includes a total of seven Enterprise utility projects: one Sanitary Sewer Utility project totaling $3,250,000; two Storm Sewer Utility projects totaling $7,954,550; and four Water Utility projects totaling $41,717,296. The plan also includes five RAMP projects totaling $20,817,000. The FY2017-2021 CIP is categorized differently than previous plans. Previous plans separated project priority recommendations by Department. With the approval of a recent ordinance amendment, the plan now includes a numerical priority ranking by General Fund, Enterprise Funds and RAMP funds. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed plan at the December 2, 2015 meeting and forwarded a recommendation of approval of the plan with a vote of 6-0 with the exception of four projects. The plan was recommended for approval based on its consistency with the City’s general plan. The four projects recommended for exclusion were the airport terminal project (AR086), the airport land acquisition project (AR074), the fire department training tower project (FI021), and the 4th Street ballpark event sign project (RG044). Council Policy Analyst Symes summarized the memo and used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Council with additional information regarding the CIP. The Plan is intended for the scheduling, financing and construction of capital improvements to be undertaken by the City in the upcoming fiscal year and projected to be undertaken in the following four fiscal years. A capital project is defined as any project that exceeds $30,000 and adds to the City’s physical plant. This can include design and construction as well as major rehabilitation or reconstruction of projects. A capital project can also be the long-term lease of land or the commissioning of feasibility studies or investigations that would relate to or lead to other CIP projects. He reviewed the seven funding sources for CIP projects, including General Fund monies, Federal and State Grants, B&C Road Funds, citizen participation, Enterprise Funds, Bonding, and other grant opportunities, partnerships, or fundraisers. The goals of the CIP review process include:  Identification of the City’s capital improvement needs  Establishment of long-term goals and creation of a plan for capital investment  Ensuring capital expenditures are consistent with the General Plan  Informing the budget and setting priorities for capital investments  Reflecting the values and goals of the City (both Administration and Council), similar to the budget. Mr. Symes reviewed the schedule the Council and Council staff followed to review the proposed CIP; during the process, the Council was asked to rank the projects included in the Plan and from that ranking, five projects rose to the top for funding consideration in FY2017:  PK138 – 2100 Madison & Liberty Park Improvements  CD040 – Former Dee School Site Development  CD112 – 24th Street Village  EN004 – Sidewalk, Curb, and Gutter Replacement City-wide  CD068 – 550 24th Street Infill One change has been proposed to the CIP and it relates to project EN095 – City-wide Transportation Master Plan. Funding for the project was initially planned for FY2018 due to the fact that a definite funding source had not been identified at the time the Plan was developed; however, the Council has agreed to shift funding from FY2018 to FY2017 and will use additional B&C Road funds rather than General Fund monies for the project. Mr. Symes concluded the Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing tonight and, if approved, will be included in the budget that will be presented to the Council in tentative form in May. Council member Hyer stated that the CIP can be a lengthy document for the Planning Commission to review; the Council has asked in the past that the document be provided to the Planning Commission with plenty of time for them to perform an exhaustive review to ensure its conformance with the General Plan and he asked if that took place this year. Planning Manager Montgomery answered yes. The Chair then called for a motion to open a public hearing on proposed Ordinance 2016-11, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, approving the Capital Improvement Plan for Ogden City for the Fiscal Years 2017-2021, and providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” The Deputy City Recorder presented written notice of said hearing and affidavit of the publication in the Standard Examiner on the 28th day of February, 2016 specifying the time and place of this meeting as the time and place when and where the proposed ordinance would be given a public hearing and be considered for final passage. The proof of publication was accepted and filed. COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALL INTERESTED PERSONS BE GIVEN FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. There being no persons appearing to be heard, COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. ON A MOTION BY VICE CHAIR BLAIR AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEPHENS, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-11 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 ordinance as passed and adopted and the Chair’s signature was attested by the City Recorder. The authenticated ordinance was then filed with the City Recorder for transmittal to the Mayor for review and consideration. Proposed Ordinance 2016-17 amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Subsection 15-12-6.B to clarify required stacking spaces behind the order box or boxes for restaurants A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department regarding a proposed ordinance dealing with restaurant drive-through stacking came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated that due to the proliferation of split drive-up lanes at fast food restaurants, an amendment to the City’s zoning ordinance is being proposed that would clarify that the required number of stacked spaces for automobiles may be split between two order boxes. The memo offered a summary of background information regarding this item, noting as a part of most zoning ordinances, vehicle parking, stacking, and queueing requirements are specified for commercial land uses. This is the case in Ogden’s zoning ordinance for a number of land uses which have drive-up services. This includes banks and credit unions, car wash facilities, ATMs, gas pumps, and restaurants. A recent trend in fast food restaurant site design is to have two lanes for ordering through the drive-up window rather than the traditional single lane. The City’s zoning ordinance currently requires space for no less than eight vehicles, measured in 20 foot increments from the order box, for any restaurant with a drive-up window. With the design change to two lanes, there is potential for confusion regarding the total number of spaces required. The required number for a restaurant with a drive-through is eight, but this may be split between the two lanes. The proposed amendment clarifies this allowance. No work session was held with the Council on this issue as it was felt by Council staff that a determination could be made by the Council at a regular Council meeting and that any questions could be reasonably answered during that meeting. The memo concluded the current proposal includes an amendment to the zoning ordinance to add language clarifying that the minimum number of stacking spaces for a restaurant with a drive-through may be split between multiple order boxes. The total required number of spaces is not changing; rather, just a clarification that the required number may be split between two or more lanes. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at the February 3, 2016 meeting and made a recommendation of approval to the Council. The Commission’s recommendation was based on the finding that the amendment was consistent with the General Plan and that the amendment was consistent with the provisions of Chapter 12 of the Zoning Ordinance which regulates parking and loading space, traffic and access. Planning Manager Montgomery summarized the memo and stated restaurants, banks and credit unions, car washes and gas pumps all use order boxes of some sort. The Zoning Ordinance provides for various minimum stacking requirements behind these boxes for vehicles to line up in. Most of these minimum stacking requirements are modest (between 3-4). However, for drive-thru restaurants the minimum is for 8 vehicles. As this drive thru restaurant industry is trending to multiple order boxes, some confusion has surfaced as to stacking requirements. The present code requires 8 spaces behind each order box. When the code was written it was not envisioned that multiple order boxes would be a trend. Staff felt there was need to revise this language to adjust to this new trend. The concept retains the stacking minimums for restaurants at a total of 8. Staff proposed amending language in 15-l2-6.B (Stacking Space Schedule). The added language allows for splitting out the 8 spaces among multiple order boxes. The actual proposed language is: "may be split between multiple order boxes". This allows for multiple order boxes at a drive-thru restaurant, but still only require a total of 8 stacking spaces. Staff feels this would ultimately result in more streamlined order and pick-up of food; with shorter queuing, there would be less waiting, less idling of vehicles and more rapid delivery to the vehicle. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-17, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending subsection 16-12-8.B to clarify required stacking spaces behind the order box or boxes for restaurants; and by providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” A copy of the proposed ordinance was deposited with the Deputy City Recorder and ordered that the City Recorder have at least one copy available for public inspection in her office during all business hours. Chair White then called for public input regarding the proposed ordinance. No persons came forward to be heard regarding this matter. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-17 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 ordinance as passed and adopted and the Chair’s signature was attested by the City Recorder. The authenticated ordinance was then filed with the City Recorder for transmittal to the Mayor for review and consideration. Public Comments Gary Wayne, 309 South 1200 West, Marriott-Slaterville, stated that he lives across the street from Business Depot Ogden (BDO) and he has attended past Council meetings to address the Council about various actions, such as rezoning property at the installation in the area north of the Nature Center. The Council was told the action would not impact the Nature Center. He stated he has also spoken about building construction occurring overnight, which was very disruptive for him. He contacted the Mayor’s Office and did not reach the Mayor so he spoke with the Planning Division and found that Wayfair did not have a variance to perform construction overnight. Rather than calling him back, the Mayor granted Wayfair a variance to perform construction overnight. He addressed the Council regarding that matter and was told he would receive a response from City Administration, but that did not happen. Overnight building has occurred since then and he noticed in the BDO annual report that there are plans to build additional buildings. He asks that the City create a policy prohibiting overnight construction; the improvements being made to BDO are degrading the property that he owns. There is no noise barrier between him and BDO and nothing to prevent light pollution. He is very concerned for himself and for the Nature Center; animals are coming across the street to avoid the construction. He stated he spoke with Bill Morris from Marriott-Slaterville who indicated that he has complained to the City about the construction of the Hershey’s building; the City ignored his complaints so he escalated them to the State of Utah. He stated he would like to see something done because what is happening is wrong. He was told in the past that the development would not impact the area, but it has and does. He provided the Council with a copy of the movie Fern Gully, which is about an evil entity trying to destroy a beautiful and unique woodland area; he suggested the Council watch the movie next time a plan for new development at BDO is submitted. He also provided Mayor Caldwell with a calendar so that he can schedule a time for City Administration to speak to him. He also displayed a shirt with the slogan “In Ogden, lie has not become just an immoral category, but a pillar of City government.” Brian Nestrig, 676 East 21st Street, discussed the bond that received voter approval for improvements to the Weber County library system. There are many concerns as the plans for such improvements have been implemented; North Ogden, Harrisville, and Pleasant View held a special meeting to discuss their concerns with the County Commissioners and Library Board. His concern relates to the improvements to the Ogden Branch of the library located on Jefferson Avenue. The building was outgrown about 20 years ago and he does not understand why so much money is being put into updating a building that will still be too small to serve the needs of the community. He would like for the building to be converted to an art museum or gallery as it would fit perfectly with the neighborhood and would prevent the need to tear up the park surrounding the building. He stated that the residents that live in the City do not want the park torn up to make room for more parking and it does not make sense to add parking to a building that is not growing. He noted there is another building at 24th Street and Wall Avenue that would be an absolute perfect location for a new main library; it would be served by over 12 bus routes and within walking distance of the Front Runner Station; it is eight to 10 stories in height and overlooks Union Station. The building is currently blighted and offers no benefit to the downtown area. He encouraged the City to work with Weber County regarding this issue and he concluded having a two-story library in a City of 100,000 residents is laughable. He added he loves Lester Park and does not want to see it torn up. Mayor Comments Mayor Caldwell indicated City Administration intends to be good neighbors and that is why they have worked closely with BDO Management to reach out and find ways to mitigate any potential impacts to neighboring property owners. He noted the City was recognized by Forbe’s Magazine last week as one of the top growing 20 cities in the United States and that is great for future economic prosperity for people that live in and around Ogden and he will continue to reach out and try to find ways to lessen impacts. He thanked Mr. Wayne for his comments and apologized he feels he was not heard. Council member Comments Chair White stated she is looking forward to watching the Weber State University Men’s Basketball team as they compete in the NCAA tournament. Consideration of adjourning into a Closed Executive Session At this time, the Council gave consideration of adjourning into a Closed Executive Session pursuant to one or more of the provisions of Section 52-4-205(1) of the Open and Public Meetings Law: a. Discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual b. Strategy session to discuss collective bargaining c. Strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation d. Strategy session to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property e. Strategy session to discuss the sale of real property f. Discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems g. Investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED THE COUNCIL ADJOURN INTO A CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 52-4-205(1) OF THE OPEN AND PUBLIC MEETINGS LAW. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO - NONE. The meeting adjourned into Closed Executive Session at 6:29 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 6:59 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Council, COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 7:00 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE.  ________________________________________ TRACY HANSEN, MMC CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: June 7, 2016  Minutes of Joint Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, March 15, 2016 Page Minutes of the Joint Work Session of the Ogden City Council, also acting as the Redevelopment Agency, held on Tuesday, March 15, 2016 at 3:30 p.m., in the Council Work Room 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 (arrived at 3:36 p.m.) Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez (arrived at 4:16 p.m.) 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 Assistant City Attorney Mark Stratford (via telephone) Public Services Director Jay Lowder Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Comptroller Lisa Stout Deputy Finance Manager Camille Cook Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Community and Economic Development Deputy Manager Brandon Cooper Assistant City Attorney Melvin Smith City Engineer Justin Anderson Deputy City Recorder Abbie Zampedri The purpose of the Joint Work Session is to review the agenda for the City Council meeting and receive presentations and have discussions regarding the following: the Rocky Mountain Power Electric Utility Franchise Agreement; the 2015 Business Depot Ogden Annual Report; Council Business; a Loan Guaranty for OBE Vision, LLC (Trackline Economic Development Area); and Board Business. Agenda Review for City Council meeting Council Executive Director Cook and other members of Council staff briefly reviewed the items listed on the agenda for the City Council meeting scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. The Council engaged in a brief discussion regarding the ranking of projects included in the Fiscal Year 2017-2021 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP), with Council member Nadolski asking for assurance that the Transportation Master Plan will be funded by Administration in FY2017. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson stated City Administration is committed to funding and completing the project in FY2017. The Council then discussed the item forwarded by the Planning Commission regarding vehicle stacking in restaurant and bank drive-thrus, with Chair White inquiring as to where the recommendation to allow space for eight vehicles came from. Mr. Montgomery stated it is a national standard. Rocky Mountain Power Electric Utility Franchise Agreements Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith explained City Administration will present a proposed Electric Utility Franchise Agreement with Rocky Mountain Power (RMP) that authorizes RMP’s continued use of the City’s rights of way to maintain its electrical facilities. The previous agreement expired January 1, 2016. The City Attorney’s office has been negotiating with RMP for several months and was able to negotiate an agreement that is acceptable to the Administration. City Attorney Stratford joined the meeting via telephone and reviewed the proposed ordinance used to adopt the franchise agreement. He also provided a brief overview of the franchise agreement itself, noting much of the information in the agreement has not changed from the agreement approved 25 years ago. He referenced the Council staff memo regarding the agreement and noted it provides a very thorough explanation of the terms of the agreement. The proposed agreement provides the following:  Grants authority to RMP to construct, maintain, operate, upgrade and relocate its electrical distribution and transmission lines and related equipment in and along the city’s public ways (which includes streets, alleys, and rights of way, but not City parks)  Establishes the Term: January 1, 2016 to January 1, 2041 (25 years)  Makes RMP’s use of the public ways non-exclusive   Allows the City to use RMP’s poles for transmitter placement (meter reading, Wi-Fi etc.), and banner sign placement  Allows the City to maintain authority to regulate use of the public ways  Requires RMP to indemnify the City from any loss or damage to property or injuries to anyone that occurs relating to RMP property  Outlines specifics regarding use of plan, design, construction, installation and relocation of RMP equipment  Authorizes RMP to manage vegetation in order to avoid interference with RMP’s electrical equipment. Management must be under arborist direction  Provides the City a first right of refusal should RMP decide to sell any of its property  Allows the City to engage in cogeneration or small power production facilities with RMP’s consultation  Outlines methods of conflict resolution, transfer of the agreement, amendments, notices, and other legal requirements Relative to franchise fees, the funds previously accruing to the City under the 1990 Agreement are now collected by the State of Utah through the Municipal Energy Sales and Use Tax Act, Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 1, Part 3, enacted in 1997. As required by State Law, the City also adopted Ogden City Code Section 5-2C-1, known as the Municipal Energy Sales and Use Tax of Ogden City. Under this authority, the City still receives 6% of the delivered value of the taxable energy. In fiscal year 2015, the City received $8,456,975 in total fees from sales of electricity, gas, telecommunications and cable. Taxes from RMP are approximately 55% of the total. Council member Stephens asked if any section of the agreement requires RMP to maintain their property. Mr. Stratford answered yes and noted RMP is required to maintain their property and structures located on their property so that they are of a similar condition of surrounding properties. RMP also agreed to participate in any kind of special assessment area used to install public improvements, such as sidewalk or curb and gutter. Council member Garner referenced a RMP substation at 22nd Street just off Washington Boulevard behind businesses located there. The substation is on a hill and is in need of improvement. The area is being redeveloped and he wondered if RMP will be required to improve their facilities as well. Mr. Stratford stated they are required to maintain it and keep it clear of weeds and debris; there is no requirement for them to install screening or make improvements, especially on a pre-existing substation. However, if the substation were to be relocated in the future, the City would have the right of first refusal on the property and could potentially incorporate the space into urban development efforts in the area. Council member Nadolski discussed vegetation management; he referenced section 11 of the agreement and indicated it appears to be too brief and open ended and he asked if that is by design. Mr. Stratford answered yes; he spoke with the City Forester who understands that RMP must be given more leeway when dealing with pruning of trees on their property. However, the agreement does indicate that RMP will perform vegetation management in compliance with the requirements of the City Forester. RMP has agreed to recognize the City Forester’s authority. Council member Nadolski stated he is somewhat worried about giving RMP too much leeway. Mr. Stratford stated he feels the recent changes to the City’s urban forestry regulations will ensure that appropriate trees are planted from this point forward, but one thing the City continues to deal with is older trees that can interfere with utility poles. RMP representative Steve Rush agreed and stated that the language in the agreement regarding vegetation management is very similar to the language used in similar agreements in other cities. He noted that safety is RMP’s primary concern, especially in relation to trees and powerlines located in close proximity to one another. Council member Hyer stated that many different utility companies share the same easements and he asked how the relationship between those different companies is managed. Mr. Stratford stated the ordinance and franchise agreement both clarify that no one utility company’s use of an easement is exclusive. Many utility companies have agreements in place with other companies to allow co-location of utility infrastructure. Additionally, the agreement gives the City the authority to locate its utility infrastructure on RMP poles. This is especially beneficial given the need for the City to install devices associated with water utility radio read meters. Council member Hyer inquired as to when other franchise agreements with other companies will be renegotiated. Mr. Stratford stated the Comcast agreement will be renegotiated soon and the Questar agreement will be renegotiated within the next one to two years. Council member Stephens asked if the franchise agreement would remain in effect in the event RMP were sold to another entity. Mr. Stratford answered yes; the agreement would apply to any successor. Chair White stated it appears the City has entered into 25 year agreements with RMP since 1951 and she asked if 25 years is a standard term for these types of agreements. Mr. Stratford stated some cities have shorter terms; however, the City’s agreement with Questar is a 50-year agreement. He stated he feels a 25-year term for this type of agreement is reasonable. Ms. Eller-Smith asked Mr. Stratford to touch on the State Law regarding municipal tax, specifically the provision that allows the City to renegotiate the agreement if changes are made to the Law. Mr. Stratford stated this is a significant issue that has been addressed in the franchise agreement through negotiations. The Municipal Energy Sales and Use Tax was enacted after the last version of the agreement was executed and the State of Utah has taken over responsibility for collection of all franchise taxes and they then distribute revenues to municipalities and the utility company. The standard RMP agreement does not discuss the payment of fees simply because that activity is required by the Act, but his concern was that if the Act were to be repealed there would be no section of the agreement requiring RMP to pay fees. He stated section 19.2 of the agreement addresses this issue and allows the City to work with RMP to set the franchise fee in the event that the Act is repealed or invalidated. He continued with his review of the differences between the 1990 agreement and the proposed agreement, with a focus on protection of the City’s right-of-way, especially in the event a moratorium has been placed on construction of a right-of-way.  Ms. Eller-Smith stated that consideration of the agreement via adoption of an ordinance will be included on the Council’s March 22, 2016 Council meeting agenda. 2015 Business Depot Ogden Annual Report Community and Economic Development Director Christopulos summarized the 2016 Business Depot Ogden (BDO) Annual Report. He indicated that the development plan for BDO is currently ahead of schedule by 20 years. Much new construction and building expansion has taken place, with one million square feet of space added in 2015. New buildings are 99% occupied and old buildings are 92% occupied; this is an increase over 2014 when the overall occupancy rate was 87%. There is eight million square feet of occupied space at BDO and the City’s share of profitability on the units has been growing at a rate of 7% since 2010. Marketing of the projects at BDO will continue in the same fashion as it has been in the past; there has been much interest in space at BDO and the competitive advantage of the installation is pronounced. The units are less expensive to occupy and it is no longer necessary to offer many incentives to entice businesses to the area. BDO has become the targeted location for business development in the State of Utah, with the exception of Lehi, which has been targeted for office space development. Council member Stephens inquired as to the cost per square foot to construct a building at BDO. Mr. Christopulos stated that depends on build-out of the building, though the pattern of development of each building is fairly similar. He stated he believes the construction costs have been fairly consistent over the past decade, but different tenants require different amenities in their buildings and some build-outs can be more expensive. He added that one thing that is very attractive about BDO is great access to a good workforce; there are over 5,000 employees at the installation. Council member Hyer asked if buildings are built to suit different businesses or if spec buildings are built. Mr. Christopulos stated buildings at BDO are built to suit, though businesses cannot design the exterior of their building. The dimensions of the building and the internal build-out is designed by the company to occupy the building, but the exterior of all buildings have a very uniform look according to the design standards implemented for BDO. Chair White asked if there is an average lease rate for all buildings at BDO. Mr. Christopulos stated the lease rates range from $.45 to $.60 per square foot per month depending on building amenities. Ms. Eller-Smith inquired as to the ratio of the marketing done by City staff versus The Boyer Company staff. Mr. Christopulos stated that the City has had a significant role in attracting various tenants to the installations. He noted the Economic Development Corporation of Utah (EDCU) has been the initial point of contact for some businesses, but the City is still responsible for ongoing marketing with closure of deals handled by The Boyer Company. He used Honeyville Farms as an example and noted the City was involved in attracting them to the installation and selecting their final location, but The Boyer Company is responsible for closure of lease agreements. He pointed out that Mayor Caldwell closed the deal with Osprey on his own, but that is an exception. He stated that there is typically much teamwork involved in attracting tenants to the space. The Boyer Company does not typically handle marketing, but they provide materials to brokers or EDCU and the City who handle marketing for them. Council member Stephens inquired who tenants work with when they have concerns about anything occurring at BDO. Mr. Christopulos stated The Boyer Company handles those issues as the manager of the project. Council member Nadolski stated it appears there were development requirements in the initial agreement between the City and The Boyer Company and he inquired as to whether those requirements have been met, to which Mr. Christopulos answered yes. He emphasized the requirements have been far exceeded. Council member Nadolski inquired as to when the project will be completely built out. Mr. Christopulos responded within 10 years according to the current pace of absorption. He also inquired as to the percentage of the installation that is currently built-out. Community and Economic Development Deputy Manager Cooper stated the area is approximately 60 to 70 percent built-out. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson added that when all vacant ground has been developed, The Boyer Company will begin tearing down old buildings to make way for new, more efficient buildings. Mr. Christopulos concluded he wished all projects performed as well as BDO. Council member Hyer inquired as to the term of the agreement between Ogden City and The Boyer Company, to which Mr. Christopulos answered 50 years. Council member Lopez asked if any of the area included in BDO is zoned to allow for retail establishments. Mr. Christopulos stated retail is not allowed on-site, though there is a small retail space included in one of the warehouses. Council member Lopez asked if there is a sports bar at the installation. Mr. Christopulos answered yes, but special terms were developed for that use. Council member Stephens asked if there is still a military presence at BDO. Mr. Christopulos answered yes and noted the spaces occupied by the military are also owned by them; the City does not benefit from those properties. Council member Lopez inquired as to how the Council can go about learning more specifics about the retail use and the restaurant at the installation. Mr. Christopulos stated those two uses are conditional uses at BDO; a certain percentage of a building can be used for retail of goods manufactured in the same space. Council member Lopez stated he is more interested in learning the details of the sports bar at BDO. Mr. Christopulos stated that use was a traditional conditional use. Council member Lopez asked if other similar businesses could apply for and receive approval to operate at BDO. Mr. Christopulos stated the conditional use would only be approved in the DDR zoned areas of the installation. Chair White stated that the State of Utah has new regulations and requirements regarding detention ponds and she asked if that will impact the amount of area that can be built out at BDO. Mr. Christopulos stated he is unsure whether the new regulations will impact BDO as there is already a large amount of space dedicated to detention. Council member Hyer referenced a few businesses named in the report that are no longer in operation at BDO and he inquired as to the reason for their departure from the installation. Mr. Christopulos indicated he is unsure; there are over 45 tenants at BDO and he cannot keep track of all of them. The Council thanked Mr. Christopulos for his report. Loan Guaranty for OBE Vision, LLC (Trackline Economic Development Area) Ms. Eller-Smith explained City Administration is requesting the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) Board approve a loan guaranty for a $2 million loan from Ogden Industrial Development Corporation (OIDC) to OBE Vision, LLC. Under the terms of the Master Land Transfer and Development Agreement (MLTDA) with OBE Vision, LLC, the developer agreed to obtain a $6 million line of credit to fund initial development costs. Unfortunately to date, the developer has been unable to secure these loan funds. The developer has been diligent in moving development forward, investing more than $3M of private equity funds into the project. The RDA Administrative staff has assisted the developer in obtaining a $2M loan for OIDC. The Developer has identified a private equity source for an additional $1M. This brings the available funds to the $6M needed to meet the requirements of the Agreement and to complete the infrastructure and other needed improvements at the site. Deputy Manager Cooper provided a brief history of the relationship between the City and OBE Vision, LLC, after which he noted the proposed loan would be between the OIDC and OBE Vision, LLC with the RDA providing the guaranty. He noted the Trackline project was initially funded by a number of funding sources, the public funding sources being equity funds and debt funds. These funding sources are made up of Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) funding, Business Depot Ogden (BDO) lease revenue, Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds, a HUD 108 loan, an Economic Development Administration (EDA) grant, Wasatch Brownfields monies, and RDA tax increment. He then discussed the developer’s funds being contributed to the project, including developer equity funds and other private equity funds. The developer was initially supposed to obtain a line of credit for the project, but he has been unable to do so to date and he has ultimately brought $4 million of his own money and private equity funds to the project. Vice Chair Blair inquired as to why the developer has not been able to secure a line of credit. Mr. Cooper stated it was very difficult for him to obtain conventional financing considering that the property would be used as security and tax increment would be used as a repayment source. Banks discount the value of the property and they completely discount the value of tax increment over time because it is completely speculative. In light of those difficulties, the developer has done a tremendous job to meet his obligations defined in the development agreement to bring $6 million to the project. He has raised $4 million to date in private equity and his own monies. This has allowed the project to continue to move forward. The money that has been expended at the project site has built equity and it has been possible to attract some leverage financing, though the financing source is not traditional. OIDC is not a commercial bank, but they have flexible financing terms and are willing to make a loan to the developer with the RDA serving as the guaranty. Mr. Cooper provided information about the makeup of OIDC, noting they have been in existence since the 1970s and have participated in many community projects. OIDCs purpose has been to create spaces for manufacturing and distribution in Weber County. It is a private funding source that is used for community purposes. He then stated that with the use of the $4 million that has been provided to the project to date, it has been possible to complete a great deal of work at the Trackline Project Area, which he briefly summarized. He reviewed photographs to highlight the demolition and site remediation work that has been done at the site; work is currently focused on Stockman Way as utilities are being extended past the ENVE site and through to the common areas. He stated that approval of the loan guaranty will complete the ‘financing stack’ and there will be enough money to complete the entire subdivision and installation of the needed utilities at the site. The meeting recessed for Council photographs at 4:43. The meeting reconvened at 4:52 p.m. Mr. Cooper continued reviewing photographs of the site to highlight progress that has been made in the project area, after which he reviewed the terms of the loan guaranty. He stated he feels risks associated with the project will actually decrease due to the use of the loan and loan guaranty rather than the use of a line of credit. The developer has brought much of his own money to the project, which has caused him to be much more committed and invested in the project success. In the event the developer were to default on the loan, OIDC would have the ability to foreclose on the project because they would be in first position via a trust deed on the property; if they chose to foreclose, the RDA could negotiate restructuring the loan or pay the loan off to prevent foreclosure. The RDA could then pursue damages according to the MLTDA for the project. Vice Chair Blair asked for assurance that the $2 million loan is not repayment to the developer for the $4 million he has brought to the project. Mr. Cooper assured Vice Chair Blair that is not the case and he used the aid of a flowchart to identify the purpose of each funding source and related eligible project costs. The MLTDA called for the developer to bring $6 million to the project and the $2 million loan will make up the difference between that required amount and the amount he has already contributed. The $2 million received from OIDC pending approval of the loan guaranty would meet the obligation and the debt would be repaid with proceeds for the sale of lots and tax increment generated by the project. If all property at the site were sold today at asking price, that would generate $5.9 million; anticipated tax increment is $10.9 million. Vice Chair Blair asked if the $2 million loan will be delivered in a lump sum amount. Mr. Cooper answered yes; the money will be delivered to the RDA for management by an escrow company. The RDA would receive monthly pay requests for the loan and will control the flow of proceeds. RDA staff has been reviewing all costs associated with the project since the onset. Chair White asked if there has been any additional interest in the project from other businesses. Mr. Cooper stated there are commitments for three lots of the eight at the project area; in addition, Mayor Caldwell recently visited Taiwan where he made contact with another business that may be interested in locating at the project area. He stated there is a demand for the environment that will be created at the site where employees can connect with the property surrounding their place of employment. Council member Garner inquired as to the future plans for the Exchange Building. Mr. Cooper explained the developer purchased it for $193,000 and the RDA has the right to repurchase it after three years if the developer is unwilling or unable to produce enough money to redevelop the building. Staff is currently very focused on completing the subdivision around the building so there have been no efforts made to redevelop the building at this point. However, the building has been wrapped with plastic to prevent further erosion and he anticipates the RDA will participate with the developer in a fundraising effort for the project next year. Council member Stephens asked if evidence of rail has been found at the project. Mr. Cooper answered no, but indicated there is an opportunity to include rail in a potential second phase of the project to offer rail service to any tenants that may locate there. Council member Garner stated that as the City has continued to develop the bike path in the area, one of the complaints the residents have been making relates to speed of traffic in the area and he asked for City Administration’s cooperation in addressing that issue. Mr. Johnson stated that will be a joint effort between the City and County, but City Administration is committed to work on that issue. Ms. Eller-Smith concluded an item will be included on the agenda for the special RDA meeting scheduled for March 22, 2016 to allow the Board to take action on this item. Council Business Council Calendar: Council Executive Director Cook and other members of Council staff briefly reviewed the meeting schedule for the remainder of the month and the Council calendar for other items scheduled over the next several weeks. Report from Leadership: Chair White reported the second group branding session will be held tomorrow and she asked Council Communications Manager Mabey to provide the Council with more information about that event. Ms. Mabey indicated some of the themes provided by survey participants will be run through a feasibility test in preparation for the ‘brand camp week’ event scheduled for the last week of March, 2016. On April 1, 2016 at 10:00 a.m. the branding consultant will present his findings. She added the Talk of the Town meeting will be held tomorrow at Weber State University from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m.; the topic of the meeting is ‘opportunities in Ogden’ and staff will be present to provide attendees with information about employment opportunities in the City and throughout the community. A student leader will talk about career opportunities at the Walker Institute and elsewhere on campus. Chair White and Council member Stephens have indicated they will attend as well. Safe Zone at Police Station: Mr. Johnson noted the City has received many questions about providing a ‘safe zone’ at the Public Safety Building. This is a place where people engaged in internet transactions, such as the sale of goods, can meet to exchange property and money. He has met with Chief Ashment who has suggested a camera be located at the site to take images of license plates and people. Signage will also be erected and lines painted to identify the parking spaces included in the zone. City Administration would like to find a formal way to introduce the safe zone to the public and he suggested the Council adopt a resolution authorizing the creation and promotion of the safe zone. Other cities have done something similar and they have seen success. The Council briefly discussed the concept and offered their support for creation of the safe zone and the adoption of a joint resolution. Council member Lopez wondered if there is a more appropriate place for the safe zone so that people do not feel intimidated by the fact that the zone is located at the Public Safety Building. Mr. Johnson stated that people using the safe zone will not be recorded for the purpose of tracking people that use it, but the camera will provide an increased sense of security for users. People can still choose to complete these types of transactions elsewhere. Skyline Drive: Chair White reported that three Council members attended the Skyline Drive open house and she appreciated their attendance and the community involvement. Council member Nadolski agreed and noted the Engineering Division was well represented at the meeting as well. The meeting adjourned at 5:23 p.m. ________________________________________ ABBIE ZAMPEDRI, CMC DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: May 17, 2016