City Council

Minutes of Joint Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, April 12, 2016 Page Minutes of the Joint Work Session of the Ogden City Council, also acting as the Redevelopment Agency, held on Tuesday, April 12, 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 3:39 p.m.) Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski Excused: Council member 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 Management Services Director David G. Buxton Public Services Director Jay Lowder Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Community and Economic Development Deputy Manager Brandon Cooper Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Project Coordinator Jonnalyn Walker Chief Deputy Recorder Lee Ann Peterson The purpose of the joint work session is to discuss the proposed Oak Den Urban Renewal Area Blight Study, hear a Transit System Update, discuss Grant Avenue rezones, and discuss Board and Council business. Oak Den Urban Renewal Area Blight Study Board Deputy Director Eller-Smith explained City Administration is requesting the Board adopt a resolution making a finding of blight in the proposed Oak Den Urban Renewal Project Area. The Administration contracted with Bonneville Research to conduct the study and she asked Community and Economic Development Deputy Manager Cooper to review the findings of the study. Mr. Cooper began by reviewing a flow chart that identifies the process used to commission and conduct a blight study. He reviewed an aerial photograph to orient the Council to the boundaries of the survey area and indicated there is a major commercial node in the middle of the survey area that is geographically centered in the East Central Neighborhood; a great deal of work is underway to redevelop certain commercial properties in the area. The finding of blight is governed by Utah Code Section 17C-2-203 and there are several factors that must be met in order for a finding of blight to be made. First is that the survey area consists predominantly of non-greenfield parcels and Mr. Cooper noted the survey area has zero greenfield properties. Second is that the survey area is zoned for urban purposes and served by utilities and he noted that the survey area contains 84.24 acres divided into 413 parcels zoned R-3EC, R-2EC, NC-2, AND PI. Third is that at least 50% of the parcels are intended for residential, commercial, industrial, or other urban purposes and he noted that 100 percent of the parcels contain buildings or improvements for urban purposes. Fourth is that the present condition of the properties impairs the growth of the City, retards the provision of housing accommodations, or constitutes an economic liability or is detrimental to the public health, safety, or welfare as shown by the existence of at least four qualifying factors: dilapidation; parcels not meeting current building, safety, health, or fire code requirements or local ordinances; parcels with unsanitary or unsafe conditions; environmental hazards; excessive vacancy or abandoned buildings or lots; abandoned outdated facilities that post a threat to health, safety, or welfare; criminal activity higher than non-blighted areas; and defective titles. He reviewed the following statistics about the properties in the survey area that were used to meet four qualifying factors:  328 of 413 (79%) parcels were dilapidated  332 of 413 (805) parcels did not meet current building, safety, health or fire code requirements or local ordinances  363 of 413 (88%) parcels had unsanitary or unsafe conditions  8 of 413 (2%) parcels had environmental hazards  74 of 413 (18%) (23% total acreage) had excessive vacancy, abandoned buildings or vacant lots   171 of 413 (41%) had abandoned or outdated facilities that pose a threat to public health, safety, or welfare  Criminal activity is 216% higher than comparable non-blighted areas  0 of 413 (0%) had defective title. The next factor constituting blight is that at least 50 percent of privately-owned parcels must be blighted. Blighted parcels must comprise at least 66 percent of privately-owned acreage and Mr. Cooper noted that at least 50 percent of the parcels are affected by at least one of the blight factors, but not necessarily the same factor. The affected parcels comprise at least 66 percent of the acreage of the survey area. He then discussed the findings of the blight study, noting the consultant has determined the proposed Oak Den Urban Renewal Area (URA) meets, in all respects, the requirements for blight under State Code. It is their recommendation that the Redevelopment Agency Board proceed with issuing a finding of blight. Chair White asked if the consultant entered homes with in the study area. Mr. Cooper answered no and referred to the study as a ‘windshield’ study. Ms. Eller-Smith noted that the City must provide a 30-day notice period before proceeding with a finding of blight and she asked if property owners in the study area can contest the finding of blight and what they would have to do to prove that blight is not present. Mr. Cooper stated property owners would need to use data to offset the consultant’s findings that led him to make the conclusion that blight is present. Project Coordinator Walker stated when speaking with individual property owners in the study area it is important to inform them that not every property in the area will necessarily be considered blighted, but the finding of blight is an area wide finding. Community and Economic Development Director Christopulos stated Ms. Walker has worked on a good portion of redevelopment project areas in the State of Utah over the past few decades and she is very knowledgeable about the process of determining blight. Discussion then ensued regarding the public notice process the City will follow to proceed with considering making a finding of blight. Board member Garner referenced the environmental hazard factor considered when determining blight and asked if the City notifies individual property owners or the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) when an environmental hazard is significant enough. Mr. Cooper stated the consultant has indicated that he will share environmental hazard information to the Department of Environmental Quality (DEQ). Board member Nadolski referenced the flow chart detailing the process used to conduct a blight study and inquired as to the step the City is currently on. Mr. Cooper indicated the City has completed step three in the process. Board member Nadolski asked if approval of the URA would open the door for the Board to use eminent domain to accomplish redevelopment of the area. Mr. Cooper stated a URA is currently the only type of redevelopment area in which eminent domain is permitted. It can be used within the first five years after establishment of the area and even though eminent domain is a tool available to the City, it cannot be exercised unless first authorized by the Board. He emphasized eminent domain is a valuable tool that usually saves the City money and the seller financial heartache and money as well. The City must offer fair market value for all property purchases, which will result in the seller getting the highest value possible. Ms. Eller-Smith concluded that the Board could vote to set the blight public hearing next Tuesday, which would allow Board staff to include a hearing on the May 24, 2016 meeting agenda; if a finding of blight is made, direction can be given to direct staff to proceed with preparation of a draft plan and budget for the area. Mr. Cooper indicated the consultant will be present for the blight hearing and he can be as specific or general as the Board would like during discussion of the findings of his study. Board member Lopez inquired as to the advantages and disadvantages of the consultant being detailed in his presentation. Mr. Cooper stated the advantages to detail are that the Board would be given the opportunity to see exactly what the consultant saw as he conducted the study. The disadvantage may be if a property owner is present and they see a photograph of their property and hear it referred to as dilapidated and that could be upsetting to them. He added, however, that it is important for all parties to understand what constitutes blight and what efforts are made to remove blight from the community. Board Executive Director Cook stated that in the past it has been important for staff and the Board to be very detailed during the blight hearing because findings of blight must be declared on record and those findings must meet State law criteria. Mr. Cooper agreed and added that the Board has the opportunity to disagree with the consultant as well. Discussion then centered on historical blight findings throughout the City and particularly in the vicinity of the proposed URA and there was a brief focus on the definition of dilapidation and what the consultant looks for in order to classify a structure or property as dilapidated. Grant Avenue Rezones Council Policy Analyst Symes explained that as part of the continued implementation of the Jefferson Community Plan adopted in 2013, the City’s Planning Division is proposing to rezone property along Grant Avenue between 28th Street and 30th Street. The proposal would rezone all of the residential properties on those two blocks from the current CP-3 (Regional Commercial) Zone to R-4 (Residential Multi-family) Zone. The properties were zoned CP-3 around 30 years ago with the anticipation that the character and uses of the area would turn from residential to commercial. This has not taken place and the proposed rezone would return the parcels with residential uses back to a zoning designation that is more consistent with the actual land use. One additional parcel on the southeast corner of 28th Street and Grant Avenue is proposed to be rezoned from CP-3 to NC-1 (Neighborhood Commercial) as proposed in the Jefferson Community Plan. Planning Manager Montgomery reviewed the current zoning map and identified the parcels of property subject to the proposed rezone. He explained that in the 1980s it was thought that the Grant Avenue corridor between 27th and 30th Streets would eventually change over from its predominately residential nature to a commercial nature. In anticipation of this, many of the properties with frontage on Grant Avenue through this corridor were rezoned from residential to commercial. Since that time very few additional properties through this corridor have converted to commercial uses. Because of this, when an update to the Jefferson Community Plan was developed in 2011 and 2012 a vision strategy was included in the plan to rezone residential properties back to a residential designation. The area does host a number of commercial and manufacturing uses that are consistent with the commercial zoning; however, the residential uses do not reflect the current CP-3 zoning. The proposed rezone would realign the zoning and the land use for properties on Grant Avenue between 28th and 30th Streets. He indicated the current proposal is to rezone properties along Grant Avenue between 28th and 30th Streets which are residential uses from the current CP-3 zoning to the R-4 zoning. In addition, the property located at the southeast corner of 28th Street and Grant Avenue is proposed to be rezoned from CP-3 to NC-1. The existing commercial buildings through the corridor, including the Richard’s Sign Company building, the Ben Lomond printing building, the self-storage facilities, and other commercial buildings, are proposed to remain zoned CP-3. There are two non-residential uses proposed for rezone. One is the Give Me A Chance Learning Center at the corner of 29th Street and Grant Avenue and the other is the Antiques, Etc. building at the corner of 30th Street and Grant Avenue. Any existing uses on these properties that are not consistent with the R-4 Zone would be deemed legal nonconforming uses and would be allowed to continue to operate under that status until such time as the use is abandoned or changed by the owner. He reported that as staff discussed the proposal with the Planning Commission, two property owners expressed their opposition: the owners of Richard’s Sign Company and Ben Lomond Printing. They felt that changing the zoning of the properties and designating them as non-conforming would eliminate future options and devalue the commercial uses. They also believed that a vacant lot near their properties has the potential for development, though staff pointed out that the lot has been vacant for 30 years. The two property owners convinced the Planning Commission that their properties should not be rezoned and be left commercial in nature. This led to a discussion about maintaining the commercial zoning for all properties that currently have a commercial use and only rezone the residential properties. The recommendation was made with a 5-2 vote with the finding that the proposed rezones are consistent with the Jefferson Community Plan and policies outlined in the General Plan. The motion was made with the condition that all residential dwellings be rezoned to R-4 and that all commercial businesses remain zoned CP-3, with the exception of the property on the corner of 28th Street and Grant Avenue that is to be rezoned to NC-1. Mr. Symes asked Mr. Montgomery for more information about the Give Me a Chance Learning Center on the corner of 29th Street and Grant Avenue as well as the Antiques Etc. building on 30th Street and Grant Avenue; he specifically asked why those properties were included in the proposal to rezone. Mr. Montgomery stated the Antiques Etc. building is a residential building, though it has been used for commercial purposes. He added the Give Me a Chance Learning Center is surrounded by vacant ground that has the potential to develop for residential uses. He noted the commercial use can be designated as non- conforming and can continue to operate as it currently does. Council member Garner inquired as to the reasoning expressed by the Commissioners that voted in opposition to the recommendation that was ultimately forwarded. Mr. Montgomery stated they felt that the entire area should be zoned residential and the existing businesses could be classified as non-conforming so they could continue to operate. Council member Hyer asked if there has been any development in the area over the past 30 years since the Jefferson Community Plan was initially developed. Mr. Montgomery stated that two new homes have built in the last 10 years, but there has not been much movement in the area since the Plan was developed. The Council had a brief discussion about the Planning Commission’s recommendation, with a focus on the implications of assigning a non-conforming designation to a given property. Mr. Symes then discussed the timeline for proceeding with considering the Planning Commission’s recommendation. He indicated that all property owners will be noticed prior to an item being added to a Council agenda for final action on the rezone. The meeting recessed at 4:23 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 4:27 p.m. Transit System Update Council Executive Director Cook reported that from time to time Utah Transit Authority (UTA) representatives are invited to provide the City Council with an update on the Ogden/Weber State University (WSU) Transit Project Study. He welcomed Hal Johnson and Jim McNultie and asked them to proceed with their presentation. Mr. McNultie used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to discuss the Ogden/WSU Transit Project Study. He reviewed the partners in the project, including Intermountain Healthcare, Weber County, the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), WSU, and the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC). He reviewed a map for the project study area and indicated it includes the Ogden Intermodal Center, downtown Ogden employment and activity centers, various neighborhoods, WSU, McKay-Dee Hospital, and City and State roads. He then reported that on June 23, 2015 the Technical Advisory Committee (TAC), and Policy Committee recommended the 25th Street alignment with Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as the preferred mode. On July 28, 2015 the Ogden City Council adopted Resolution 2015-24 which approved a locally preferred alternative (LPA) for the project. He reviewed an additional map to illustrate the recommended alignment and mode, noting it begins at the Ogden Intermodal Station on 23rd Street to Washington Boulevard, up 25th Street to Harrison Boulevard, then through Weber State University, and ending at McKay Dee Hospital. The recommended mode utilizes Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) with a modern design. The alignment includes a combination of mixed flow travel with street traffic, and lanes exclusive to BRT from 32nd Street through WSU. Mr. Johnson reported UTA received $1 million in Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) funding from WFRC and that funding is intended to build an intermodal center on the WSU campus. UTA envisions a bus facility to connect with the future BRT project. The center would also provide car and bike sharing for students. UTA has worked closely with WSU to identify the appropriate location for the project. He reviewed a map illustrating the WSU Master Plan and the proposed transit alignment and discussed how the plans relate to or impact neighborhood surrounding the campus.  Council member Nadolski stated that he campaigned in the area surrounding WSU and he heard feedback regarding the process for UTA to acquire properties needed to carry out the transit plan. Mr. Johnson noted that the construction schedule for the project is not firm at this point, but UTA is working closely with property owners in the acquisition phase of the project. He stated UTA has a track record of being fair to property owners and after acquiring over 2,000 properties for various projects, only one situation has ended up in litigation. Council member Nadolski said he visited with one individual in particular that is very fearful of the process and acquiring her property may be somewhat difficult. He simply wants UTA to be aware of and prepared for the situation. Mr. McNultie then noted that the work currently underway includes development of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document, refinement of the WSU alignment, definition of engineering work in support of the LPA, coordination of transit modeling, and discussion of project funding. He then reviewed the schedule that has been followed to adopt the LPA as follows:  January 13 UTA Planning and Development Committee update  January 21st o WFRC Regional Growth Committee  January 28th o WFRC Regional Council  Adoption of the amended RTP to include a project alignment along 25thStreet and Harrison Boulevard, with a mode of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)  March 23rd-UTA Board Approval of LPA Mr. Johnson then indicated the next steps in the process include seeking funding for the capital and operating components of the project. UTA believes the project will compete well for federal funding; it may be possible to fund between 50 and 80 percent of the project with federal dollars. He added he believes it will be possible to replace UTA’s 603 bus line with this project, which would free-up roughly $900,000 in funding that could be dedicated to the project. The Council engaged in a discussion with Mr. McNultie and Mr. Johnson regarding issues like bus frequency, operating hours, branding efforts, facility locations, and the next steps in the process to move the project forward. Mr. McNultie indicated funding for the project is the next big hurdle and once funding has been secured, planning of the construction schedule for the project can begin. This type of project typically spans multiple construction seasons; if funding is secured by 2017, it could be possible to complete the project in the year 2020. He then noted that while waiting to secure funding, it will be important to continue to talk about the project with key stakeholder groups in order to avoid essentially starting the public process over once the project is funded. This led to a discussion about the role the City can play in communicating with residents and stakeholder groups regarding the project as well as paving the way for the project by addressing zoning issues throughout the City. Ms. Eller-Smith stated it is her understanding the canopy bus stops for the system have not yet been designed and she asked how that step in the project is handled and whether there are opportunities to incorporate public art into the project. Mr. McNultie indicated UTA has an art in transit program that provides 50 percent matching funds for art projects supported by another entity. He stated UTA can work closely with the City’s Arts Advisory Committee to select artists or art installations based on a certain theme that could be incorporated into the project. It is best to address the inclusion of public art early in the design process of the project. He then noted that the canopies will not be designed until future steps in the process. Council member Lopez asked if the type of bus and other equipment has been selected. Mr. McNultie answered no and stated there are many things to consider when determining the appropriate bus to use in Ogden. He stated electric buses are an option and there have been great innovations in that field recently. Using an electric bus would require incorporation of charging stations in the project. He stated UTA will provide design specifications for equipment to be used and then follow a competitive bidding process to select a vendor for the equipment. Discussion then centered on the various types of buses that can be used in this type of project, with a comparison of costs and attractive features. Council Business Intergovernmental Reports: Council member Garner reported on his participation with the Weber Morgan Health Department; the Department is working to address diesel fuel emissions and the Zika virus. He then reported the Local Homeless Committee met recently; they have been able to place quite a few people in homes recently and they have also had great success in working with the Lantern House. Council member Hyer reported on the recent activities of the Central Weber Sewer District Board; they have encountered an issue with finding fertilizer in waste water and they are trying to address it in a way that will not harm fish or contaminate other water sources. Council member Nadolski promoted the upcoming Mayor’s Walk and extended the offer to pay the registration fee for each Council member that agrees to participate. He then noted he has attended a recent Nature Center Board meeting and he acknowledged all the work that past Council member Wicks did with and for that group. He then reported the Recreation Master Plan Committee met recently and they agree the scope of work that was submitted by a contractor was acceptable and it will be possible to move forward with finalizing a contract to proceed in developing the Master Plan. Mr. Cook added that Weber State University (WSU) will assist in conducting a survey pertaining to the Recreation Master Plan. Council member Lopez stated that he has very strong feelings about diesel emission testing and he asked if there is anything the Council can do to play a role in the decisions made by the Health Department. He stated he believes that diesel vehicles should be tested and there are strong feelings in the community about that issue as well. Council member Garner stated individual Council members or the Council as a group can send a letter to the Health Department expressing their opinion regarding the issue. Mr. Cook stated that if the Council is interested in taking a position it would be necessary to hold a work session to discuss the issue in more depth. Council member Garner stated that he could reach out to members of the Health Department that could attend such a meeting to provide their position on the issue and express the pros and cons of diesel testing. Chair White provided a report on the most recent meeting of the Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB); the average nightly hotel room rate has increased to $100 per night, which is higher than it has been in some time in Ogden. She also reported on recent activities of the Weber Area Council of Governments (WACOG). There have been discussions about removing 911 operations from the City’s public safety building, but WACOG ultimately decided against that change. The group is also actively discussing pricing for recycling and more information will be forthcoming. She concluded she has been very active in the rebranding project meetings. Council Calendar: Mr. Cook and other members of Council staff briefly reviewed the Council calendar for the remainder of the month. Diversity Panel: Council member Nadolski stated that last week he and Council member Lopez as well as members of City Administration participated on a diversity panel for a discussion at WSU; the event was hosted by the Junior League of Ogden and it was very successful. He would love to carry forward with those efforts. Agenda Review Council Executive Director Cook and other members of Council staff briefly reviewed the items listed on the agenda for the Council meeting scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. The meeting adjourned at 5:33 p.m. ________________________________________ LEE ANN PETERSON, MMC CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: June 7, 2016  Minutes of Special Meeting of Council of Ogden City, Utah, April 12, 2016 Page Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, April 12, 2016 at 6:01 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 Excused: Council member 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: Mayor Mike Caldwell Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson City Attorney Gary Williams Assistant City Attorney Mark Stratford Management Services Director David G. Buxton Public Services Director Jay Lowder Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Community and Economic Development Deputy Manager Brandon Cooper Human Resources/Risk Manager Shawn Choate Comptroller Lisa Stout Deputy Finance Manager Camille Cook Public Ways and Parks Manager Perry Huffaker Arts Coordinator Diane Stern Chief Deputy Recorder Lee Ann Peterson At the request of the Chair, all present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chair Blair. Chair White welcomed the following Boy Scout Chance Harrison present from Troop #59, who is working on his Citizenship in the Community Merit Badge. A moment of silence was observed. Envision Utah. Presentation by Betsy Byrne entitled “How We Grow Matters.” Betsy Byrne, Envision Utah Lead Planner, approached the Council and used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to provide information about Envision Utah. The organization was founded in 1997 by concerned citizens; it is a nonprofit, nonpartisan, voluntary partnership between businesses, government, and local communities. The goal of Envision Utah is to help Utahns look ahead to solve future challenges and create quality communities. The process of creating quality communities starts with values. Stakeholders are gathered together to help develop scenarios that are then presented to the public for input in order to create a vision for growth. She stated Utah is growing; there are currently three million people living in Utah, but by 2050 there will be 5.4 million people. The challenge of growth is to keep life along the Wasatch Front convenient, affordable, and enjoyable. Envision Utah examines how to ensure that future generations can stay in Utah and live in communities with a good quality of life. The Youth Utah, Your Future: Vision for 2050 was started in 2013 with a challenge from Utah Governor Herbert to look statewide and consider 11 different growth topics ranging from transportation to energy. Approximately 400 Utah experts were brought together to examine the 11 issues and develop choices for 2050. A survey was submitted to the public and 52,845 people responded; this is the best understanding ever of what Utahns want for the future. She used one topic area – transportation and communities – as an example to provide data gathered in the survey. Four different growth scenarios were modeled along the Wasatch Front and in southern Utah and the scenarios contemplated things like housing mixes and organization of centers. Several different options were presented to survey participants and they overwhelmingly chose a scenario that involves communities designed for walking, transit, short commutes, and a variety of housing types. The Ogden community is very similar to the type of community survey takers preferred. She stated that the scenarios were then used to develop financial forecasts where the potential future costs of infrastructure and new development were identified. She indicated that a deliberate organized pattern of centers provides for the following:  Growth guided by market, and cities plan and cooperate together  There is a focus on creating many mixed-use centers close to households  Variety of housing in most communities  Good match to housing needs  Most communities designed for walkability, convenience, and shorter car trips The things that Utahns hope to gain from centers include walkable/bikeable communities, access to public transportation, a variety of housing types, mixed uses, networks of parks and trails, better air quality, and lower infrastructure costs. She stated Ogden is a good example of a center based community with essential services at the core. She discussed the differences between historic patterns and auto-oriented patterns. Historic patterns commonly include grid street networks, mixed uses, main streets and town center, and front doors on streets. Auto-oriented patterns include disconnected streets, separate uses, strip commercial uses, larger and fewer centers, and front doors on parking lots. She reviewed good examples of historic mixed-use centers in cities like Brigham City, Provo, Ogden, and Park City, after which she reviewed photographs of new mixed-use centers such as Farmington Station, Daybreak, the Gateway Mall, and the Shops at Riverwoods in Provo. She indicated much of Utah is developed and it can be difficult to create revitalized mixed-use centers. Brick and mortar stores are on the decline as online sales continue to increase; this means changes for big box stores and older commercial areas and this will create opportunities to revitalize and include a mix of housing, retail, and service oriented uses in centers. She reviewed data relative to the trends in housing types after which she discussed ideas for implementing the vision for 2050. Envision Utah is working with the Wasatch Front Regional Council on this process, which includes a transportation and centers strategy for the greater Wasatch Area, integration of land use and transportation, and development of the next Regional Transportation Plan. She then noted she would be happy to answer any questions the Council may have. Chair White asked if Envision Utah is working with local cities on policy and planning issues. Ms. Byrne answered yes; Envision Utah is currently in beginning discussions with several cities regarding center revitalization opportunities and market forces. Work is being done to model potential changes and determine how those changes would impact things like commute times and air quality. Council member Hyer stated he continues to hear the statistic that Utah’s population will double by the year 2050, but he wondered how that would look in Ogden since the City is currently largely built out. He stated there is not much room for expansion, though there may be opportunities to increase density in certain areas. He asked Ms. Byrne how the additional population will locate and develop. Ms. Byrne stated that Envision Utah has examined population projections and modeled them in different counties based on current population and build-out. She stated it is difficult to imagine how the State will accommodate twice the number of residents. Council member Hyer agreed and stated that he is concerned about how that growth will impact natural resources, such as water. Ms. Byrne agreed; there will be opportunities to examine water storage and provision options. Council member Hyer stated he would like to see a detailed map of how Envision Utah predicts the population in Ogden will grow. Council member Garner asked if Envision Utah is working with State government to develop mechanisms for addressing air quality; many counties and cities have tried to develop their own restrictions, but a State-wide initiative would be much better. Ms. Byrne noted Envision Utah has worked with the Clean Air Action Team as well as many builders and developers to address things like the manner in which homes are built, which has a huge impact on air quality. She stated Ivory Homes recently announced they will use six-inch walls in their construction, which will have a positive impact on the emissions created by buildings. She added Envision Utah is working with Provo to create a clean air tool kit including suggestions for businesses to address air quality issues; this is something that could be replicated for other communities. Council member Garner asked if Ogden City can gain access to similar tools and information, to which Ms. Byrne answered yes. Chair White thanked Ms. Byrne for her presentation. Presentation of the annual sunset report and proposed Ordinance 2016-24 amending the sunset provision for the Christmas Village Committee to April 1, 2019 Public Ways and Parks Manager Huffaker stated that Christmas Village Committee Chair Lou Ann Kamigaki will present the sunset report for the Christmas Village Committee. He then briefly recognized other members of the Committee in attendance. He is grateful for the service provided by the Committee and without them Christmas Village would not be possible. Ms. Kamigaki presented the sunset report for the Christmas Village Committee. She explained Christmas Village began in 1962 and has become a holiday tradition for the majority of families in Ogden and surrounding communities. It has transitioned from a small display of a few cottages to an impressive display of lights, action and activity that draws thousands to downtown Ogden each December. Over the past fifteen years, Christmas Village has continued its tradition of providing a destination for families to downtown Ogden. It has grown from twelve (12) cottages in 2001 to sixty-two (62) cottages. With the addition of the Amphitheater to Municipal Gardens, the ability to provide quality entertainment has increased greatly. The Village provides a tremendous season of activities, events, entertainment and visits with Santa and Mrs. Claus. The entire Municipal Block is decorated with brightly colored lights and a variety of displays depicting holiday-related scenes. She the noted the Christmas Village Committee consists of fourteen members including business owners, private citizens and City staff. Staff representation consists of Perry Huffaker, Public Ways and Parks Manager, Ernie Terrazas, Structural Maintenance Supervisor, and Stacey Olsen, Public Services Project Coordinator. She discussed opening night festivities, noting the opening gala continues to improve. In 2015 the City provided the largest firework show Christmas Village has ever seen. Also, the tradition of including a Make-A- Wish child as parade royalty and having them help Santa turn on the lights continues to be a highlight of the evening and provides Ogden City an opportunity for good public relations. She discussed displays, indicating donations from local businesses have greatly improved the quality of the displays in Christmas Village. Old cottages have been refurbished and new cottages designed and built. The cottages have more moving displays. The children love to look inside and see the figures and decorations moving. Artists have contributed their time and talent to paint faux finishes to give the cottages a new look never before seen at Christmas Village. In addition to the cottages, the Parks Division staff decorates Municipal Gardens and the street trees along Washington Boulevard., 24th and 25th Streets with approximately 700,000 decorative lights. The staff also built 132 metal trees after it was determined that the live trees used in 2002 were a fire hazard and would no longer be allowed. Traditional static and animated decorations also adorn Municipal Gardens and are refurbished as needed by the Parks staff. She referenced Santa and Mrs. Clause, noting children are invited to visit Santa in his Castle from the opening day until December 23rd, Monday through Saturday. The number of visitors has grown from an estimated 2,000 in 2001 to 10,000 in 2015. Each child who visits Santa receives a candy cane, and for a $5.00 donation kids can have their picture taken with Santa. Mrs. Claus (three volunteers filled the duties of Mrs. Claus) hosts guided tours of Christmas Village five days a week between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., In 2015, 632 preschool age children visited her, toured the Village and rode on the mini Polar Express Train, The committee received donations from local businesses and was able to give each child a small goody bag and cookie. She then noted live entertainment is offered four nights each week, with three entertainment time slots per evening; large school groups, dance companies and individuals volunteer their time to entertain. She then discussed donations reporting the Breakfast Exchange Club sells hot chocolate each evening from their hot chocolate booth adjacent to Santa's Castle and they graciously provide each performer a free cup of hot chocolate. The club's profits have continued to increase each year and they donate all proceeds to "Shoes for Tots". She discussed the train feature at Christmas village, noting two different train rides are offered. In 2011, for the 50th Anniversary of Christmas Village, the Christmas Village Committee introduced the Mini Polar Express Train that takes kids through a neon painted Christmas tunnel. Located on the North side of the Municipal Building, the miniature train is a fun addition that is another free attraction for those visiting the Christmas Village. In 2015, the Christmas Village Committee took over the management of the Jupiter Train. Train rides were offered every Friday, Saturday and Monday from 6pm to 8pm. The Jupiter Train took visitors on a short tour down 25th Street, through the Junction and back to Christmas Village. Christmas Village also includes a Christmas Store; in 2012, the Christmas Village committee built a little store that sits in the front of the amphitheater. They sell Christmas Village memorabilia, stocking stuffers and fun lighted toys for kids. Each year sales go up and all the proceeds go back into the Village for new displays and improvements. Also in 2015, the Committee opened a concession stand in the Amphitheater. This feature gives visitors an opportunity to have a warm bowl of chili or a hotdog while walking through the village. She concluded by discussing future plans for Christmas Village, noting the Committee would like to continue to add new cottages, static displays and animated figures. This may involve electrical upgrades to the existing system in Fiscal Year 2016-2017. The Committee plans on continuing their solicitation of new sponsorships to accomplish their goals without additional costs to Ogden City. Council member Garner commented that Christmas Village is such a beautiful gift that is given to the community; he has lived in Ogden his entire life and visiting the Village is an annual family tradition. He has family that comes to Ogden from throughout the United States just to visit the Village. Ms. Kamigaki stated the Village is a labor of love for the Committee; it is free to everyone and seeing the faces of the children during the parade and while they are visiting Christmas Village is worth every minute they dedicate to the cause. Council member Hyer remarked that visiting Christmas Village is also a tradition for he and his family; he thanked the Committee for the wonderful job they do for the community. Mayor Caldwell noted he is interviewed yearly about the activities offered at Christmas Village and there is always reference to a friendly competition between Ogden’s Christmas Village and the Salt Lake Temple Christmas display and he feels that Ogden’s festivities are comparable. He stated the Committee does a great job and all volunteer effort that goes into the project is astonishing. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-24, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending Section 3-11-6of the Ogden Municipal Code to extend the sunset provision for the Christmas Village Committee to April 1, 2019; 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 Chief 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. ON A MOTION BY VICE CHAIR BLAIR AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-24 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE– COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Council member Stephens was not present when this vote was taken. 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. Christmas Village Committee Reappointments/Appointment A letter from Mayor Caldwell requesting consideration of the reappointments of Brenda Burrup, Cindi Hellewell, Diane Nelson, Lou Ann Kamigaki, and Nicole Lovell and the appointment of Stephanie Grundie to the Ogden Christmas Village Committee with their terms expiring April 1, 2019 came before the Council for consideration. COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REAPPOINTMENTS OF BRENDA BURRUP, CINDI HELLEWELL, DIANE NELSON, LOU ANN KAMIGAKI, AND NICOLE LOVELL AND THE APPOINTMENT OF STEPHANIE GRUNDIE TO THE CHRISTMAS VILLAGE COMMITTEE, WITH THEIR TERMS TO EXPIRE APRIL 1, 2019. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. Council member Stephens was not present when this vote was taken. Proposed Ordinance 2016-21 amending the budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 by increasing the anticipated revenues for a gross increase of $1,484,705 A memo from the Comptroller regarding proposed budget amendments relative to grants and miscellaneous revenues came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated this proposed action is to recognize the appropriations of new revenue or expected activities by Ogden City. The City has been awarded an Emergency Management Performance Grant from the Utah Division of Public Safety in the amount of $10,000 for emergency sheltering at the Marshall White Center. Additionally, the City has received grants in the amounts of $17,500 to cover the wages of the emergency preparedness fire personnel. Due to this grant, which will now cover wages, the City is proposing an increase to the emergency supplies budget because funds are freed up as a result of the grant covering wages. The City is also proposing a transfer from the Critical Contingency account in the Capital Improvement Plan fund of $17,850, to help cover necessary repairs to the George S. Eccles Dinosaur Park Education Building that resulted from water damage – expenses exceeded the insurance payment for the damage. Also, the City has been awarded a grant of $1,000 for a spontaneous volunteer program. The City is proposing appropriating this grant in the general fund to the special department supplies account in the Public Services Department. In addition, the City is proposing appropriating $10,000 from the Non‐Departmental budget to Public Services to help cover the cost of installing a security fence between Jefferson Park and Odyssey Elementary School on Grant Avenue and 33rd Street. Additionally, when the City pays vendors with the City credit card, it may earn a rebate for those transactions. Initially the City budgeted $50,000 for this revenue in FY2016. When the rebate was received by the City, it was $57,000. The City is proposing an increase to the credit card rebate revenue account of $5,000 to help cover the cost associated with a recent computer security audit, software and equipment, to improve controls and infrastructure necessary for computer security. The City accepts credit cards for the payment of multiple types of revenue. In prior periods the City has paid the credit card processing fees out of the revenue accounts associated with accepting credit cards, which reduced the revenue recognized by the City in the amount of the credit card processing fees. The City will now recognize credit card processing fees as an expense paid by the Treasury Division. The revenue increase proposed in various revenue accounts, totaling $79,675 represents the amount of the processing fees expected in FY2016. Also, the City is proposing the recognition of an award from Utah Department of Transportation to help construct sidewalks and bus pads that currently do not exist north of 2nd Street on Washington Boulevard. Matching funds of $25,920 are budgeted in the City sidewalk funds. Additionally, the City is proposing an appropriation for a National Endowment for the Arts Award intended to support the development of the Ogden Arts Hub. This grant will require a cash match of $2,500 and in kind match of $51,500. The cash match will come from existing arts budget and the in kind contribution will come from donated hours and wages. Finally, the Asset Area Control (ACA) records activities with the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development rehabilitated homes and construction in approved areas. The revenue account for investments into these properties through loan funds and cash receipts from the sale of these properties. During FY 2016 the City has two development areas, the Oak Den and Lincoln Cottages. The activity in the ACA program had grown significantly due to the additional development. The City is proposing an increase to this budget to allow for the increased activity with these construction costs and sales proceeds. Chair White then introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-21, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City amending the budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 by increasing the anticipated revenues for a gross increase of $1,484,705 from sources as detailed in the body of this ordinance; and increasing the appropriations for a gross increase of $1,484,705 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 Chief 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 26, 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 HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. Council member Stephens was not present when this vote was taken. Proposed Ordinance 2016-22 amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Title 4 by repealing Article C Percent for Art; and by amending Title 4 by adopting a new Article C to establish the Public Art Program; and Proposed Ordinance 2016-23 amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Sections 2-4- 13, 3-16-6, 4-1B-1, and Subsections 4-3A-7.H, 9-1- 6.J, and 9-5-3.B to revise provisions regarding public arts projects  A memo from the Chief Administrative Officer regarding proposed amendments to the City’s Arts Ordinances came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated City Administration is proposing repealing the existing Title 4 Chapter 1C of the Ogden Municipal Code and replacing it with a new Title 4 Chapter 1C to reflect changes in the City’s Public Arts Program. The Administration is also proposing changes to various other sections of the Ogden Municipal Code to reflect changes in management responsibilities, reporting requirements, and funding sources for the Public Arts Program. Assistant City Attorney Stratford summarized the memo and stated Ogden City's current Percent for Arts ordinance directs that 1% of each capital project is set aside for public art. It was written with the apparent expectation that most public art would be installed as part of the capital project providing the funds for a public building. Examples of this can be found at the Ogden Hinckley Airport and at the new fire station. The ordinance also provides that unused funds are to be set aside in a pooled account. Experience has shown that the nature of many capital projects do not lend themselves to installation of art. As a result, more and more art has been funded through the pooled account. Another challenge with the current ordinance is that the City Council does not have an opportunity to provide input on public art projects until after an artist has been selected and a final design has been chosen. At that time, the Council's thoughts and ideas are generally not able to be incorporated into the final project. In addition, because capital project funding can vary significantly from year to year, and because the pooled fund has become more important to the completion of new projects, it is difficult to forecast the number and scope of new projects. He indicated the proposed ordinance amendments clarify how the public arts program will operate going forward by reconfiguring the process for selecting art and providing a stable funding model. Instead of tying art to a specific project, the director of Community and Economic Development (generally through the Arts Coordinator) will solicit ideas for public arts projects as part of the annual Capital Improvement Plan and budgeting process. Ideas can be proposed by the director having charge over a capital project or public space and by other individuals who may be interested in the creation of public art in a public space. The definition of public art is being expanded to include the possibility of an art project that will not remain permanently in place. Another type of project is the major renovation of existing public art. Although a maintenance fund exists to care for public art, in cases where significant work is required this fund could be exhausted for a single project and there would be no money left to take care of other works. Proponents of a project who want to move forward will be required to prepare an information statement to describe the location of the art, the general idea of what the art will include, and a budget for the proposed project. Sometime in about November or December, these statements will be taken to a newly created arts subcommittee who will review and rank all of the proposed projects and propose which projects should be funded in the upcoming fiscal year. This information will be provided to the mayor who will submit a proposed plan to the Council and Planning Commission in mid-January. Although all of the proposed project statements will be provided to the Council, there is no guarantee as to the number that will be recommended for funding. After the Planning Commission has reviewed the proposed projects, the Council will determine which projects to fund as part of the annual budget. As a result, the Council will have the ability to determine if the use of money set aside in the public arts project fund for any of the projects is justified. At this point in the process, the projects will have been described - but there will not be any specific portrayal of what the art will look like. After funding has been approved, the arts design subcommittee will work with the Arts Coordinator to seek out potential artists and designs following the City's purchasing policies. Between three and five proposals will be submitted to the Mayor for final approval of a selected artist. The public art project fund will be provided with an annual increase of up to $100,000. Of this amount, $2,500 is proposed to be put into a maintenance account and the remainder can be used for approved projects. There is no requirement to spend the entire amount each year, and funds can be carried over from year to year if a more expensive project is anticipated in the future. Stability in annual funding is proposed to come from a set amount of money being allocated each year from Business Depot Ogden (BDO) lease revenue and from the water, sanitary sewer and storm sewer enterprise funds rather than relying on one percent of the approved Capital Improvement projects. The amount contributed from the enterprise funds is in lieu of the existing percent for arts program, but is still intended to be in line with the base level of capital projects that are planned over time. Annual funding is proposed as follows: BDO lease revenue line item: $35,000 Water Utility (not to exceed): $40,000 Sanitary Sewer Utility (not to exceed): $15,000 Storm Sewer Utility (not to exceed): $10,000 Total: $100,000 This level of funding would correlate with about $4 million in water projects, $1 million in sanitary sewer projects and $1.5 million in storm sewer projects each year. These amounts are consistent with the adopted utility master plans, the current Capital Improvement Plan and the Utility Comprehensive Financial Sustainability Model prepared by the City's financial advisor. The total represents a slight increase over the eight year average of annual contributions to the percent for arts program since 2009; the increase is made up from BDO lease revenue. Mr. Stratford concluded that although the funding proposal will provide more stability from year to year, the total expenditures for art will be roughly equivalent to funds that would have been allocated through the percent for arts program. As a result the fiscal impact will be negligible. He then noted that if the Council is inclined to adopt proposed Ordinance 2016-23, he would appreciate one minor amendment to the document that was submitted; page four of the ordinance currently refers to the Arts Master Plan. The Plan is now known as the City Master Plan for Art and Culture and he asked that reference be included in the adopted ordinance. Mr. Stratford then reviewed proposed Ordinance 2016-22 and noted that, if adopted, this ordinance would essentially remove the policy guidelines for the Percent for Art program in favor of including the new Public Art Program policy. This includes new definitions for things like public art, ephemeral art, and major public projects. The ordinance provides the policy that will be followed to select, fund, and select a location for public and ephemeral art projects throughout the City.  Chair White asked if there will be a set schedule for the Ogden City Arts Design Committee meetings. Mr. Stratford responded that the Council is to receive recommendations from the committee no later than the third Wednesday in January each year, so the Community and Economic Development Department will need to work with the committee members and Mayor to determine a meeting schedule that will accommodate Council member Hyer stated he understands the definition of ephemeral art, but he does not understand when the City would spend money on such a project. Mr. Stratford indicated there are two types of ephemeral art projects that could be funded by the City; if a certain department in the City were planning to include a public art installation at their facility and they would like to include an ephemeral art project at the unveiling of that installation, that type of ephemeral art project could be funded by the City. Council member Hyer asked if designs in the City’s flower beds could be classified as ephemeral art installations. Mr. Stratford responded such a project may meet the definition of ephemeral art, the definition of which is a project that is fleeting and does not last for a long period of time. Flower bed designs may not be permanent, but they may be long term. He stated he feels such a project could be included in the artistic design category of traditional public arts projects. Council member Nadolski inquired as to the current balance of the percent for arts carryover fund. Mr. Stratford stated that the packet information for this item includes a list of contributions to the account, but it does not include the amount currently available in the fund. He guessed that the maintenance account currently has approximately $60,000 and the percent for arts fund currently has approximately $500,000 to $600,000. Council member Nadolski asked if that balance will be used at the discretion of the Design Committee. Mr. Stratford answered the Design Committee will make recommendations, but no projects can be funded without Council approval. Council member Nadolski asked if it is the intent of the program that no more than $100,000 be appropriated to the public art program annually, to which Mr. Stratford answered yes. Council member Nadolski asked how City Administration arrived at that amount; the nine year average for contributions was $140,000 per year, though in one year there was $500,000 contributed to the percent for arts program. Mr. Stratford said the $500,000 contribution was a result of a large bond issued by the City for a public project, but the annual average has been $80,000. City Administration feels that $100,000 will provide sufficient money to complete a few projects each year and fund maintenance; if the Council feels the funding allocation should be less that can be addressed through the annual budget review process. Council member Nadolski asked if the wording in the ordinance could be changed to indicate that ‘at least’ $100,000 shall be allocated annually rather than ‘up to’. Mr. Stratford stated a cap was included in the ordinance intentionally and can be evaluated in the future if necessary. Council member Nadolski indicated he simply does not want the Design Committee or the community at large to feel the Council is abandoning public arts projects by reducing the amount of money that is dedicated to public art annually. He understands the proposed ordinances will provide a more consistent and stable funding source. Mr. Stratford agreed and said that in realty, the $100,000 annual allocation is actually an increase to the amount that has been dedicated to public art in the past. Chair White asked if it will be necessary to notify rate payers of the plans to use enterprise funds for public art purposes. Mr. Stratford answered yes; a transfer from an enterprise fund to the general fund must be properly noticed and the City has chosen to carry out such noticing in conjunction with noticing associated with the FY2017 annual budget. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Ordinances 2016-22 and 2016-23, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Title 4 by repealing Article C Percent for Art; by amending Title 4 by adopting a new Article C to establish the Public Art Program; and by providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Sections 2-4-13, 3-16- 6, 4-1B-1, and subsections 4-3A-7.H, 9-1-6.J, and 9-5-3.B to revise provisions regarding public arts projects; and by providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posing after final passage.” Copies of the proposed ordinance were deposited with the Chief 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. The proposed ordinances were then read by long title. Chair White then called for public input regarding the proposed ordinances. No persons came forward to be heard regarding the matter. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-22 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE– COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Council member Stephens was not present when this vote was taken. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ORDINANCE LANGUAGE WAS AMENDED BY REPLACING THE TERM ‘ARTS MASTER PLAN’ WITH ‘MASTER PLAN FOR ARTS AND CULTURE’ AND PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016- 23 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE– COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Council member Stephens was not present when this vote was taken. The Chair signed the Ordinances 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 Kathy Darby, 4069 South 3600 West, West Haven, commented she is present to introduce herself as a candidate for the Utah House of Representatives in District Nine; her area encapsulates a very small portion of Ogden City and she plans to begin attending Council meetings to gain a better understanding of some of the issues facing residents and businesses located within the area she would represent. She stated District Nine also includes Roy City and West Haven. She then briefly reviewed her personal and professional background; she has been a public servant her entire life with extensive volunteer service. She is currently a member of the Executive Board of Directors at Your Community Connection (YCC) and she served as the past Chair of the Board for Enable Industries. She added she also worked for the federal government and feels she has an understanding of ‘red tape’. She decided to seek election to this position just two months ago, but she feels everything she has done up to this point in her life has prepared her well. She has many issues she would like to work on if she were elected and stated she will leave some of her campaign fliers for reference. Mayor Comments Mayor Caldwell congratulated Ms. Darby on her decision to seek election to public office; it takes courage and drive to throw one’s hat in the ring. He then commented it was nice to see the Christmas Village Committee receive some well deserved credit for the work they have done to benefit the community. It is important to note that the Committee also receives a great amount of support from Public Services Director Lowder and his staff. He then reported this week is Restaurant Week in Ogden and he encouraged everyone to visit local owner-operated restaurants throughout the City and enjoy some of the unique things Ogden has to offer. Council member Comments Council member Hyer stated Restaurant Week is going well and he also encouraged all residents to participate by visiting and enjoying the fare at local restaurants. Council member Nadolski thanked the City for the opportunity to attend the recent Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT) training conference. He also thanked fellow Council members for participating in the event; it was good to attend certain policy sessions and gather some of the same information City Administration has been privy to. Chair White stated that she also attended the ULCT conference and was pleased by the number of times Ogden City was recognized for various projects and initiatives. 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 – GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Council member Stephens was not present when this vote was taken. The meeting adjourned into Closed Executive Session at 7:10 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:55 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Council, COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 8:55 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. Council member Stephens was not present when this vote was taken. ________________________________________ LEE ANN PETERSON, MMC CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: June 7, 2016