City Council

Minutes of Joint Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, April 26, 2016 Page Minutes of the Joint Work Session of the Ogden City Council, also acting as the Redevelopment Agency, held on Tuesday, April 26, 2016 at 3:31 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 (arrived at 3:38 p.m.) Council members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski Doug Stephens Council Executive Director Bill Cook Council Deputy Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Manager Amy Sue Mabey Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Management Services Director David G. Buxton Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Community and Economic Development Deputy Manager Brandon Cooper Public Services Director Jay Lowder Comptroller Lisa Stout Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Assistant City Attorney Melvin Smith Ogden/Weber Convention and Visitors Bureau President Sara Toliver Deputy City Recorder Abbie Zampedri The purpose of the Joint Work Session is to review the agenda for the City Council meeting, discuss the Convention and Visitors Bureau Annual Marketing Plan, discuss the Adams Urban Renewal Area, and discuss Council and Board business. Agenda Review Council Executive Director Cook and other members of Council staff briefly reviewed the items listed on the agenda for the City Council meeting. There was a brief focus on the agenda item dealing with the proposed ordinance to appoint members of the City Council to serve on the Board of Equalization (BOE) for the creation of the Central Business Assessment Area 3 (Area 3). Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith provided the Council with a handout including specific information regarding the entire process of creating an assessment area and the purpose of the BOE as well as the deadlines for property owners in the proposed assessment area to file written protests in order to appear before the BOE. Comptroller Stout also provided a brief overview of the items included in the proposed budget amendment listed on the meeting agenda. Council Policy Analyst Symes then provided the Council with a summary of the noticing provided for the proposed property rezones on Grant Avenue. Planning Manager Montgomery added that his office has only been contacted by one property owner as a result of the notification they received. The resident owns a residential property in the area subject to the proposed rezone and they were simply seeking clarifications to the proposed zoning of their property. They expressed no objection to the action listed on the meeting agenda. Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) Annual Marketing Plan Sara Toliver, President and CEO of the Ogden/Weber Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB), approached the Council and used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to provide the CVB Annual Marketing Plan and Report. She stated that tourism has a great impact on the community, providing 8,500 jobs and $70 million in visitor spending in Weber County in 2014. Nearly $5 million in tourism tax revenue is generated annually and the CVB is focused on creating economic drivers for the community to increase funding available to spend on services and other needs. She stated the hospitality community in Weber County is very unique due to the manner in which hotels and the conference center work together. That is not something that is experienced throughout the State and it is closely related to the wonderful environment the CVB has to market and sell to tourists. She indicated that the CVB operates on a calendar year budget and the numbers provided in her presentation are for the year ended December 31, 2015. She reported in 2015 Weber County transient room tax (TRT) revenues increased by 21 percent, Ogden City TRT increased by 25 percent, restaurant tax revenues increased 11 percent, booked hotel room nights increased by three percent, and Ogden Eccles Conference Center revenue increased by 17 percent. She then reviewed the 2015 CVB marketing highlights as follows: 1. Established partnerships between all ski resort and hotel partners for a long-awaited three-resort pass for the “Ski 3” promotion. 2. Introduction of Bandwango, enabling Visit Ogden to be the end-seller of promotional packages. 3. Increased Instagram following nearly 800 percent from 450 followers to more than 3,100. 4. Created customized micro-sites for each significant CVB-partners event. Ms. Toliver noted the CVBs 2016 marketing plan objectives are to sell the destination, promote the destination, advocate economic development through tourism, and develop the destination. Target audiences are meeting planners, leisure travelers, and the local community. Group business objectives include:  Increase group nights by 10 percent over 2015 actuals (16,000).  Increase Ogden Eccles Conference Center revenue booked by 10 percent over 2015 actuals ($1,030,000).  Track and report group attendance for meetings and events.  Track and report economic impact generated for the community by meetings and events. The CVBs leisure travel objectives include:  Increase transient room tax collections.  Increase out-of-state skier days.  Gain local, regional, and national public relations exposure.  Increase website traffic consistent with current trends: 2013=43,403; 2014=101,386; 2015=1221,094; 2016=150,000.  Increase social media fans and engagement; triple-digit growth on Instagram and exploration and development of emerging social media channels. Local community objectives include:  Continue demonstrating value and impact to Weber County, cities and hospitality community.  Retain current marketing partners and demonstrate value and opportunities to potential new partners.  Engage Board members to receive their valuable insight, knowledge, and support. Ms. Toliver then reported the destination development objectives are to advocate for the continual development of the county to increase visit likelihood for meetings and conventions or leisure travel. In turn, this will create better quality of life assets and opportunity for residents. The Visit Ogden internal objectives are to share the passion for the community with others, demonstrate value to stakeholders, and have the best team on the planet. She noted Visit Ogden staff members actively participate on the Boards of various tourism and convention organizations throughout northern Utah and the CVB is very grateful for all community organizations that play a role in making Ogden the great destination it is. Ms. Toliver concluded by thanking Ogden City along with all private and public partners for continued support and increased expectations that make the CVB work harder to do more. She stated she renews her commitment to continue to do her part to make Ogden a destination of choice. Council member Hyer thanked Ms. Toliver for the great work she and the rest of the CVB staff do for Ogden City. He then asked how the CVB evaluates restaurant week. Ms. Toliver reported restaurant week is not a CVB event; rather, it is a collaboration of the downtown Ogden restaurants. However, the restaurant group has partnered with CVB to handle marketing efforts. She stated the CVB will evaluate all media generated for the event and provide feedback and data to all restaurants that participated. She indicated she would be happy to provide the same information to the City Council as well. Restaurants are interested in year over year comparisons. There were many new restaurants that participated this year, which could have resulted in steady or only slight increases in patronage for other restaurants. However, some restaurants reported a 50 percent increase in patronage over the same event last year. Council member Hyer recommended that restaurants provide a suggestion card for patrons to provide their feedback during the event. Ms. Toliver stated that she will provide that feedback to participants. Council member Hyer discussed familiarization (FAM) tours and inquired as to how expensive those events are to produce. Ms. Toliver stated the cost depends on several factors; FAM tours are typically sponsored by the Utah Office of Tourism or Ski Utah, who pays to bring media to the community. Local ski resorts and hotels then work together to accommodate them while they are in town. The CVB has also hosted FAM tours, but she has not seen the results she was hoping for with the event. She stated she would rather focus on media tours because they typically result in positive media for the City, which entices tourists to come to the area. Council member Hyer then asked if the CVB has good data regarding vacation rental properties in the City. Ms. Toliver stated that the CVB surveys meeting planners for group travel events, which includes questions about lodging information. A similar survey is conducted for special events participants and each attendee is asked to provide information regarding their lodging while in town. Otherwise, the CVB does not receive reporting data from rental property owners, but she hopes that as the industry evolves in Ogden it will be possible to establish relationships with owners and possibly create an association of owners to encourage collaboration and reporting. Council member Stephens asked if the CVB receives referrals from other cities or entities in situations where they cannot accommodate a given event. Ms. Toliver answered that does not happen frequently, but CVBs are sometimes required to provide referrals for reasons such as insufficient space for an event. Council member Stephens inquired about conventions planned in Ogden in the future. Ms. Toliver stated there is a large number of conventions planned in Ogden through the remainder of the calendar year and beyond and she would be happy to provide the council with that list. She stated the CVB provides community partners with regular updates regarding conventions and special events so local businesses are able to prepare for an increase in business during those times.  Council member Nadolski indicated the contract between the City and the CVB is scheduled to expire in June of this year; he asked if the contract renewal will come before the Council for consideration. Ms. Eller-Smith noted she has spoken with legal counsel about potential changes to the agreement and indicated that it will come before the Council for approval. Council member Nadolski thanked Ms. Toliver for all the great work she and other CVB staff members do for the City. Adams Urban Renewal Area Community and Economic Development Deputy Manager Cooper used the aid of a map to orient the Council to the boundaries of the proposed Adams Urban Renewal Area (URA). He stated there is a great amount of redevelopment opportunity in the area. There are many homes that can be saved and rehabilitated and some that should be replaced with new structures. He indicated the Imagine Jefferson project can be used as a catalyst for revitalization of the area and projects could include restoration of two major landmark buildings in the City: The Ben Lomond Hotel and the First Security Building. He then reviewed the adoption process and timeline, which could conclude as soon as July 26, 2016 with a blight hearing. Mr. Cooper stated the project area does not overlap the Oak Den Renewal Area, but the two are adjacent to one another and Community and Economic Development (CED) staff feels many great things can be accomplished in the East Central Neighborhood through the two projects. Staff would likely include a request for eminent domain in the URA, but that tool would be highly defined and restricted. Council member Stephens asked if staff will conduct an independent blight study for the proposed URA. Mr. Cooper answered yes and indicated this recommended URA is entirely independent of the Oak Den URA. Chair White inquired as to how staff selects boundaries of proposed URA. Mr. Cooper stated boundary selection is based upon extensive research of activity and opportunities in given neighborhoods. There are some areas that do not need investment, but will benefit by investment and revitalization directly across the street. CED Director Christopulos added the Quality Neighborhoods Initiative calls for the removal of impediments and focus on bright spots; that philosophy is used when determining proposed URA boundaries. Council member Garner stated there has been much discussion about needed redevelopment in the area of 24th Street and Adams Avenue and he inquired as to why it is not included in the proposed URA boundaries. Mr. Christopulos noted that area is already included in the boundaries of another URA. He then referenced various properties within the proposed URA and provided additional information regarding their present condition. Council member Stephens inquired as to the funding that will be made available to the area due to the creation of a URA. Mr. Cooper stated creation of the URA will allow for use of tax increment financing for projects within the area. Two or three projects needing tax increment financing support have already been identified within the area. He indicated that tax increment financing is generated by actual improvements. When a URA is designated, the base value of the area is frozen and any incremental value created in the area for a certain number of years above the frozen base is diverted from taxing entities to the Redevelopment Agency for distribution for infrastructure improvements or development incentive within the area. Council member Blair asked if there are any additional redevelopment areas planned for the East Central Area in the next five years and if Administration has reached out to members of the taxing entity committee (TEC) regarding the proposal. Mr. Cooper stated that Administration has not discussed the proposed URA with the TEC as there have been scheduling difficulties associated with the 2016 Legislative Session. The first TEC meeting is scheduled for May 10, 2016 and City Administration will introduce the Oak Den and Adams URA projects to the group. Multiple meetings with the TEC will follow. The Council and staff engaged in a brief discussion regarding the makeup of the TEC and the process the City follows to gain approval of the diversion of tax increment to a given project area. Council member Nadolski stated that he wants to be certain that approval to use eminent domain in a URA must be granted by the Council before the Administration can proceed with use of the tool. Mr. Cooper stated that is absolutely correct; the Redevelopment Agency Board must approve the use of eminent domain by a super majority vote. Council member Nadolski asked if the State Legislature recently adopted legislation regarding the implementation of URAs. Mr. Cooper answered yes and indicated that the legislation will become effective May 10, 2016. The process for establishing a URA is largely unchanged; the most significant changes impact community development areas (CDA) and economic development areas (EDA). The two types of redevelopment areas have essentially been combined under one classification known as community reinvestment area. Council member Nadolski asked if it is imperative for the Adams URA to be created before May 10, 2016 when the new legislation goes into effect. Mr. Cooper stated that as long as the process of creating the URA has commenced prior to the effective date of the legislation, the City can follow the old rules. Council member Nadolski then stated that he has heard from constituents living within the Oak Den URA blight study area. He asked how staff would respond to someone that is concerned by the finding that their home and neighborhood is considered blighted. Mr. Cooper responded that the use of the term blight is harsh and difficult for homeowners to hear. He has heard from many residents in the study area as well and he has tried to give them specific information about the consultant’s findings for their individual properties. Most people he has heard from are concerned about eminent domain and he has assured them that eminent domain will only be used as a last resort and property owners will first have the opportunity to negotiate favorable sale terms for their home. He added that not all homes in the study area are blighted and the fact that the City is working to correct blight will actually improve the property values of other homes in the area. He concluded that the majority of the residential properties in the study area are not owner occupied. Most owner occupied homes are not blighted because the owners have maintained them better than tenants living on rental properties have. Council member Stephens inquired as to the length of time the blight study is valid. Mr. Christopulos stated it is valid for the length of time it takes to initiate the district and for the term of the district. Mr. Cooper added that the City must enact a project area plan within one year of approving the blight study and making a finding of blight or another blight study will need to be conducted. He added the blight study is used to measure improvements in the neighborhood in the future as well. Council member Nadolski stated that he is worried about the citizens living in the study area because they do not understand all the nuances of creating a URA and the purpose for conducting a blight study. He stated he would like to proceed as quickly as possible with the creation of the URA and improvements to the neighborhood in order to remove the blight label from the area. Mr. Cooper agreed and stated he is actively working with property owners in the area to help them understand the process of creating a URA. Mr. Christopulos added that many properties in the study area have been considered blighted before the blight study was completed and that is one of the reasons staff felt it was important to try to revitalize the neighborhood. Mr. Cooper added that the assignment of the term blight to a given property does not have a negative impact on property appraisals if a property owner were seeking to sell their property. He agreed that there is a public perception regarding the term blight and he is also interested in proceeding with addressing the problem as quickly as possible. Ms. Eller-Smith concluded the discussion by reviewing the calendar for proceeding with creation of the proposed Adams URA. Council Business Creation of an “Exchange Zone”: Ms. Eller-Smith reported she has been working with City Administration on the creation of an “Exchange Zone” following a suggestion by Council member Blair. This would be a place where people engaging with transactions over platforms such as KSL Classified or Craig’s List or families participating in the exchange of children due to custody agreements could meet to exchange purchased items. The location would be located at the Francom Public Safety Building, would be well lit, and under video surveillance. She indicated she has a draft joint resolution for the Council to consider at a future meeting and upon its adoption Council staff will work with City Administration to market the concept to the public. The Council engaged in a brief discussion about the Exchange Zone concept. Council Norms: Council Communications Manager Mabey indicated the Council has had discussions in the past regarding offering Council members a stipend for the purchase of electronic devices in lieu of providing iPads or tablets for viewing Council packets. She reviewed proposed changes to the Council norms relative to the stipend. Council members would be eligible to receive $1,000 in the January following an election cycle, with the first stipend being offered July 1, 2016 since the City held a municipal election in 2015. Council members would have the option of purchasing the equipment of their choice or using a device they already own. The device purchased will belong to the Council member, but Council members are also responsible for maintenance and technical support for their device. Council member Lopez thanked Ms. Mabey for her work to develop the proposed stipend policy. The Council then engaged in a brief discussion about the City’s computer loan program and the potential for the Council to utilize that program. Council Executive Director Cook indicated that Council staff and Administration have been discussing that option. E3 Symposium: Council member Nadolski encouraged the Council to participate in a day long symposium on Thursday, May 5, 2016. The event is hosted by a group known as E3 (Educate, Empower, and Enrich). The focus of the event will be leadership, and more specifically leadership opportunities for women in the community. He noted E3 is a grassroots movement and he read the mission statement of the organization. He also provided a brief overview of the agenda for the event and discussed individuals that will be speaking throughout the day. He stated he is hopeful the City and the Council will support the event and the organization by way of paying the registration fee for all Council members interested in attending. He indicated he feels the mission of E3 is in line with the City’s diversity charter. Ms. Mabey asked Council member Nadolski to provide her with details of the event in order for her to add it to the Council’s calendar. Council Priorities: Mr. Cook referenced discussion that took place during the April 21, 2016 strategic planning meeting regarding Council priorities. The proposal is to create a Council vision to be considered throughout the budget process this year and to then move to actionable and measurable components beginning in August and throughout the remainder of the calendar year in order to share with City Administration information regarding Council priorities to be included in next year’s budget process. Chair White stated she does not want to rush the process, which could result in diminishing the importance of setting the Council’s vision relative to Council budget priorities. The Council engaged in a brief discussion regarding the Council priorities that were identified during the strategic planning meeting, after which they all agreed to move forward with the plan. Council Calendar: Mr. Cook and other members of Council staff briefly reviewed items included on Council calendar for the month of May, with a focus on items included on agendas for Council meetings throughout the month. The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m. ________________________________________ ABBIE ZAMPEDRI DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: June 7, 2016  Minutes of Regular Meeting of Council of Ogden City, Utah, April 26, 2016 Page Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, April 26, 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 (excused at 6:59 p.m.) Vice Chair Bart E. Blair Council members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski Doug Stephens Council Executive Director Bill Cook Council Deputy Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Manager Amy Sue Mabey Also present: Mayor Michael P. Caldwell Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Assistant City Attorney Mark Stratford Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Community and Economic Development Deputy Manager Brandon Cooper Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Comptroller Lisa Stout City Treasurer Brandee Johnson Project Coordinator Jonnalyne Walker Deputy City Recorder Abbie Zampedri At the request of the Chair, all present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chair Blair. A moment of silence was observed. Landmarks Commission Reappointments A letter from Mayor Caldwell requesting consideration of the reappointments of Thomas Moore III and James Wilson to the Ogden Landmarks Commission came before the Council for consideration. COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REAPPOINTMENTS OF THOMAS MOORE III AND JAMES WILSOM TO THE OGDEN LANDMARKS COMMISSION, WITH THEIR TERMS TO EXPIRE APRIL 1, 2019. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. Ogden Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee Reappointments A letter from Mayor Caldwell requesting consideration of the reappointments of Margit Lister and Benji Carrier to the Ogden Parks and Recreation Advisory Committee came before the Council for consideration. COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REAPPOINTMENTS OF MARGIT LISTER AND BENJI CARRIER TO THE OGDEN PARKS AND RECREATION ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WITH THEIR TERMS TO EXPIRE MARCH 30, 2019. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. Golden Hours Advisory Committee Reappointments A letter from Mayor Caldwell requesting consideration of the reappointments of Clara (Lolly) Nyce, Raymond K. Nyce, Dorothy Price, Carol Robertson, Eugene Earickson, and Carol Hartmann to the Ogden Golden Hours Advisory Committee came before the Council for consideration. COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE REAPPOINTMENTS OF CLARA (LOLLY) NYCE, RAYMOND K. NYCE, DOROTHY PRICE, CAROL ROBERTSON, EUGENE EARICKSON, AND CAROL HARTMANN TO THE GOLDEN HOURS ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WITH THEIR TERMS TO EXPIRE FEBRUARY 6, 2018. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. Proposed Resolution 2016-12 appointing a Board of Equalization for the Ogden Central Business Assessment Area No. 3 A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department came before the Council to consider a resolution appointing a Board of Equalization for the Ogden Central Business Assessment Area Number 3. The memo stated the Assessment Area Act (Section 11-42-101 et seq., Utah Code Annotated) authorizes municipalities to create Special Assessment Areas (“SAA”) to promote economic activities. (SAA’s were previously referred to as Special Improvement Districts or SID’s). Accordingly, the creation of an assessment area is a lengthy and complex process having numerous noticing provisions, public hearings, and other requirements that involve a variety of City Council actions and public input. Several changes were made to State Law in 2015 under House Bill 190, including lengthening the process and requiring more detailed assessment methodology. On October 26, 1993, the City Council established the Ogden City Central Business Improvement District No. 1 (“CBID 1”) as a mechanism to assist in the promotion of economic activities in Ogden’s Central Business District. Prior to 1993, funding for economic promotion in Ogden was generated from a 50 percent surcharge on business licenses. Based on the recommendations of the business community, the City shifted the funding source from businesses to commercial property owners, thus creating CBID 1. The improvement district was re-established in 1996, 1999, 2004, 2007, 2010, 2011, and 2012 (the re-establishments in 2010 and 2011 were for a one-year period). The previous assessment area, Ogden City Central Business Improvement District 2, expired in August, 2015. The Administration wishes to initiate another assessment area, the Ogden City Central Business Assessment Area 3 (“Area 3”), by September 2016 to continue the collection of assessment funds within a defined downtown boundary area. This allows for the continuation of marketing, promotion, and execution of downtown promotional activities that will continue to accrue to the benefit of downtown property owners, downtown businesses, and citizens of Ogden City in general. These downtown promotional activities include cultural events, festivals, markets, holiday lighting, amphitheater events, and other special events. In addition, funds are used for promoting business investment, developing marketing publications, and coordinating public and private efforts to improve the atmosphere and experiences in the downtown area. The levy within Area 3 is placed upon commercial properties only. Residential, tax-exempt, and commercial properties with levy amounts of $30.00 or less per year are exempt. The boundaries of Area 3 are generally the Ogden River on the north, 28th Street on the south (including properties fronting 28th Street), Adams Avenue on the east (including properties fronting Adams Avenue), and Wall Avenue on the west (including properties fronting Wall Avenue). Economic promotion and revitalization of Ogden’s downtown business district is a priority for the Council and Administration. Ogden City enjoys numerous quality downtown events, programs, activities, and promotions each year. Multiple fund sources, including the City’s general fund, are being drawn upon in order to accomplish this important objective. Some of the major promotional events and activities and their annual budgets include:  Farmers Market program - $12,000  Programming and management of the Amphitheater and Plaza for the Arts - $124,300  Administration of the Ogden City Arts program - $88,975  General management and promotion of downtown activities and marketing - $13,125  Special Events Coordination - $23,000  Twilight Series - $24,000  Pioneer Days Fireworks - $5,000  Christmas Village - $263,600  Jupiter Train - $5,000  Area Beautification - $25,000  In-kind contributions / soft costs (police, public works, etc.) - $100,000 The memo concluded the total budget of these major downtown promotion activities is estimated to be over $684,000. Revenues from Area 3 would fund up to $161,018 (23%) of the total estimated budget with the remainder being funded by the City (77%) out of general funds and other approved sources. The assessments within Area 3 are levied against the properties that may be directly or indirectly benefited by such economic promotion activities, which benefits need not actually increase the fair market value of the properties to be assessed. In no event will the City assess more than the total annual aggregate amount of $161,018 against the properties benefitted within Area 3. Community and Economic Development Deputy Manager Cooper summarized the memo and used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Council with information regarding the designation of the proposed Area 3. The proposal to create the Assessment Area also includes a recommendation to appoint members of the Council to serve on the Board of Equalization (BOE) for the Area and to set hearing dates to consider any objections or appeals from property owners within the boundary. He stated that when examining some of the greatest cities in history, one of the things that links them together is an energetic, productive, valuable, and desirable downtown. This could be a central business district, a gathering point for businesses and citizens, or a major employment and shopping hub. The downtown fabric can be the heart of a city. City Administration, as well as the City Council, have made it a clear priority that promotion, investment, arts and cultural activities are key components in sustaining the downtown as a competitive and viable place to do business and be a safe and desirable place to recreate and live. Mr. Cooper reviewed the history of special assessment levies in downtown Ogden dating back to 1993, after which he referenced the activities listed in his staff report to be funded with revenues generated by the Area 3. These events are having a great impact on Ogden. Property values are growing, new jobs are being created by small businesses, a record number of visitors are coming to Ogden, home purchases in major neighborhoods are up, crime is down, people are investing in physical assets of the community, and businesses are attracted to the vibrancy and opportunity that the downtown environment presents. He then noted that on March 22, 2016 the Council adopted Resolution 2016-10 directing administrative staff to provide notice to the general public of the Council’s intent to create the Ogden City Area 3 for the purpose of levying assessments against properties within the assessment area to promote business activity and economic development in the central business district of Ogden City. He reviewed the notice that was mailed to all property owners in the proposed assessment area as well as the map that identifies the boundaries of the area. In general, the area encompasses property between Adams and Wall Avenue and 28th Street to the Ogden River, with an Enhanced Event Activity Area between Washington Boulevard and Wall Avenue and 22nd Street and 26th Street. The duration of the proposed assessment area is three years and levies will be used to fund economic and business promotions. The budget for the assessment is $161,000, which will be the cap on the amount that can be collected and the assessment method is based upon taxable value of commercial property in the boundary area. Residential properties and government or church properties are exempt from assessment as are any properties with an annual assessment of $30 or less. One difference between the proposed Area 3 and past assessment areas is that all billing and collection of levies will be handled through the Weber County property tax collection system. The levy will be included on regular property tax assessment notices sent to property owners in the area. Mr. Cooper focused on the rate to be assessed for properties in the assessment area and in the enhanced area; the base rate will be .001532 and the enhanced rate will be an additional .000105. For a property valued at $100,000, the base rate would yield $155.04 per year and the enhanced rate would yield $10.50 per year. Properties within the enhanced area will be assessed both the base rate and the enhanced rate. He then reviewed the public process staff has followed to allow public involvement in the creation of the Area 3; during the process there is a 60-day public protest period during which property owners have the opportunity to protest the creation of the assessment area or any levy on their property. Vice Chair Blair asked Mr. Cooper to provide information about the purpose and role of the BOE. Mr. Cooper stated the BOE would meet over a three-day period and allow any property owner or the representative of any property owner to speak about the concerns they may have regarding the designation of the assessment area. He noted that the total cost of downtown promotional activities well-exceed $684,000, which does not include in-kind costs. He reviewed a chart that illustrates the amount of each activity funded by the City’s General Fund in comparison with the amount funded by the Area 3. Area 3 will only fund 23 percent on an annual basis of the total costs for downtown promotional activities. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson clarified the General Fund is funded by tax revenue that can be spent on these types of expenditures. Mr. Cooper agreed and he concluded that common sense indicates that a rising tide lifts all boats; this has been evident in what the City has experienced in relation to the previous assessment area. Wonderful things have happened in the downtown area and a vibrant and successful downtown truly does directly impact everyone in the community. The assessment area and the economic activities it funds is working as evidence by the award winning downtown area; it will continue to work with the continued support of the Council and community. Chair White called for a public hearing on proposed Resolution 2016-12, entitled: “A resolution of the Ogden City Council appointing a Board of Equalization; authorizing City officials to give notice of the completion of the proposed assessment list and of the date, time, and place of related public hearings; and authorizing City officials to prepare all necessary documents and related matters.” The Deputy City Recorder presented written notice of said hearing and affidavit of the publication in the Standard Examiner on the 27th day of March, 2016 specifying the time and place of this meeting as the time and place when and where the proposed resolution would be given a public hearing and be considered for final passage. The proof of publication was accepted and filed. COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOW ALL INTERESTED PERSONS A FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. John Jex, owner of Empire Printing at 465 22nd Street, stated Empire Printing has been in business in Ogden since the early 1950s and he has owned and operated it for over 45 years. During that period of time he has not imposed on the City for any special favors and he has not received any. He asked if any member of the Council owns a retail business, to which the answer was yes. Council member Blair stated his business is a retail service business and he does not experience an increase in business associated with an increase in traffic as retail businesses do. He addressed the proposal to create the assessment area and stated he feels the City is missing an opportunity to involve everyone in the development of downtown Ogden. This is a regressive tax, which means people that can afford it the least are affected in the most negative way. He stated his business is on the decline and his property is for sale and he likely will not be in business for another three years to pay the tax, but he has been involved in the past assessment areas and he is glad to see that Weber County will take over billing for the assessment with property taxes, because when the assessment was handled by Ogden in the past he received a different notice each month with a different amount on in. Organization of collecting the tax was terrible and he hopes that will improve. He added that in business he is not allowed to raise someone’s taxes to make a profit. He understands the City can do that, but he feels government at all levels is spending money it does not have and that is why it is necessary to place a special tax on certain properties. He stated that the message that is being communicated to him is that he is privileged to do business in a certain part of town, but there are many negative things that go along with the location of his business such as being unable to access his property during certain special events downtown. The community is not just made up of outside chain restaurants that get a tax benefit for coming to the City. He concluded he has not paid the tax in the past based upon general principle. He does not intend to pay it again in the future and he understands that the City has threatened to lien his property. That changes the levy from a regressive discriminatory tax to extortion. Emma and Jose Duran and Angelica Rubio stood before the Council to give their public input. Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith stated it appears there is some confusion and that the Durans and Ms. Rubio are present to hear discussion regarding the proposed rezone of properties on Grant Avenue. She stated that issue will be discussed later in the meeting. Donna Scott, owner of Scotty’s Service Center at 27th Street and Grant Avenue, stated she has been the owner of the business for the past three years and the business has had a presence in the area since 1970. The only thing she gets out of downtown events is people parking in her parking lot, which creates liability for her. She has installed a no trespassing sign, though she does not know if that will help her or not. She asked if there is a law against her charging for parking on her property. She agreed with Mr. Jex about the disorganized billing practices of the City for past assessment areas.  Janith Wright, 2254 Washington Boulevard, stated that she has served on several committees over the years, including a committee for the original special improvement district for the downtown area. Each time the area has been evaluated she has listened to the concerns expressed by property and business owners in the area. She has tried to promote the assessment area in the past, but this time she feels more work is needed and research must be done regarding the promotion of the activities that are being planned. She does not support the assessment area until that has been done. There being no further persons appearing to be heard, COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BLAIR, ALL VOTING AYE. Chair White thanked those that spoke during the public hearing and she noted that each property owner in the proposed assessment area will be given the opportunity to appear before the Board of Equalization, which will hold hearings May 31, June 1, and June 2, 2016. Written protests regarding the assessment area must be filed in writing in the office of the City Recorder prior to May 25, 2016 in order for them to be valid. Mr. Cooper then approached to respond to the questions posed during the public hearing. He stated there were multiple questions about parking in the downtown area during special events and whether property owners can charge people to park on their property. He indicated he does not have an answer to those questions at this time, but he would be happy to discuss the specifics of those concerns with interested parties at a later time. He addressed billing problems in the past and stated that those problems will be rectified by working with Weber County to collect the assessment. He hopes the billing and payment process will be much smoother in the future. He then addressed the comment made regarding requiring the general population to pay for downtown promotional events and he noted that the City’s General Fund is used to fund events. The General Fund is property tax based and all property owners in Ogden contribute to that Fund. He indicated 77 percent of the expenses incurred for downtown promotional events are being paid for by the general population of the City. The property owners in the Area 3 will contribute 23 percent of the funding for the events, which will contribute to a vibrant downtown. Council member Hyer noted that one speaker inquired as to the benefits general property owners receive from downtown promotional events. Mr. Cooper stated that during his presentation he communicated the benefits the entire City receives by promoting vibrant special events. A downtown environment with places to shop, eat, live, recreate, and receive services creates a dynamic situation that promotes a sense of place. He stated many residents have lived through the economic downturns in Ogden in the past and those situations have impacted all residents and business owners. Council member Stephens stated Ms. Wright indicated that more research is needed before the Council should proceed with the creation of the Area 3 and he asked if staff feels that is accurate. Mr. Cooper stated that staff has gauged the benefit of promotional activities through the value of properties downtown. Over the last decade there has been over $1 billion in investment in the downtown area, both privately and publicly, and that is a great indicator that downtown promotional activities are generating interest in the downtown. The City works closely with the Convention and Visitors Bureau to gauge the benefit that promotional activities have on the downtown area and the City as a whole. Council member Stephens asked if it is correct that investment in downtown Ogden has resulted in an increase in property values. Mr. Cooper stated that he cannot say there is a direct correlation, but investment is always a good thing because it removes some of the poor conditions that may otherwise exist. Council member Lopez inquired as to the process property owners who are opposed to the creation of the Area 3 must follow to interact with the BOE. He asked if they will have ample opportunities to have meaningful discussions with the BOE. Mr. Cooper stated the State Statute allows for that. The resolution sets aside an hour on each of the three dates specified to allow property owners to discuss their concerns with the BOE. Council member Lopez asked if there will be opportunity for dialogue between the property owners and the BOE during those hearings. Mr. Cooper answered yes. Mr. Stratford then clarified there are two things that must happen before the City can begin collecting money within an assessment area. First is the creation of the assessment area and second is the development of an assessment list and property owners will have the opportunity to protest the creation of the area as well as the amount that they will be assessed. He stated the City Council as a body considers the creation of the assessment area while the BOE considers assessment amounts. Council member Lopez asked if the City Council is voting tonight to create the assessment area. Mr. Stratford answered no; the protest period relative to the creation of the assessment area is still open and the area cannot be created until that period is closed. The action before the Council tonight is the creation of the BOE. Mr. Cooper added that property owners will receive additional notification of future actions relative to the creation of the assessment area. Council Executive Director Cook stated it has come to his attention that members of the audience misunderstood the purpose of tonight’s public hearing and that only those opposed to the creation of the assessment area had the opportunity to speak. It may be prudent to allow any audience members wishing to speak regarding the assessment area another opportunity to do so. COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED TO RE-OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOW ALL INTERESTED PERSONS A FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI, ALL VOTING AYE. Sarah Tolliver, 2438 Washington Boulevard, stated she is representing the Ogden Weber Convention and Visitors Bureau (CVB) and she offered the CVBs support of the Area 3. She noted she has been involved in past assessment areas through different means. Previous to obtaining her position with the CVB, she was a business owner on Historic 25th Street and owned retail stores. She has been a vocal advocate for the assessment in different capacities. She stated that she grew up in this community and many people have worked so tirelessly to change its image because the downtown was not always the vibrant place it is today. The assessment has facilitated the accomplishment of so many great things to revitalize the downtown area while supporting local businesses. While retail businesses may have an advantage over service businesses, there are also many opportunities for a business to be exposed to the hundreds of thousands of visitors that come to the downtown area over the course of the year. It is better than any marketing campaign a business can pay for; the return on investment businesses receive by participating in the assessment area is significant. From the perspective of the CVB, she wanted to communicate that being able to provide a vibrant downtown community as a venue for various events is something that gives back to the entire community, but primarily to the downtown area by creating a place that visitors want to come to and spend their money to support the growth of businesses that cater to visitors and locals. She strongly encouraged the Council to support the creation of the Area 3. Kim Bowsher, stated she owns a business at 2562 Washington Boulevard, and indicated she wanted to address the Council from three perspectives: first as a community member, second as an event coordinator, and third as a business owner. She stated she moved to Ogden from Washington five years ago after visiting the City twice. During one of the visits the City was hosting a special event and that became a selling point for the relocation that she previously had negative feelings about. She stated that she started a business and bought a home downtown because she was drawn to the events that take place there. She lives in the Oak Den District and she wants to be involved in the community because of so many of the great events. She stated as a business owner she is leasing her business space so she does not directly pay the tax, but she is supportive of the tax and the activities that are funded by the assessment. She stated the events generate so much money and positive benefits for the entire community and she wants to see those events continue. Brett Turner, 2562 Washington Boulevard, stated he owns the building leased by Ms. Bowsher. He loves Ogden and understands that the goal of the Area 3 is to create a vibrant City through community development. He stated that he supports the assessment area. He stated his building houses four businesses that would not have been able to afford locating in Ogden if it were not for a creative use of the space in the building. Their businesses bring more people into Ogden to experience the atmosphere and he is happy to be part of that. There being no further persons appearing to be heard, COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI MOVED THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. Council member Nadolski stated the question was posed earlier as to why all property owners are not considered for special assessment for the purpose of developing downtown Ogden. Mr. Cooper reiterated his earlier comments about the fact that the General Fund pays for 77 percent of the costs of promotional activities. Council member Lopez asked if existing businesses in the assessment area pay property taxes that contribute to the General Fund, to which Mr. Cooper answered yes. Council member Lopez asked if this could be considered double taxation. Mr. Cooper answered no and added the purpose of the assessment area is to create a boundary that captures revenue from property owners that are receiving the most direct benefit of activities that take place in the downtown area. Council member Nadolski stated that some may be concerned that they are paying for the same thing twice and that is disproportionate to what other property owners in the City are paying. Council member Stephens stated he does not agree with that; property owners in the assessment area benefit from the traffic generated by special events in downtown Ogden. Council member Nadolski referenced Mr. Jex’s comment that placing a lien on his property for failure to pay the assessment is extortion. He inquired as to the process used to collect unpaid assessment amounts. Mr. Cooper stated that liens are placed on properties for delinquent payments. The lien would need to be paid prior to the transference of property. Mr. Johnson noted that there may have been confusion created by the billing practices of the City in the past. Each notice sent to a property owner within the assessment area gave property owners the option of paying the entire annual assessment amount or a third of the amount three times each year and that may have been confusing. Council member Nadolski asked if individual property owners have been provided with information regarding how the assessment will impact their annual property tax bill. Mr. Cooper stated individual property owners have not yet received that information, but the next notice owners receive will include that information and they can dispute that amount before the BOE. Council member Nadolski stated that he has been involved in many special events in the past and he understands the vibrancy they create in downtown Ogden. He has also received feedback from business owners. He understands downtown Ogden is the heart of economic development for the community, but he wondered what the Council should tell their constituents that feel they will not benefit from the special events held in downtown Ogden. Mr. Cooper stated he believes every business will benefit directly and indirectly from the assessment. During his presentation he attempted to describe how activities supported through an assessment help to improve vibrancy and sustainability of the downtown area. Without those characteristics present in the downtown area, the City will lose to suburban competition for business attraction. Disinvestment creates a downtown that is not attractive to businesses and residents. Council member Nadolski asked if there is any concern that businesses may close and leave the downtown area as a result of the assessment. Mr. Cooper responded economic development is not a faucet that can be turned on and off; it is a river in which constant paddling is necessary in order to keep from moving backwards. Unless work is always underway to better the downtown area, it will move backwards. Ogden is in a competitive environment and development is constantly taking place in areas surrounding the City. City Administration continues to propose various economic development projects because the City is still digging out of a 40-year regression period. Chair White was excused from the meeting at 6:59 p.m. Council member Stephens stated the value of the special assessment area is that it adds activity to the City, which is the lifeblood of the City. Whether businesses experience an indirect or direct benefit from special events, they are benefitting. Council member Hyer stated he has tried to consider the Area 3 from a business owner’s perspective. Even if businesses in the downtown area do not receive a direct benefit from special events, their property values will increase. That could be the answer to the question asked by business or property owners wondering how the Area 3 will benefit them. Vice Chair Blair agreed. He has participated in BOEs for special assessment areas in the past and he has seen the increase in property values resulting from activities funded in the downtown area. Council member Nadolski thanked the Council and staff for engaging in discussion about the concerns expressed by property owners in the proposed assessment area boundary.  COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED, AND THE CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SAME. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, AND ACTING CHAIR BLAIR. VOTING NO – NONE. Chair White 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 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 Marshal 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 CIP fund of $17,850, to help cover necessary repairs to the Dino Park Education Building that resulted from water damage. Expenses exceeded the insurance payment for the damage. 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 public services. 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. 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. The additional revenue of $5,000 will help cover the cost associated with a recent computer security audit, software and equipment, and 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 now recognizes 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 Fiscal Year (FY) 2016. 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. 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. The Asset Area Control records activities with HUD rehabilitated homes and construction in approved areas. The revenue account for investments into these properties are through loan funds and cash receipts from the sale of these properties. During FY2016 the City has two development areas, the Oak Den and Lincoln Cottages. The activity in the ACA program has 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. Comptroller Stout summarized the memo and stated the total fiscal impact of the proposed budget amendments is an increase to the City budget of $1,484,705. Acting Chair Blair then called for a public hearing on 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.” The Deputy City Recorder presented written notice of said hearing and affidavit of the publication in the Standard- Examiner on the 17th day of April, 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 ALLOW ALL INTERESTED PERSONS A FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI, ALL VOTING AYE. Chair White was not present when this vote was taken. There being no persons appearing to be heard, COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. Chair White was not present when this vote was taken. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEPHENS, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-21 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, AND ACTING CHAIR BLAIR. VOTING NO – NONE. Chair White was not present when this vote was taken. The Acting Chair signed the ordinance as passed and adopted and the Acting 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 2016-25 amending the zoning map located along Grant Avenue between 28th Street and 30 Street th A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department regarding proposed property rezones on Grant Avenue between 28th and 30th Streets came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated adopted in 2013, the City’s Planning Department 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. The current proposal is to rezone properties along Grant Avenue between 28th Street and 30th Street which are residential uses from the current CP-3 zoning to the R-4 zoning. 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. The memo concluded the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at the meeting of December 2, 2015 and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Council. The recommendation 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. The two commissioners voting against the recommendation did so indicating that they felt that residential uses are the long-term intent of the area and that commercial zoning is not a viable use in this area. Two individuals spoke at the meeting. Paul Nanny, owner of Ben Lomond Printing, expressed concern about the impact of residential zoning on commercial buildings. Sue Warnes, owner of Richards Sign Company, expressed concern about the City’s decision to pick which properties would be residential and which would be commercial. She indicated that a residential zoning designation would hurt the value of the commercial uses. Planning Manager Montgomery summarized the memo and stated the area subject to the proposed rezone has been zoned for commercial use since 1951. The Jefferson Community Plan cited continuation of the commercial zone makes all residential uses in the neighborhood nonconforming, which can create difficulties in financing property purchases or improvements. After 65 years of commercial zoning, only 12 commercial developments have occurred and 34 residential properties are in existence. It seems there is no market for commercial activity along this portion of Grant Avenue. There are older commercial uses along the corridor, while more recent commercial developments are storage units, which do not protect the residential properties in the neighborhood. Planning Staff and the Planning Commission feel it is appropriate to proceed with rezoning a number of properties along Grant Avenue to R-1-4 while maintaining commercial zoning for existing businesses. Council member Stephens referenced a vacant lot on Grant Avenue and inquired as to the recommended zoning for that property. Mr. Montgomery noted the vacant lot is adjacent to a commercial use and the Planning Commission has recommended that the commercial zoning for that property be maintained. The property is also bordered by residential uses and if a commercial use is developed on the property in the future the developer will be required to provide screening between the varying land uses. Council member Stephens inquired as to why two Planning Commissioners voted against the recommendation. Mr. Montgomery stated the two Planning Commissioners were opposed to maintaining commercial zoning in the area as they feel that residential development is the long term intent of the neighborhood. They would prefer to zone all property residential and make commercial uses nonconforming. Council member Nadolski referenced a small restaurant in the neighborhood and he asked if the zoning of that property will remain commercial, to which Mr. Montgomery answered yes. Council member Nadolski asked if that zoning designation will stay with the property if it is sold to another owner in the future, to which Mr. Montgomery answered yes and added that would also be the case if the property were considered nonconforming. The only time a nonconforming status is discontinued is if the use ceases for a at least one year. Acting Chair Blair introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-25, entitled:  “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the zoning map of Ogden City as adopted by Section 15-3-3 of the Ogden Municipal Code, to classify as multiple-family residential zone (R-4) and limited scale neighborhood commercial zone (NC-1) land in the regional commercial zone (CP-3) located along Grant Avenue between 28th Street and 30th Street as more particularly depicted on the map attached to and adopted as part of the 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 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. Acting Chair Blair then called for public input regarding the proposed ordinance. Emma Duran and Jose Duran, 2980 Grant Avenue. Ms. Duran stated they have lived in Utah for 55 years and they have seen many changes. They do not oppose any special events that happen in downtown Ogden that impact their ability to access their property, but they are not experiencing special benefits associated with the location of their property. The sidewalks on their street are in disrepair and people are living in their garages. She stated that she was surprised to hear taxes are being increased. She wishes Ogden was like it was 55 years ago, but now it is nothing but apartment buildings and it is very commercialized. Mr. Duran added that many people do not have sufficient parking at their own homes. Ms. Duran stated it seems the Council is trying to create a big City that is very commercialized. The residents have real needs that are not being met and a lot of bad things are happening. She stated that she agrees with the comments made by Mr. Jex because everything he said was true. Assistant City Attorney Stratford asked the Duran’s if the address they provided was their home address, to which Ms. Duran answered yes. Mr. Stratford asked if it is a single family home, to which Ms. Duran answered yes. Angelica Rubio, 2812 Grant Avenue, stated the address she provided is a home address. She stated she understands taxes are being increased and she asked what the residents will get in return. Milan Warnes, stated he is the owner of Richards Sign Company. He referenced a commercial property that contains a newer commercial building and the Planning Commission has recommended that the property be zoned R-4. He stated it is his understanding that the Planning Commission recommended that the commercial zoning for existing commercial uses be maintained, but the map provided by Mr. Montgomery does not reflect that recommendation. He indicated that 60 percent of the two blocks of property being considered this evening is commercial. Most of the homes in the neighborhood are rental properties and the owners have no intention of remodeling or borrowing money to make improvements. He wondered why these two blocks in the Jefferson neighborhood have been singled out; there are commercial properties to the south and north and rezoning the two blocks being considered this evening for residential use seems counterproductive. If he desired to purchase the property next to his business to convert it to a parking area for his employees, he would not be allowed to do so if the property were zoned residential. He stated if the home were listed for sale, no one would purchase it and renovate it as has been communicated in the transmittal from Planning staff. The presence of commercial properties in the area is not preventing residential property owners from improving their properties and he reiterated that the majority of the residential properties are rental properties. He would recommend that the zoning of the entire area remain zoned as it currently is. Lee Nanny, no address given, identified a commercial property and vacant lot that he owns in the neighborhood. He has listed the property for sale and it is currently under contract. The buyer wants to make improvements to the property and develop the vacant lot and he asked what type of screening the new owner would be required to provide between a commercial and residential use. He stated that he has owned property in the area for 35 years and he does not understand how changing the zoning to residential will dramatically improve the neighborhood. He stated he understands that residential zoning would make it easier for owners of residential properties to secure loans to improve their property, but that is not a common occurrence in this neighborhood. The only property owners maintaining their properties are commercial property owners and the rest of the properties continue to deteriorate. He stated that if a commercial property is considered nonconforming, its value will decrease because of additional restrictions and conditions placed on it. Sue Warrens stated she is the co-owner of Richards Sign Company, which has been located on Grant Avenue since 1969. She is concerned about rezoning of the property that could negatively impact the value of the property. She stated that she would like to have the option to purchase the home next to the property and convert it to parking in the future, but that would not be allowed if the zoning were changed to residential. She stated that many people do not maintain their property and oftentimes the neighborhood is a scary place to be and that is not because of the commercial aspect. Business owners are concerned with improving the area, but that would be more difficult if the zoning were changed. If homeowners want to improve their homes they should have options for doing that. The only homes that are well maintained are the two across the street from her business and that is because the owner maintains them weekly and communicates well with his tenants. Mr. Stratford referenced the comments made during the previous public meeting by Mr. and Ms. Duran and Ms. Rubio. He asked that the Council recall those comments when considering this item. Acting Chair Blair invited Mr. Montgomery to address the comments made during the public input period. Mr. Montgomery addressed the questions regarding why the zoning change is being recommended. He stated that several years ago certain property in the neighborhood was changed from commercial to residential based upon a Council member’s request. The Council member had heard from homeowners who indicated they could not make improvements to their home or refinance their mortgages because of their nonconforming designation. The City felt it appropriate to zone all residential properties to residential zoning. He stated that commercial property owners have asked that their properties not be classified as nonconforming, yet they are comfortable with requiring residential properties to be nonconforming. He emphasized that the recommendation before the Council tonight is to implement zoning changes that would make all existing uses in the neighborhood permitted uses so that all property owners are treated equally and fairly. He addressed the property referenced by Mr. Warrens and indicated that it is used by a church, which is permitted in the R-4 zone. He then addressed Mr. Nanny’s questions regarding screening between land uses. The City’s ordinance indicates that if a commercial development takes place and it contains outdoor storage or parking that could impact adjacent residential properties, the owner must screen those uses. A 10-foot setback is required between the property line and the building to allow for light to enter windows in the residential structure. The buffer will protect the integrity of the homes while allowing the business to operate. Such protections have not occurred in the past when storage units have been allowed to build closer to residential properties because all properties carried a commercial zoning designation. He clarified that of the existing buildings in the neighborhood, 34 are residential and 13 are commercial. He concluded by summarizing the definition of a nonconforming use; it is such a use that was legal when the building was built and the use will be allowed to continue. If a nonconforming residential building sits vacant for one year, its status is revoked. If a nonconforming commercial building is vacant for one year, the commercial use can continue with certain provisions. A nonconforming use prohibits expansion onto another property unless rezoning of the other property takes place to allow the expansion. Council member Garner asked if Richards Sign could expand their business if they were to purchase the property adjacent to them and seek rezoning of that property. Mr. Montgomery answered yes. Council member Lopez inquired as to who made the initial proposal to consider the rezoning of the subject properties. Mr. Montgomery stated it was a suggestion included in the Jefferson Community Plan, which was developed by a public involvement process with good representation from the community. Council member Lopez inquired as to when the Plan was developed. Mr. Montgomery stated it was updated most recently two years ago, but the first iteration of the Jefferson Plan developed over 20 years ago included the same recommendation. The City Council considered rezoning the subject properties when the Plan was initially developed, but decided against the action because they felt the two block area had more commercial potential than residential potential. Council member Lopez asked if any property owner has made the recent claim that they have applied for and been denied a loan for their home because of its nonconforming status. Mr. Montgomery answered no. Council member Hyer asked why an owner of a property with a legal nonconforming certificate would have difficulty securing financing from a bank. Mr. Montgomery stated that financial institutions feel there is some uncertainty associated with properties with legal nonconforming certificates. Typically, nonconforming certificates are issued in instances where alternative development of an area is being considered and there could be the potential for a bank’s financing to be unsecured. Council member Lopez inquired as to the reason that none of the residents of members of the Steering Committee that worked on the Jefferson Community Plan are present this evening advocating for the rezone. Mr. Montgomery stated he does not know why none of them are present. Council member Hyer stated it is very common for members of a Steering Committee to become inactive in the implementation of the recommendations of the Plan once it is adopted. He stated the fact that none of those members or residents are not present this evening has no bearing on his decision regarding this matter. Council member Lopez stated that some people put their entire life savings into building a business and if for 65 years the area has been zoned commercial, the businesses that have located there have likely done so in hopes that the area will continue to grow commercially. He stated he is concerned about the message the City will be sending to business owners that have started their businesses in this area in hopes of prospering. He added he understands that the businesses could be given a nonconforming certificate, but he is still concerned about proceeding especially given that there is no one present this evening advocating for the change. Mr. Montgomery clarified that the recommendation does not include rezoning the commercial properties and declaring them nonconforming. Council member Lopez stated he understands that, but the rezone will prevent any other commercial development from occurring in the area and that could have a negative impact on the existing businesses. The action will stall potential future growth. Council member Hyer commented there is no pressure to take any action and no petitioner requesting the change. However, he is inclined to move forward with the recommendation of the Planning Commission for the sole purpose of protecting the residential properties; someone owns the homes whether they are rental properties or owner occupied. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-25 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, NADOLSKI, AND ACTING CHAIR BLAIR. VOTING NO – COUNCIL MEMBERS LOPEZ AND STEPHENS. Chair White was not present when this vote was taken. Council member Lopez reiterated his previous comments, noting that there is no one present advocating for the change and if he were a business owner in the neighborhood he would prefer for the commercial zoning to stay intact to allow for other small businesses to locate there. He stated he does not believe that any residential property owner has been negatively impacted by the nonconforming status assigned to their property by way of being denied financing for their property. Council member Stephens agreed with Council member Lopez. He stated other businesses may be interested in locating to the area and he does not see the value in changing the zoning from commercial to residential. Council member Nadolski stated that he was torn on this issue as well and many of the comments made by Council member Hyer resonated with him. The lingering concern he has is that there is no real need to proceed with the rezone action at this time, but it is his hope that if the business owners have a legitimate need or concern about land use in the future that City staff and the Council will work with them. The Acting Chair signed the ordinance as passed and adopted and the Acting 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. Mayor Comments  Mayor Caldwell addressed the Council’s action regarding the development of the Central Business Assessment Area 3 (Area 3) and stated that one item that was not discussed is the fact that the Utah Office of Tourism estimates that tourism related spending provides over $1,000 of tax relief to every family in the State of Utah each year. This is not easy to measure, but it does give a direct benefit to everyone in the community. He stated that when the American Planners Association (APA) visited Ogden and recognized Historic 25th Street as one of the Top 10 Streets in America, they noted that just 25 years ago, 35 of the 42 buildings on the street had been vacated or abandoned. Bringing people to the downtown area has allowed for revitalization and redevelopment of the area. He appreciates the Council supporting the assessment area. He referenced Ms. Tolliver’s comments regarding the 20 percent increase in tourism spending this year and a 20 percent increase in 2015; those are large increases and it is important to have a plan to increase revenue and business viability in the downtown area. Council member Comments Council member Garner also addressed the creation of the CBAA 3. He stated that it is his hope that as the Board of Equalization (BOE) meets with property and business owners in the proposed area that they will listen to suggestions offered. Council member Nadolski asked that City Administration follow-up with the residents that were confused regarding the item they were speaking about tonight; he does not want them to leave the meeting without a clear understanding of the implications of the actions taken by the Council this evening. Council member Stephens addressed the creation of the CBAA 3 as well and stated it is easy to look back just five years and see the improvements and growth that have occurred in Ogden as a result of the special events that have been produced in the City. It is important to have those events to increase the quality of life for residents and visitors alike. 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 HYER 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 GARNER, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, AND ACTING CHAIR BLAIR. VOTING NO – NONE. Chair White was not present when this vote was taken. The meeting adjourned into Closed Executive Session at 7:52 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 8:27 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Council, COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 8:27 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. Chair White was not present when this vote was taken. ________________________________________ ABBIE ZAMPEDRI DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ BART E. BLAIR, ACTING CHAIR APPROVED: June 7, 2016