City Council

Minutes of Joint Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, May 3, 2016 Page Minutes of the Joint Work Session of the Ogden City Council, also acting as the Redevelopment Agency, held on Tuesday, May 3, 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 Council members Neil K. Garner (arrived at 3:34 p.m.) Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski (arrived at 3:39 p.m.) Doug Stephens Excused: Vice Chair Bart E. Blair 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 Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Management Services Director David G. Buxton Public Services Director Jay Lowder Assistant City Attorney Mark Stratford Comptroller Lisa Stout Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Deputy City Recorder Julia LaSeure The purpose of the Joint Work Session was to hear presentations and have discussions regarding the following:  Agenda review for City Council and Special Redevelopment Agency meetings;  Proposed Donation to BV Maple Holdings/Ball Ventures, LLC for Fred Meyer Building Demolition;  Proposed FY2016 Budget Amendment – Property Purchase, Donation to BV Maple, and Branding Projects;  Proposed Write-offs of City Loans/Advances to three Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Districts;  Vacation Rentals; and  Council and Board business. Agenda Review Council Executive Director Cook and other members of Council staff briefly reviewed the items listed on the agendas for the regular City Council and Special Redevelopment Agency meetings scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. Proposed Donation to BV Maple Holdings/Ball Ventures, LLC for Fred Meyer Building Demolition Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith explained City Administration proposes to grant or loan $100,000 to BV Maple Holdings/Ball Ventures, LLC to fund demolition of the Fred Meyer Building located at 262 12th Street. The proposal requires compliance with State law, which calls for the City to prepare an incentive study. The study has been completed and will be discussed by City Administration. Community and Economic Development Director Christopulos explained that when considering this type of action, the City is required to complete a study to show that funding in the form of a grant to any private business meets a public purpose. The study must indicate the value received, as well as the tangible and intangible benefits of the project. He explained the property at 262 12th Street was the business location for a Fred Meyer store until 2002. The property has changed ownership several times but has remained vacant and poorly maintained. The approximately 150,000 square foot building located on the property is rapidly deteriorating adding blight to and negatively impacting an important and promising commercial district within Ogden City. He noted that in 2012 the City Council and City Administration set policy that would allow for grants or loans for projects that would aid in removing blight from underdeveloped properties to increase the City’s tax base, as well as create and retain jobs. He explained BV Maple Holdings Utah, LLC (BV Maple), an Idaho limited liability company and subsidiary company to Ball Ventures, acquired the property in 2012 and has determined that the structure of the building is compromised, can no longer be economically viable as a renovation or reuse, and threatens the health and safety of City residents. Initially, the City was focused on aiding in reuse of the property for commercial purposes, but that has proven to be difficult for the City and the owner. After months of discussion and considering all viable alternatives, Administration and staff has determined the most efficient and least costly action the City can take is to help facilitate demolition of the dilapidated building on this property by making a $100,000 grant/loan to BV Maple for assistance in the demolition of all the structures on the property. The action of removing the buildings is a significant and appropriate step to encourage more rapid redevelopment of the property and surrounding area and will result in a higher probability of successfully attracting end-users to the site. He reviewed the anticipated benefits to Ogden City as a result of proceeding with the grant/loan. City Administration expects future development at the site to generate an additional $112,700 in property tax revenues and $30,000 in sales tax revenues annually beginning in the next five to seven years. Additionally, offering funding at the onset of the project makes it unnecessary to create a Redevelopment Area or Commercial Development Area (CDA) in the future, which will reduce future costs. Economic benefits from the project include bringing a unique asset to the community by providing more centrally located health care facilities, the creation of high paying jobs, and removal of the last major piece of blight in the area. The grant/loan is structured in a manner that the recipient will be required to pay back the entire loan amount plus five percent interest if the project is not completed on the site before August 1, 2018. Mr. Christopulos concluded that City Administration recommends the City Council set a public hearing to consider input on a study for a $100,000 loan to partially fund the demolition of the former Fred Meyer Building located at 262 12th Street. Should there be no negative public input, Administration further recommends the City Council adopt a resolution approving the loan agreement and promissory note. Ms. Eller-Smith asked about the estimated value of the development of the property if everything goes as planned. Mr. Christopulos answered approximately $32 million and indicated the study is based upon that figure. Council member Lopez asked about the classification of the high paying jobs that will be created by the project. Mr. Christopulos responded the jobs would be in the medical arts field. Council member Stephens asked if the City will incur the cost of demolition. Mr. Christopulos answered no, and explained the owner must acquire a demolition permit, after which the City will provide the $100,000 grant/loan amount within 90 days. The owner originally wanted to proceed with demolition in May, but they are currently completing an environmental study, which has identified asbestos. The owner will need to complete asbestos remediation before proceeding with acquiring a demolition permit. Demolition of the building will be very costly and the $100,000 provided by the City will likely cover one-third or less of the cost. Council member Stephens asked about the proposed layout of the new development. Mr. Christopulos reviewed a plat of the property and illustrated the proposed layout. The project will be completed in at least two phases; the phasing is dependent on how the market develops over time. The existing parking areas will likely be used for the primary structure. Council member Lopez asked how many jobs the project is expected to create. Mr. Christopulos replied his guess is between 50 and 100 jobs but that depends on the final configuration of the project which will be decided upon by the future tenant. Ms. Eller-Smith briefly reviewed the schedule for setting a public hearing regarding the study. Council member Nadolski asked if any member of the Council is aware of who the actual tenant of the new project will be. Mr. Christopulos answered no and stated that information is confidential at this point. Chair White asked if the loan agreement caps the City’s contribution at $100,000. Mr. Christopulos replied the only way the City would provide more funding to the project would be through the creation of a simple CDA, which would be accomplished via an agreement between the City and Weber County for any extraordinary costs associated with the project. This could be related to environmental issues or redevelopment of the parking lot. He concluded this project is not one that will receive extensive support from the City, instead, the developer will have the greatest financial responsibility. Chair White asked if the project would follow the City’s plan review process. Mr. Christopulos answered yes. Council member Lopez asked if the City Council can receive more information about the tenant of the project in a closed executive session. Mr. Christopulos responded he is not permitted to discuss the tenants based on confidentiality agreements related to the project. Ms. Eller-Smith added that is not a subject that can be discussed in a closed executive session as the City can only talk about the purchase or sale of property in a closed executive session. Mr. Christopulos indicated once the property transaction closes he can provide public information to the Council. At hand this evening and over the course of the next several meetings the Council will need to decide whether to fund the grant/loan to facilitate the demolition of the building to address a public nuisance. Council member Nadolski asked about the funding source for the $100,000 grant/loan. Mr. Christopulos answered funding is included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and Comptroller Stout will discuss the funding details under the next agenda item dealing with a budget amendment. Proposed Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Amendment – Property Purchase, Donation to BV Maple, and Branding Projects Ms. Eller-Smith explained the Administration transmitted a request to amend the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 Budget to transfer funds from the General Fund and Business Depot Ogden (BDO) Enterprise Fund for a property purchase, a loan/grant for demolition of the Fred Meyer building on 12th Street, and projects to support the City’s rebranding efforts. Comptroller Stout explained the purpose of the proposed budget amendment is to recognize a budget opening to the General Fund and the BDO Enterprise Fund of Ogden City. The BDO Enterprise Fund has sufficient retained earnings to appropriate funds, in the amount of $193,524, for transfer to the City's General Fund. The transferred funds are proposed to be appropriated in the General Fund for three purposes. First, is a property purchase and environmental assessment, in the amount of $93,600 at 281 West 33rd Street. The property purchase price is $87,500 and it is estimated that an environmental assessment and closing costs on the property will total an additional $6,100. This budget opening is in coordination with the Community and Economic Development Department and their request for the City Council to adopt a resolution and ratify the purchase of this property. Second, is a loan in the amount of $100,000 to help fund demolition of the blighted building at 262 12th Street. This amendment relates to the request from the Community and Economic Development Department for the City Council to adopt a resolution approving a grant/loan for the project. The third and final purpose is to appropriate $100,000 to cover expenditures associated with the branding effort of Ogden City. Ms. Stout mentioned one immediate recommendation in branding the City was the installation of wayfinding signs. Council member Stephens asked if this use of BDO lease revenue funding will result in a decrease in funding availability for the FY2017 budget. Ms. Stout responded the budget amendment was accounted for in the proposed FY2017 budget and it will not be necessary to make any adjustments to proposed CIP funding in that budget. Mr. Cook referenced the branding project and noted the Council will receive a presentation from the City’s brand consultant, Roger Brooks, regarding his recommended project scope. He added additional funding is included in the FY2017 budget for the project. Ms. Eller-Smith concluded Council staff will place the matter on an agenda to schedule a public hearing for the budget amendment on June 7, 2016. Proposed Write-offs of City Loans/Advances to three Redevelopment Agency Tax Increment Districts Ms. Stout explained the City made three advances to Redevelopment Agency (RDA) tax increment districts that have balances outstanding. This was allowed due to the uncertainty of whether they would ever be repaid to the City. Those advances had estimated collections and outstanding balances/net allowances of $0. The 25th Street Tax Increment District expired in 2015 as it pertains to funding for payments related to these advances. It was determined that this debt would never fully be repaid and an adjustment on the advance, in the form of an allowance was made in FY2007. The original principal for this advance was $4,211,805, total principal and interest paid to the City on this advance equal $8,064,927. The City recovery in excess of the original loan balance is $3,853,122. She explained the Washington Boulevard Tax Increment District expired in 2008 and increment from that district could only be used for The Junction debt payment after 2008. Since increment could not be used to repay the debt in that area as it pertained to the advances of interfund loans, the entire balance was adjusted for in the form of an allowance during FY2007. Original principal for this advance was $3,021,617, with total principal and interest paid to the City on this advance equaling $3,106,265. The City recovery in excess of the original loan balance is $84,648. The final advance to the Central Business District (CBD) Mall Tax Increment District in the amount of $1,751,601 was also allowed for in FY2007. The increment revenue from this district is necessary for bonded debt repayment and maintenance on the parking structures in the CBD Mall Tax Increment District. It is anticipated that this advance will never be repaid, even though the district does not expire until tax year 2026, which is FY2027 for the City. In 2007 the City auditor recommended that the City and the RDA completely write off the advances from the City against the allowances on those advances, since no additional increment will be available to repay these advances. City Administration makes the same recommendation today. She concluded there will be no fiscal impact to the RDA or to Ogden City. When an allowance on debt is established, an expenditure is recognized in the amount of the allowance at that time, in this case in FY2007. To remove the receivable and the allowance from the books, it is a balance sheet transaction only and no additional expense will need to be recognized in FY2016. Council member Nadolski asked if the debt was actually paid off in FY2007 but not recouped due to insufficient revenues since that time. Ms. Stout replied the debt was not paid off. The RDA received a non-operating gain in the year that the debt was allowed for and there was no exchange in cash. The action was a simple accounting transaction to recognize a gain allowing for debt. An allowance was booked to allow for the debt and the receivable amounts to be left on the City’s accounting records. When allowances are netted together they are reflected as a $0 balance in accounting records. Ms. Eller-Smith emphasized that the proposed action will not result in a fiscal impact to the City budget. Ms. Stout stated that is correct as the financial damage was recognized in FY2007. Vacation Rentals Council Policy Analyst Symes explained that since 2014 time the Planning Division has been researching the issue of short-term vacation rentals as the popularity of this use has increased in Ogden City. The Planning Division developed a proposal and presented it to the Planning Commission which made a recommendation of approval to the Council. The proposed ordinance would provide regulations for vacation rentals with regard to spacing, occupancy, off-street parking, maintenance, garbage collection, appearance, signage, management, and other specifics related to the use of a residential unit use as a vacation rental. The proposal would limit residential vacation rentals to multi-family zones with vacation rentals allowed in single-family residential zones if the owner is reducing the number of non-conforming units within the structure. Planning Manager Montgomery made a presentation and provided the Council with basic information about vacation rentals as well as the current Planning Commission proposal regarding the use. He explained a vacation rental is the use of a dwelling unit for temporary lodging (less than 30 days) by anyone other than the owner, where compensation is provided in any form for the temporary lodging. It is also a shared economy concept of bed and breakfast or boarding house in a residential setting and stays at vacation rentals are generally booked online. Vacation rentals have become a large business in the market. Airbnb has more listings worldwide than the largest hotel group. Not all vacation rentals share the same income levels, in fact earnings range between $95 and $18,480 for summer bookings. He explained individual owners assume responsibility for legality, insurance, and risk. Mr. Montgomery mentioned the variety of ownership and management styles for vacation rentals. Some of the reasons that people are choosing vacation rentals over hotels is that they can typically accommodate larger gatherings of people who want to be together, but they can also accommodate smaller groups who want to be on their own. Hotel rooms are often costlier with lower occupancy rates and vacation rentals provide the ability for more controlled settings relative to issues such as noise, food preparation, ability to store equipment or vehicles, and convenience. He reviewed the land uses currently permitted in Ogden City as follows:  Hotel/ Motel – Lodging for traveling or business public who have primary residence at another location. (C-2, C-3, CBD)  Residence – Place where a person is living at a point in time and intends to remain and is not a place of temporary sojourn (stay as temporary residence) or transient visit. (All residential zones and C-2, C-3 and CBD, limited to family or three unrelated people in dwelling)  Bed and Breakfast – Owner occupied dwelling on historic register where eight or fewer rooms are rented by the night and one or more meal is provided by owner to guest. (R-3, R-5, C-2, C-3)  Boarding House – Rooms rented nightly together with meals for not more than 15 people. Operator must reside on premise. (R-4, R-5 with distance separation of 1,000 feet, also C-2, C-3) Vacation rentals are currently a permitted use in the C-2, C-3, and CBD zones since it fits the definition of hotel/motel. The use is currently illegal in all residential zones, the MU zone, and manufacturing zones. Following is a summary of the reviews and discussions among the Planning Commission and City Council regarding vacation rentals:  July 16, 2014 – Planning Commission work session on vacation rentals. Seven people spoke on the issue. Planning Commission directed staff to investigate the issue.  December 17, 2014 – City Council work session with Planning Commission on findings and possible ordinance. One person at work session.  January 7, 2015 – Planning Commission held public hearing on proposed ordinance. Thirteen people spoke at hearing. Planning Commission tabled item to March 4, 2015 to consider input.  February 12, 2015 – Planning Commission members met with citizens of the Trolley District to discuss the issue and receive input.  February 18, 2015 – Planning Commission work session based on what had been discussed in January and February.  March 4, 2015 – Planning Commission continued public hearing and recommended ordinance to City Council.  May 5, 2015 – City Council work session.  June 9, 2015 – City Council work session.  June 22, 2015 – City Council holds public input session. Eleven people spoke at public input session.  August 18, 2015 – City Council work session. Mr. Montgomery discussed Utah law as it relates to vacation rentals. House Bill (HB) 409 was considered in the 2016 Legislative Session and included the following language: “Notwithstanding Subsection (1) or Section 10-9a-501, on or after the effective date of this bill, a legislative body may not enact, amend, or enforce a land use ordinance that governs short-term rentals.” The legislation was not adopted, but was referred to a Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT) Committee, which is working to address the implications of the proposed legislation and find a State-wide solution. Ogden City has been allowed to continue operating within current ordinances and consideration of ordinance amendments relative to the land use. He stated he feels the ULCT will work to incorporate Ogden’s recommendations in their final recommendation to the State Legislature. This will benefit Ogden and other communities across the State. There was brief discussion regarding the implications of HB 409 and the role Ogden City representatives may play in addressing issues that could be created by its passage. Mr. Montgomery indicated in order to move forward it is important for the Council to have an understanding of the City’s goals for residential neighborhoods. If everyone understands the goals, decisions can be made based upon those goals rather than public clamor. Some goals for the City’s residential neighborhoods include creating neighborhoods of choice, stability, increasing owner occupancy, improvement, and increased property values. Mr. Montgomery asked if the Council feels these are common goals. He indicated they are included in the City’s General Plan and the Quality Neighborhoods Initiative. He asked that the Council consider these goals as they consider regulations regarding vacation rentals. One question to ask is why it is appropriate for the City to regulate the land use. He feels the answer is that opposing issues and determining a fair standard for all in the hospitality industry are the main reasons for regulating. It is important to ensure housing availability and affordability, protect quality of life relative to neighborhood issues, consider economic development and tourism promotion, and to level the playing field. He expounded on the concept of creating a level playing field noting that hotels are required to pay the transient room tax of 4.25 percent plus a one percent addition by the City. This same tax is currently not imposed on vacation rental properties. Business license costs for hotels are $83, plus a $105 disproportionate fee, plus $7 per employee while a bed and breakfast pays $83 plus the $105 disproportionate fee. He noted that vacation rentals are currently not permitted but they continue to operate within the City; therefore, they do not pay a business license fee. He addressed property taxes and indicated that if a dwelling is used as income producing property it should be assessed at 100 percent of its value, but vacation rentals currently in operation within the City are only taxed at 55 percent as they are considered a residence. In addition, bed and breakfasts or boarding houses must be owner occupied and there are limitations on their locations and occupancy. Mr. Montgomery summarized the differences between rental dwellings and vacation rentals as follows:  State law defines a rental dwelling as a residence if it is intended to be rented for a month or longer time period.  There are certain things cities can and cannot do in relation to rental dwellings; fair housing issues, etc.  A rental dwelling is the family’s residence. They are not on vacation or operating a business at the dwelling. The month long period is an additional distinction between vacation rentals and rental dwellings even though both are “rentals”.   Family definition is another distinction. A family is defined as three or fewer unrelated people or people related by blood or marriage in a single nonprofit housekeeping unit for a dwelling whether an owner occupied or rental dwelling. Mr. Montgomery discussed several “changes to the landscape” since the Council last discussed vacation rentals:  Boulder, Colorado – Effective January 2016. Vacation rentals are permitted only in single family owner occupied dwellings. Approved based on a ballot measure approved in November of 2015 to allow the city to charge a tax of 7.5% on vacation rentals to pay for enforcement of regulations and any excess revenue is to go to affordable housing development.  Austin, Texas – February 23, 2016. Remove non-owner occupied single family rental units as an allowed use and amortize all existing in that category. Create requirements for a local contact, safety inspections, occupancy limits, and outdoor activity limits.  Park City, Utah – Restricted vacation rentals from certain neighborhoods and hired additional code enforcement solely for vacation rentals.  Townhomes at River Bend, Ogden, Utah – Complaint about disruptive nature of vacation rental in one of the units (late night activities). Mr. Montgomery mentioned other types of business activities that can occur in residential zones throughout the City. He stated that accessory dwelling units (ADU) must be owner occupied with a limit on size and occupancy of two people plus minors. Home occupations are also permitted if the property is owner occupied though there are limitations on activities. For example, direct sales are not permitted from a home unless the items sold are produced at that home. Rental housing is also permitted. Use of a rental property must mimic owner occupancy and the occupants must meet the definition of a family. He stated staff was asked to explore the option of allowing vacation rentals in the R-1 and R-2 zones of the City and staff feels that one key condition that should be placed on vacation rentals in single family homes is that the home be owner occupied rather than owned by a company or an individual that does not live in the home. Council member Hyer mentioned that some homeowners in the City travel to other destinations during the summer or winter months and asked if that means that their properties could not be rented during the times they are not staying in their homes. Mr. Montgomery answered that would depend on the definition of owner occupancy. The Weber County Assessor considers owner occupancy when determining how a property should be assessed and the County’s rule is that an owner must live in their home for 183 consecutive days in order for it to be considered owner occupied. Other jurisdictions require that a home be an owner’s primary residence and its address appear on all documents such as voter registration, automobile registration, driver’s license, etc. in order for the home to be considered owner occupied. It will be necessary for the Council to consider the definition of owner occupancy relative to vacation rentals. Staff also feels there should be limitations on the number of people that can stay at a vacation rental in a single family home and that a single property should not be classified as an ADU and vacation rental at the same time. Council member Stephens asked if the Fire Code restricts the number of individuals that can stay in a given property. Mr. Montgomery replied Fire Code requires a certain amount of square footage per individual but the amount of square footage varies depending upon the land use. He mentioned other ideas Planning staff have considered which include the creation of a City webpage listing licensed facilities and contact names as well as requiring inspections every two years for non-owner-occupied properties compared to a single inspection at the onset of licensure of an owner-occupied vacation rental. He summarized the ordinance proposed by the Planning Commission regarding vacation rentals in residential zones:  Create a definition because it is different than a family occupying a residence.  Set standards that will not be detrimental to the neighborhood or create potential life and safety hazards to occupants.  Permit requirement – yearly renewal. o Floor plan of room uses o Site plan of parking available o State issued sales tax license o Whether property is owner occupied  Building Code Compliance. o Complies with current egress window size and location o Has functional interconnected fire alarm  Permitted in R-2, R-2EC, R-3, R-3EC, R-4 and R-5.  1 per linear block (both sides of street).  Not in single family zones unless converting a nonconforming use or legal conforming duplex. o Loss of nonconforming status with conversion  2 people per bedroom +2.  Parking. o Non-owner occupied  2 legal parking spaces – four bedrooms and 10 occupants  More than four bedrooms – 2 legal parking spaces plus ½ per additional bedroom o Owner occupied  2 legal parking spaces plus ½ per bedroom   Can increase total occupancy number to 1 person per 200 square feet of living space if other standards are met. o Any sleeping room designed for more than 2 occupants per room has code compliant exit door directly to the exterior of building.  Garbage pickup, animals kept inside, management, etc…  Advertising to list maximum occupancy based on ordinance, number of sleeping rooms, low ceilings, number of legal parking spaces, and permit number. There was general discussion regarding the Planning Commission’s recommendations with a focus on the regulation that only one vacation rental would be allowed per linear block on both sides of the street. Council member Lopez asked if the Council has the option of including an item on a future election ballot to allow the citizens to decide whether vacation rentals should be a permitted use. Mr. Montgomery referenced Boulder, Colorado’s ballot measure, which asked citizens to vote regarding whether vacation rentals should be taxed. Council member Lopez stated that jurisdiction waited to make a decision on whether to permit vacation rentals until the taxation issue was voted upon. Mr. Montgomery stated that is correct, but noted he would not suggest the Council use ballot measures to make land use decisions as it gives greater favor to special interest groups. He noted the Council has been elected to make land use decisions and if people feel the Council has made the wrong decision, that decision can be referred to voters. Mr. Cook asked if there is a fiscal note attached to the proposed ordinance. Mr. Montgomery replied any time new land use regulations are enacted, the City’s Code Enforcement Division is charged with enforcing those regulations and that has fiscal implications. Council member Nadolski stated the regulations are only as good as the enforcement measures taken by the City. He asked if there are plans to strongly enforce the regulations if they are enacted in the future. Mr. Montgomery responded enforcement will be key to making the regulations successful. He stated there are multiple enforcement options, after which he discussed issues that would be violations of the ordinance proposed by the Planning Commission, including the owner allowing more people in the vacation rental area than permitted, allowing users to sleep outside, allowing more parking than permitted, excessive noise, failure to maintain the property, fraudulent transactions, advertisement of a vacation rental without the proper permit, and any other use of the property in violation of the ordinance. He added that violations can result in revocation of the permit for the use and the owner could not be allowed to apply for reinstatement for at least three years. Council member Lopez asked whether there has been extensive public input regarding this issue. Mr. Montgomery replied there have been several opportunities for public input. Mr. Symes noted the Council packet materials for this item include the minutes of all meetings where public input has been allowed and offered. He referred to a work session held in 2015 that was dedicated solely to allowing public input regarding vacation rentals and pointed out the input the Council received was split. The City has specifically reached out to people that have been interested in the issue in the past or who otherwise have a particular stake in the proposed ordinance and there were not as many participants as he had anticipated. The input did; however, seem to be representative of the community’s feelings about the issue. Mr. Christopulos added it would be improper for the Council to expect public consensus on this topic because that will never be the case. Mr. Symes agreed. Council member Stephens asked why two Planning Commissioners voted in opposition to the Planning Commission’s recommendation. Mr. Montgomery replied Commissioner Schade felt that the ordinance should be more restrictive and that vacation rentals should not be allowed in the R-2 zone. He also felt that vacation rentals should be required to meet the same regulations as bed and breakfast uses. Commissioner Southwick voted in opposition because he felt vacation rentals should be allowed in all single family zones throughout the City. Mr. Symes suggested it may be appropriate for the Council to continue their discussion of the proposed Planning Commission ordinance during a future meeting. Council member Nadolski asked if it is correct that none of the vacation rentals currently operating illegally would be considered a conforming use upon adoption of the Planning Commission’s proposed ordinance. Mr. Montgomery replied it is staff’s understanding that there are seventeen vacation rentals in single family zones in the City and twelve vacation rentals in multi-family zones. At least five or six of them would be legal with opportunities for others to be legal with modifications to the property. Council member Nadolski asked if it is fair to classify the Planning Commission’s recommendation as restrictive, to which Mr. Montgomery answered yes. Council member Nadolski stated he is trying to consider how vacation rentals could impact the availability of single family homes in neighborhoods throughout the City. Mr. Montgomery reiterated he would recommend that the Council consider the City’s goals for neighborhoods when considering this issue. Council member Nadolski indicated his final concern relates to timing of this issue. He is concerned that the issue is being considered by the State Legislature and potential legislation is looming on the horizon that could impact any ordinance the City enacts. Mr. Montgomery stated he feels the City’s adoption of an ordinance would help drive the direction of the ULCT committee and the State Legislature. Chair White suggested if the ULCT is taking advice from Ogden City, it is important to consider an ordinance soon, but it is also important to ‘get it right’. Mr. Montgomery expressed his belief that it is necessary to make a decision soon and mentioned the Planning Commission and City Council have been discussing the issue for over a year and a half. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson commented that the City was granted the ability to proceed with consideration of an ordinance regarding vacation rentals because the process had commenced before the State Legislature considered legislation regarding the land use. He indicated his feeling is that the City needs to act on the issue and address it for the community. Mr. Symes concluded that Council staff will work to find a time soon for the Council to continue discussion regarding this issue. He indicated he is willing to meet individually with Council members in the meantime. Council member Nadolski expressed interest in understanding the enforcement tools available to the City if the ordinance were adopted. He would also like to understand the fate of vacation rentals currently operating in the City. He asked if long-term, permanent rental uses would be an option for properties that are currently being used as vacation rental properties. Mr. Montgomery replied single family homes can currently be used as long-term dwelling units and that will not change upon adoption of the proposed ordinance. The meeting adjourned at 5:34 p.m. /s/ Julia LaSeure JULIA M. LASEURE, MMC DEPUTY CITY RECORDER /s/ Marcia L. White MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: July 26, 2016  Minutes of Regular Meeting of Council of Ogden City, Utah, May 3, 2016 Page Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers on the third floor of the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard, Ogden City, Weber County, Utah. Present: Chair Marcia L. White Council members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski Doug Stephens Excused: Council member Vice Chair Bart E. Blair 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 Chief Deputy Attorney Mara Brown Management Services Director David G. Buxton Public Services Director Jay Lowder Comptroller Lisa Stout Deputy Finance Manager Camille Cook Community Development Manager Ward Ogden Project Coordinator Sara Meess Fire Chief Mike Mathieu Deputy Fire Chief Matt Schwenk Deputy City Recorder Julia LaSeure At the request of the Chair, all present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council member Lopez. A moment of silence was observed. Joint Proclamation proclaiming May 12, 2016 “Make-A-Difference Day” in Ogden City A joint proclamation regarding “Make-A-Difference Day” in Ogden City came before the Council for consideration. Council member Garner read the joint proclamation, after which COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE JOINT PROCLAMATION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. Council member Garner presented the proclamation to Public Services Director Lowder. Mr. Lowder thanked the Mayor and Council for this recognition. He stated each year the success of “Make-A-Difference Day” grows and the impact the event has on the community broadens. Due to recent damage resulting from wind storms there is no shortage of projects to complete on “Make-A-Difference Day”. He concluded by again thanking the Mayor and Council for their support. Approval of Minutes Council member Lopez stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Work Session of February 9, 2016. He noted his name is misspelled on the first page of the minutes and he corrected a typographical error on page two, line 45 of the minutes. He indicated that otherwise the minutes are accurate to the best of his recollection. COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ THEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS AMENDED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. Proposed Resolution 2016-11 adopting the Annual Action Plan for the Period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 and directing that this document be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; and Proposed Resolution 2016-13 amending the Own In Ogden down payment assistance program; and Proposed Resolution 2016-14 approving the creation of a Microenterprise Loan Program  A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department came before the Council to consider a resolution adopting the Annual Action Plan (AAP) for July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017. The memo stated when receiving federal funds for economic development and housing programs, the City is required to submit a Consolidated Plan (ConPlan) to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) every five years. The plan was updated and adopted in 2015 for fiscal years (FY) 2016 through 2020. The ConPlan is part of the City’s application to HUD for Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) federal grants money. Along with the ConPlan, the City must prepare and submit an AAP each year as part of the annual application for funds. The AAP indicates how funding will be used during the coming year and how the grant funds will further the goals listed in the ConPlan. Community Development Manager Ogden reviewed the memo and stated every five years HUD requires preparation of a Five-Year ConPlan that describes the City’s physical and socio-economic conditions and strategies the City will implement to address its community and economic development goals, particularly through the use of federal grant funds. Each year, as a part of this process, the City is also required to submit an AAP to HUD along with the City's annual grant agreements for CDBG and HOME programs. No changes to the existing ConPlan goals are anticipated at this time; however, one program, the Microenterprise Accelerator Program, has been added. Although this program has been added, no funds are allocated at this time. The inclusion of the program during the FY2017 AAP adoption allows the Community and Economic Development Department to fund the program in the future. The Community and Economic Development Department’s Citizen Advisory Committee met February 24, 2016 and reviewed the proposed FY2017 AAP. The recommendation to City Council is the adoption of the FY2017 AAP as presented. The AAP serves as the application for $982,810 of CDBG funds and for $337,240 of HOME funds from HUD for Community Development and Business Development programs and projects outlined in Ogden City's FY2017 AAP budget. In addition, the AAP budget for FY2017, which includes entitlements, carryover funds and program income, is $5,692,388. A second memo from the Community and Economic Development Department came before the Council to consider a resolution amending the Own In Ogden down payment assistance program. The memo stated as part of the CDBG funding from the federal government as well as City funds used for community development infill and revitalization projects, the City has developed programs that target specific actions, goals or objectives. For each of the programs, the City has approved guidelines to specify the parameters for use of the funds in a given program. Changes to the program guidelines are approved by the Council. City Administration is proposing changes to allow qualifying current City employees and new hires who reside outside of the City, or those who rent within the City, to receive a $10,000 loan for the purchase of their primary residence in the overall target area. Mr. Ogden reviewed the memo and briefly discussed some of the objectives and goals to be accomplished in the coming plan year, after which he addressed the proposed changes to the Own in Ogden program. He explained the Own In Ogden program has been in operation since 1988, utilizing over $3,500,000 to help approximately 1,500 low to moderate income (LMI) households purchase homes in the target area. Since 2011, the Own In Ogden program has provided LMI homebuyers a $3,000 or $5,000, zero percent interest, deferred payment loan, which is due on sale, change of title or residency. The guidelines allow for $10,000 to assist Ogden City police officers and firefighters. In 2013, teachers were added to the category of public servants eligible to receive $10,000 down payment assistance loans. A small handful of police, fire fighters and teachers combined have applied for the program. The City continues to support and fund down payment assistance as a means of assisting LMI households to become home owners and to facilitate homeownership in neighborhoods with high rental rates. During the development of the FY2017 AAP, the Community Development Division was approached by Human Resources requesting that the Own In Ogden Program provide $10,000 down payment assistance loans to Ogden City employees and new hires as an employee incentive. Through the years, very few city employees have applied for Own In Ogden down payment assistance. This change will both provide an employee incentive and promote homeownership in the Own In Ogden target area. Chair White asked if the Own in Ogden program will be made available to all employees or just full-time employees. Mr. Ogden replied at this time the program will only be made available to full-time employees. A third memo from the Community and Economic Development Department came before the Council to consider a resolution approving the creation of a Microenterprise Loan Program (MLP). The memo stated the program is intended to provide loans of between $5,000 and $20,000 to microenterprise owners for both training and direct business expenses. The program falls under Priority Objective #9 of the five-year ConPlan adopted in May 2015. Priority Objective #9 is to stimulate economic growth and includes the Central Business District Revitalization program and the Ogden Business Exchange project. The Administration has identified a need for a loan program for microenterprises which are commercial enterprises that have five or fewer employees with the owner being one of the employees. The loan program is designed to provide funding for both training and direct business expenses to the microenterprise. With training, the city would coordinate and designate training providers for the microenterprise owner. The loan amount would depend on the funding need and availability and would range from $5,000 to $20,000. As proposed, if the microenterprise reaches $250,000 in annual revenue within five years the loan would need to be repaid at an interest rate of 5% for a term of five years. If this level of revenue is not reached within five years, the loan will be converted to a grant and no repayment would be required. Reporting requirements are also included in the proposed guidelines. The intent of the program is to assist microenterprises and create economic opportunities. Proposed funding for the program is CDBG funding which may be used for these purposes if the funding benefits LMI individuals, an LMI area, or an LMI microenterprise owner. Project Coordinator Meess reviewed the memo and provided the Council with information regarding the MLP. She stated CDBG-eligible activities that support microenterprises can include financial support, technical assistance, training, business services, and general support such as counseling or childcare. The CDBG regulations allow for additional flexibility in microenterprise programs that serve the LMI population. She explained Community and Economic Development Department staff has identified a need for an MLP that will support microenterprises by providing funding for both intensive training and direct business expenses, the primary objective of the MLP is to facilitate the success of microenterprises in Ogden and to create economic opportunities for entrepreneurs. The value proposition for microenterprises is that training and technical assistance will be provided as part of the funding package, and other loan terms will be more flexible. Although microenterprises are eligible to apply for funding through the City's Small Business Loan Program and Central Business District Revitalization Program, the MLP will provide an added benefit by combining funding with training and technical assistance. Training and technical assistance are critical for microenterprises because they are often in the start-up phase and lack the experience and resources needed to succeed. The training portion of the MLP will be managed by an Ogden City designated training provider, while funding for business expenses will be administered in the same manner as Ogden City's existing loan programs. She explained Community and Economic Development Department staff is proposing that the program be a pilot program for the first year to test its success. Chair White called for a motion to open a public hearing on proposed Resolution 2016-11, entitled: “A resolution of the Ogden City Council adopting the annual action plan for the period July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017, and directing that this document be submitted to the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.” Chair White called for a motion to open a public hearing on proposed Resolution 2016-13, entitled: “A resolution of the Ogden City Council adopting changes to the Own in Ogden Down Payment Assistance Program.” Chair White called for a motion to open a public hearing on proposed Resolution 2016-14, entitled: “A resolution of the Ogden City Council adopting a Microenterprise Loan Program.” The Deputy City Recorder presented written notices of said hearings and affidavits of the publications in the Standard- Examiner on the 23rd day of April, 2016, specifying the time and place of this meeting as the time and place when and where the proposed resolutions would be given public hearings and be considered for final passage. The proofs of publication were accepted and filed. COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ALLOW ALL INTERESTED PERSONS FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. There being no persons appearing to be heard, COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED THE PUBLIC HEARINGS BE CLOSED. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI MOVED RESOLUTION 2016-11 BE ADOPTED, AND THE CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SAME. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Vice Chair Blair was not present when this vote was taken. COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED RESOLUTION 2016-13 BE ADOPTED, AND THE CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SAME. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Vice Chair Blair was not present when this vote was taken. COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ MOVED RESOLUTION 2016-14 BE ADOPTED, AND THE CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SAME. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEPHENS, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Vice Chair Blair was not present when this vote was taken. Presentation of the tentative FY2017 Budget and proposed Resolution 2016- 15 accepting the tentative budget of Ogden City for Fiscal Year 2016- 2017 for review; and Proposed Ordinance 2016-27 adopting the tentative budget of Ogden City for Fiscal Year 2016-2017 A memo from Council staff came before the Council to consider a resolution accepting the tentative budget of Ogden City for FY2017 for review and an ordinance setting a public hearing for June 21, 2016 for consideration of adopting the tentative budget of Ogden City for FY2017. The memo stated every year the Mayor is required by law to present his proposed budget at the first council meeting is May. The Council then reviews the budget through a series of work sessions over the next two months. A tentative budget is adopted after an initial public hearing is held. A second public hearing is then held on the final budget. During the budget hearings the Council enters into the record their proposed changes for the public and Mayor to respond to. Once the final public hearing is closed, the Council makes its changes and adopts the final City budget. This budget must be adopted by June 22, of each year as required by State law. An exception may be made to the timing if a proposed property tax increase has been included in the budget. Mayor Caldwell made a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Council with his FY2017 budget proposal. First, he discussed recent recognitions and honors the City has received and stated he believes these awards are a result of the hard work the City Council and Administration has done to be good stewards of tax dollars. He said during a recent meeting with the branding project consultant, the consultant pulled him aside and said he has never seen a community the size of Ogden receive so much unique national attention for some of the things happening in the City. Mayor Caldwell then discussed some recent community highlights, including:   Twilight Concert Series o 8,895 tickets sold o $38,064 in food and beverage sales o Tickets purchased from 118 different zip codes o Voted “Best New Concert Series” by the Salt Lake City Magazine  Sharing the story of the City o With the Economic Development Administration in Washington, D.C. o With the Outdoor Industry Association in Seattle  Jobs o 30 businesses located or expanded in Ogden o 756 new jobs created or committed with an additional 115 pending  Housing o Riverbend  148 apartments and 10 townhomes  $14 million in construction permit values o Oak Den  14 new single-family homes  $2.5 million in construction permit values o Towerview Apartments  144 apartments  $15 million in project cost  Highlighted in Newsweek Magazine’s article “The Most Equal City in America”  Featured on CNBC in a piece entitled “A City Back from the Brink” Mayor Caldwell discussed projects on the horizon for the coming fiscal year, including the Branding Ogden project, which is a collaborative effort to create a unified message regarding Ogden that will help to shed negative perceptions and shape perceptions for a prosperous future. The budget also includes funding for the new City website project. The new website will have a heavy focus on citizen engagement, be mobile responsive, include modern features, and follow best practices for civic websites. City Administration will continue to communicate and engage with citizens through social media. So far over 1 million people have been reached through social media and the City has over 300,000 video views. This results in tens of thousands of dollars in positive publicity. He discussed significant fiscal issues the City has been dealing with in recent history, beginning with employee issues in the City’s Police Department. Upon completion of a benchmarking study, City Administration found there were 200 better paying police positions within the State of Utah and approximately 20 positions in the City’s Police Department were vacant with 38 officers threatening to leave their employment with the City. The City Council was asked to make difficult decisions to identify funding to move toward competing with the market for public safety positions. Proposed solutions for providing competitive pay included developing a 12-step pay plan for Police Officers based on years of service and a nine-step pay plan for the Fire Department based on years of service. The fiscal implications of these two solutions were $1,254,422 and $1,120,054 respectively. He noted that across the State of Utah, municipalities use an average of 70 percent of property tax revenues to fund public safety. Some municipal government officials have indicated that best practice would be to pay 100 percent of public safety costs using property tax revenues. He reviewed a chart comparing Ogden’s property tax revenues with public safety costs, noting that the City’s property tax revenue only covers 22 percent of public safety operations. He stated the City’s property tax rate has not been adjusted for nearly 30 years and, while considering a property tax rate can be very difficult for the City, he believes the Council must engage in dialogue about the need for increased property tax revenues. He stated it is important to note that Ogden City is just one of the taxing entities that receives a portion of the property tax paid by residents. Taxes are divided among the Mosquito Abatement District (0.75 percent), Weber Basin Water (2.69 percent), Central Weber Sewer District (4.51 percent), Ogden City (18.09 percent), Weber County (19.77 percent), and Ogden City Schools (52.22 percent). He noted that of the 18 percent of property tax revenue received by the City, 78 percent is dedicated to the City’s operating budget and the other 22 percent is dedicated to debt service on the City’s General Obligation (GO) bond. He indicated the GO bond debt will be retired this year and he believes the City has a unique opportunity to increase property taxes in order to capture the money that was previously being dedicated to GO bond debt service and redirect it to the operating budget. Without increased revenues in the City’s operating budget, City Administration is at a loss as to where to find needed funding for the public safety increases. He emphasized that the amount of money paid by Ogden City residents will not increase as a result of the recommended tax increase. He then mentioned another dire funding need in the FY2017 budget is capital improvement projects, which total $4,362,250. There are many very important infrastructure projects included in the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) and he is excited to see those projects come to fruition. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson noted that when the Council was first asked to address the wage issues in the Police Department, the funding action taken used one-time monies and City Administration is now asking the Council to fund the solution on an ongoing basis and to address a similar solution in the Fire Department. He added that the course correction would bring public safety wages in line with the market and increase wages to the point they would have been if employees had consistently been receiving wage increases over the years. The estimated cost to train a Police Officer or Fire Fighter is $40,000 and that money cannot be recouped when a public safety employee leaves their employment with the City for another jurisdiction. He summarized highlights of the proposed budget and noted that going into the FY2016 budget the City relied on very positive economic forecasting that indicated the economy would fully recover from the recession by the year 2020. The current forecasts; however, are not quite as positive and a weaker U.S. forecast is predicted due to looming uncertainty about federal reserve rate hikes and exacerbated by important political events over the next few months. Additionally, outlooks indicate that recovery and growth is too slow and too fragile and while recovery is under way, it is progressing too slowly. He noted several years ago the City formed a revenue committee that meets monthly to assess the revenue and trends for the City as well as perform forecasting for each impending Fiscal Year. Some of the forecasting done by the committee relates to the following subjects:  Property Tax o 3 Redevelopment Project Areas expire adding $250,000 revenue  Centrally assessed o Truth in taxation. Enacted in 1987, first time ever for Ogden City o Why? Capture the balance of levy now paid off o Rate change to be determined in June after certified tax rate is available  Sales Tax o Volatile, subject to consumer confidence, spending, growth, Internet tax o State sets rates, all have been enacted by County and City o 3-year trend for Ogden is about 4% annually o Programmed a growth of 4.25% over FY2015 actual  Franchise Tax o Based on utility revenue earned by companies in Ogden City and impacted by temperatures o Rates set at the State level and all possible rates have been enacted by the City o Budget in franchise tax is based on a review of the past three-year history and the direction it appears revenue is trending  Telecommunication Tax o Steady decline in revenue source o Collected by the State and passed to the City o Little control or insight into who or how it is paid to the State  Business License o Revenue is relatively consistent  Building Permits o Increased dramatically in last 3 years o Expected to grow with planned redevelopment and density  Road Funds o Tax at the gas pump based on number of gallons o Funding based on road lane miles o Not growing, but expect an additional $300,000 annually with increase enacted  Citations and Fines o Revenue is relatively flat or declining  Amphitheater o Ticket sales added based on success of Twilight Concert Series Mr. Johnson compared the FY2016 budget with the FY2017 budget, noting the General Fund is proposed to increase by 4.51 percent. The total proposed budget is $180,644,275 which is a $154,775 increase over last year. He discussed the State of Utah “truth in taxation” law the City must follow when considering a property tax increase, with a focus on the noticing the City must provide to taxpayers. The language the City must use can be confusing and, for that reason, City Administration plans to publish an additional notice ‘in plain language’ that will explain to taxpayers that the amount they pay to the City will not increase as a result of the proposed tax increase due to the fact that the City is simply diverting the money previously used for debt service into the general fund. He then shifted focus to accomplishments in the City, citing the following:  Consistent employee raises, medical insurance, and retirement costs  Employee safety and security  Computer equipment maintenance and replacement  Fleet maintenance and replacement  Other equipment and tools maintenance and replacement for Fire, Police, and Public Services  No reduction of federal dollars this year  Water, sewer, and storm sewer infrastructure improvements Relative to wages and benchmarking, the proposed budget includes funding for four percent employee increases and the creation of a step pay scale for the Police and Fire Departments. Employee compensation funding is the first item programmed in the budget each year, but it is contingent upon the Council approving the final budget. All City positions have been benchmarked, which has resulted in a proposed increase of $27,700 in the general fund. The City’s health insurer, SelectHealth, did not request an increase for health insurance costs and no plan changes have been proposed. Relative to retirement, the Utah Retirement System has requested no increases for general employees or Police Officers and they offered a .10 percent decrease for fire employees. He concluded that City Administration’s proposed budget as well as the presentation used by Mayor Caldwell and himself will be available on the City’s website by 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. He thanked the City employees that have played a role in developing the proposed budget and acknowledged the role Council staff played in the process. He stated City Administration is very grateful for the time and effort the City Council puts into the budget process as well. City Administration is very proud of the fact that all Department Heads and many employees have input in the budget process. The budget development process is a very collaborative one and that is indicative of the current culture of Ogden City government. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Resolution 2016-15, entitled: “A resolution of the Ogden City Council accepting for review the tentative budget of Ogden City for Fiscal Year 2016-2017.” COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ MOVED THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED, AND THE CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SAME. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEPHENS, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Vice Chair Blair was not present when this vote was taken. Chair White then introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-27, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, adopting the tentative budget of Ogden City for Fiscal Year 2016-2017, setting a public hearing to consider a proposed change in the certified tax rate, and setting a public hearing to adopt the final budget.” 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. The proposed ordinance was then read by long title. COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI MOVED A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON JUNE 21, 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. Vice Chair Blair was not present when this vote was taken. Mayor Comments Mayor Caldwell thanked the Council for their willingness to consider the budget proposed by City Administration and thanked all the employees that had a role in preparing the budget. He stated most of all he wants to thank the community for the amazing manner in which they responded and helped their neighbors with damages sustained in the recent wind storms. He commented there was an amazing collaboration between public safety and public works officials to address the needs of the community and the outcome was another reason to be proud to live in Ogden City. Council member Comments Council member Nadolski echoed Mayor Caldwell’s sentiments regarding the community response to wind storm damages. He stated there is so much discussion about infrastructure and development in the City, but it is truly the citizens that define the community. Both the residents and employees in Ogden City defined the City’s values over the past week and he could not be more proud of the people that live in and work for Ogden City. He asked that his gratitude be passed on to the employees of the City. He mentioned that under Ogden City’s form of government the Mayor and Council are separate powers but over the past week everyone worked on the same team to form one Ogden and he is very proud of that. Council member Stephens discussed the upcoming “Make-a-Difference Day” in Ogden City and mentioned it is an event that has grown from year to year and other cities are trying to produce similar events due to its success. The event is an opportunity to improve and refresh Ogden. Last Sunday he drove past the Green Waste Facility and saw a line of trucks waiting to get into the facility to unload the green waste they had gathered after the wind storm. He thanked the City employees for providing the opportunity for residents to access that service on a Sunday. A Rocky Mountain Power employee visited his home this morning to reconnect his power lines and indicated he had heard nothing but great things about the response of the citizens and employees of Ogden City. He stated the adoption of a City budget is one of the main responsibilities the City Council has and it is gratifying to know that City Administration makes it a priority to take care of City employees. He is proud to consider the budget that has been presented this year. He then stated that last week he ‘spoke out of turn’ and he offered his apologies to Council member Nadolski; each City Council member has the ability to voice their individual opinions and it is important to do that in a professional manner and he did not act professional. Council member Nadolski noted that Council member Stephens phoned him to discuss the issue and he appreciates the discussion they had. He stated that he expects Council members to disagree with one another and he welcomes disagreement as long as everyone can continue to respect each other and work together. Council member Garner acknowledged the hard work performed by City employees in response to the wind storms last week. There were many other agencies that responded to damage and they did a great job in responding to the needs of the citizens. He added he was also pleased to accept the Administration’s proposed budget for review knowing there is a focus on increasing wages for employees, especially those in Public Safety that keep the City safe. Chair White stated she participated in the recent Comcast Cares Day where 400 people participated in cleaning up a section of the Ogden River. She is hopeful that work was not erased by the recent wind storms. She mentioned she recently visited the Ogden Nature Center to view the new eagle nests, which provide great housing for eagles. There being no further business to come before the Council, COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 7:27 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. Vice Chair Blair was not present when this vote was taken. /s/ Julia M. LaSeure JULIA M. LASEURE, MMC DEPUTY CITY RECORDER /s/ Marcia L. White MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: July 26, 2016  Minutes of Special Meeting of Redevelopment Agency of Ogden City, Utah, May 3, 2016 Page Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency held on Tuesday, May 3, 2016 at 7:28 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 Board members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski Doug Stephens Board Administrator Bill Cook Board Deputy Administrator Janene Eller-Smith Board Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Manager Amy Sue Mabey Excused: Vice Chair Blair Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Community Development Manager Ward Ogden Deputy City Recorder Julia LaSeure Proposed Resolution 2016-11 authorizing the establishment of a survey area comprised of approximately the land bounded by and including the following streets – 23 Street to 28 Street from Washington Boulevard to rd th Jefferson Avenue A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department came before the Council to consider a resolution authorizing the establishment of a survey area for the Adams Avenue Renewal Area. The memo stated City Administration is requesting that the Board adopt a resolution designating the Adams Survey Area. Boundaries for the Survey Area are proposed to be 23rd to 28th Streets and Washington Boulevard to Adams Avenue. The proposed resolution also authorizes and directs the Administration to complete a blight study as required by state law and report the findings to the Board. A schedule for Board actions and public notice will be established once the blight study has been completed and reviewed by staff. It is estimated that the study will take thirty to sixty days to complete. Community Development Manager Ogden summarized the memo. In 2008, in anticipation of the creation of the East Washington Urban Renewal Project Area established between 20th and 24th Streets and Washington Boulevard and Adams Avenue, the Agency adopted Resolution 2008-9 designating a survey area generally between 20th and 27th Streets from Washington Boulevard to Jackson Avenue ("East Central Survey Area") for the purpose of determining feasibility and whether blight existed in that area. In 2010, the Agency found that blight did indeed exist in this area and subsequently adopted Resolution 2010-22, making a finding of blight, and Resolution 2010-30 approving the East Washington Urban Renewal Project Area Plan. Agency staff, as a function of the Quality Neighborhoods Initiative, is currently working on multiple prospective projects within the original East Central Survey Area and anticipates the need for tax increment financing as a source of funding along with the statutory benefits of an urban renewal area. Due to constraints within Section 17C-2-102 of the Utah Community Development and Renewal Agencies Act (the "Act"), the Agency Board may not approve a project area plan more than one year after adoption of a resolution making a finding of blight. Therefore, it has become necessary, in pursuit of a new project area, to begin the process anew pursuant to Section 17C-2-102 of the Act. A resolution has been prepared for consideration by the Board regarding the designation of the Adams Survey Area which is comprised of parts of the original East Central Survey Area and authorization of staff to contract with a third party consulting firm to conduct a study to determine whether blight, as defined in the Act, exists within the proposed Adams Survey Area. Mr. Ogden briefly reviewed the adoption process and timeline for creating the Adams Survey Area and reported City Administration recommends the Board approve the proposed resolution authorizing the establishment of the Adams Survey Area located approximately between 23rd and 28th Streets from Washington Boulevard to Jefferson Avenue. Board member Stephens asked when this proposal will be presented to the Taxing Entity Committee (TEC). Mr. Ogden replied staff meetings with the TEC have not yet been scheduled, but staff anticipates scheduling a blight hearing before the RDA Board prior to the project being presented to the TEC. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Resolution 2016-11, entitled:  “A resolution of the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency authorizing the establishment of a survey area comprised of approximately the land bounded by and including the following streets – 23rd Street to 28th Street from Washington Boulevard to Jefferson Avenue.” BOARD MEMBER HYER MOVED THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED, AND THE CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SAME. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LOPEZ, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – BOARD MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Vice Chair Blair was not present when this vote was taken. There being no further business to come before the Board, BOARD MEMBER LOPEZ MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 7:33 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER NADOLSKI, ALL VOTING AYE. /s/ Julia M. LaSeure JULIA M. LASEURE, MMC DEPUTY CITY RECORDER /s/ Marcia L. White MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: August 16, 2016