City Council

Minutes of Work Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, May 17, 2016 Page Minutes of the Work Session of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 3:31 p.m., in the Council Work Room located 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 3:34 p.m.) Council members Neil K. Garner (arrived at 3:34 p.m.) 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 Council Office Supervisor Mavis Hawley Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Public Services Director Jay Lowder Recreation Manager Edd Bridge Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Community and Economic Development Deputy Manager Brandon Cooper Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Comptroller Lisa Stout Deputy Finance Manager Camille Cook City Treasurer Brandee Johnson Deputy City Recorder Abbie Hufstetler The purpose of the Work Session is to review the agenda for the City Council meeting, discuss the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 proposed budget for the Community and Economic Development Department, a Competitive Youth Sports Board, the Sales Tax Report, and Council 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 scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. There was brief discussion about the procedure the City, Bond Counsel, and the City’s financial advisor will follow relative to the proposal to refund water and sewer bond and issue new bond debt. FY2017 Proposed Budget Council Staff Review: Council Executive Director Cook stated that each year Council staff provides a high level overview of the proposed budget for the coming fiscal year. He reminded the Council of several high profile items included in the proposed: Police and Fire salary adjustments, a property tax increase, four percent merit increase for general employees, General Fund financial model development, new transportation funding resources, and funding to implement the branding initiative. He noted the budget process has been underway for several months, but most recently the proposed budget was presented to the Council by the Mayor on May 3, 2016. The budget process will extend through August 9, 2016 as the City follows statutory requirements for considering a tax increase, otherwise known as the Truth In Taxation process; however, the final budgets for the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and Municipal Building Authority (MBA) will be considered on June 7, 2016 following a public hearing. Eight work sessions have been scheduled for the purpose of reviewing the tentative budget and two of those work sessions have already been held. The total proposed budget is slightly higher than $180 million; the general fund budget will be increasing by $2.4 million due largely in part to salary adjustments. The RDA budget is being reduced by $2.2 million and the MBA budget is increasing by just $5,000. The tentative budget includes an additional funding mechanism for the Weber Morgan Strike Force at the amount of $330,000; this is a new addition and the Council will receive an in depth presentation regarding that issue. Mr. Cook discussed utilities briefly, noting the water fund will reduce by $5.7 million; the sewer fund will increase $1.3 million; the storm sewer will decrease by $443,000; and the refuse fund will not experience an increase or decrease. Each of the funds will be discussed in depth during the Public Services budget review. He referenced the Airport and Golf funds and noted both are important because they are subsidized by the general fund. The Airport fund is being reduced by $80,000 and the golf fund is being increased by $35,000. Relative to staffing there is a total of 605 full time positions proposed; two positions have been eliminated and eight have been added for a net increase of six. Twelve positions have been reclassified and all positions in the City were benchmarked this year resulting in six title changes. He concluded by reviewing the schedule for departmental budget reviews over the remaining six meetings and noted all budget materials will be contained in an electronic budget workbook that the Council will have access to through their individual Dropbox accounts. Community and Economic Development Department: Mr. Cook stated that Community and Economic Development (CED) Department staff has been provided with questions the Council and Council staff have regarding their budget and they will be given an opportunity to make a presentation and respond to those questions. CED Director Christopulos used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Council with detailed information about his Department’s budget as well as to answer the questions asked of him by Council staff. The first question dealt with the manner in which he will distribute merit increases to his employees. He noted that in his Department he focuses on goals and objectives for his employees, all of which are based on changing the financial trajectory of the City. Economic Development staff goals are based on tax increases and job creations while Community Development goals include reaching the goals of the Quality Neighborhoods Initiative, blight reduction and meeting comprehensive plan goals. Building Inspection staff goals are based on skill improvement and customer satisfaction as determined via survey. Code Enforcement staff goals are based on case resolution and follow-through inspections. Base compensation rates for his employees are determined by benchmarking where possible, but there are many hybrid positions and it can be difficult to get direct comparable positions or benchmarks for those. Each employee is then ranked and those consistently meeting their goals and improving their skills are given a score of three while those occasionally meeting their goals or improving their skills are given a score of two. The majority of the scores in the department are between 2.2 and 2.5, which qualifies an employee for the total allowed raise as determined in the budget. Those above the 2.5 are eligible for a slightly higher increase typically one percent additional; those below 2.0 receive a lower rate of increase. Council member Stephens asked who is responsible for setting an employee’s goals, to which Mr. Christopulos answered each Division manager. The goals are based upon the Department objectives and mission that has been established. He noted he reviewed each employee’s goals before they are given final approval. Council member Garner asked if it is possible to stay within the budget allotted for employee increases even though some employees may receive more than a four percent increase. Mr. Christopulos answered yes and stated that he must stay within budget; the average increase is four percent. Council member Hyer asked if the goal oriented model for the Department encourages teamwork among employees or if it incentives individual performance. Mr. Christopulos responded that each project managed by his Department is handled by a team; there are no single projects managed by an individual from beginning to end. Teams are self-forming and often include employees from other Departments throughout the City. He then discussed Planning and addressed the request made by Council staff for an explanation of the additional funding for overtime and temporary employees. He noted that in 2002 the overtime budget for the Planning Division was eliminated as part of a cost reduction strategy; three planners and the secretary for the Department are all non-exempt and subject to a 40-hour work week. The Planning Staff is required to staff evening meetings such as Planning Commission, Landmarks, Board of Zoning Adjustments, neighborhood meetings, and Trails Committee meetings and activities. Since the elimination of overtime, the only way to make this up is coming in late or leaving early during other days of the week to make sure the 40-hour limit is not exceeded. This leaves the Planning Division understaffed during certain days to provide service to the public during normal hours and complete other assignments of the typical review process. Even though schedules have been juggled to compensate it has proven difficult when there is a confluence of illness and overtime days. Extended illness can leave the City uncovered at the front desk and making customer support ineffective. Having an overtime budget allows flexibility to make sure that we are fully staffed at times of high demand. He stated he has also requested funding for a part-time employee for the Division at the cost of $15,000 and a part-time employee to serve as a backup for the Administrative Assistant for the Division so that an additional employee will be trained on the duties of that position in the event the full-time employee is not able to continue working as planned. Council member Hyer stated that he can remember times when the Planning Staff was larger and they were able to be more proactive in their work; as staffing levels have been decreased, the staff is forced to be reactive rather than proactive. Mr. Christopulos stated that it will never be possible to return to the staffing levels that were in place in 2002, but reallocating resources in the Division could be effective. He stated long term planning is important and the Planning Manager has been charged with looking for modern techniques for accomplishing tasks of the Division. The sense of City Administration is that the City is ‘mature’ and it does not make sense to raise staffing levels to mirror staffing levels in emerging cities. He stated he is hopeful that increasing funding and flexibility for overtime will be helpful, but if it is not he may be making a different recommendation to the Council in coming years. Council member Hyer stated that the General Plan will need to be revisited and updated soon as it has been nearly 20 years since its adoption. He added that it has taken nearly 30 years to move through the process to develop community plans for every area of the City and that is too long. Mr. Christopulos stated that is one of the interesting trade-offs in a budgeting system. The City has made the decision to make a significant investment in Police and Fire, which resulted in a lack of funding and flexibility for other Departments. He stated he would love to have three or four more employees on his staff, but that is not an option at this time. Council member Stephens asked if there are different times throughout the year when the workload of Planning Staff is greater than usual. Mr. Christopulos stated that the building and construction season is much busier, but it is often possible to prepare for that. It is often necessary to increasing staffing levels or provide for overtime in the months leading up to construction season. He stated that this year is a very busy year and he is happy to see that. Mr. Christopulos then discussed the Planning Commission. Council staff asked for him to discuss the equipment reimbursement plan for the Planning Commission and he noted that a few years ago the City Council “gifted” to the Commission their old electronic devices. Commission could receive the packets electronically, on time to allow study, and have reference to items discussed without needing paper copies, but the old devices have failed or are failing and cannot be serviced. The packet access is key to having all the information needed, and going back to the inefficient paper copies and mailing of packets seemed counterproductive. After discussing this with the Information Technologies (IT) Division a program is proposed as follows: • The present Commission would receive a stipend of $300-$400 to purchase an IPad or other portable device to be used to receive the Planning Commission packets on. (We are still getting the final prices on the devices that would do what is required) After this initial time each new commissioner will receive that stipend when they come on the Commission. They may use the money to go toward purchasing a more advanced system, but the difference between the upgrade and the stipend would be the Commissioner’s responsibility. • An agreement would be entered into that if the person does not serve at least one year of the term they would have to repay the city. • The personal device is the Commissioner’s and will not be required to be returned once the term ends with the exception of #2 above. • After an 8-year term and the Commissioner is continuing they would receive a new stipend to upgrade their device. Mr. Christopulos addressed Council staff’s request for an explanation of the parking analysis that CED will be completing. He stated that CED has been working on the development of a master downtown parking plan. The first section has been to collect data on each block, identify both public and private parking numbers, parking allocations and building sizes and uses to determine which buildings have a shortage of parking, no parking or are fully compliant. Historical parking patterns and lot ownership have also been identified to determine the changing character of parking demand and needs. Property tax impacts are also being reviewed as background information of the impact continued requirement of surface parking has on the development potential of the downtown. General maintenance costs of lots are another factor for consideration to determine what the cost of “public” parking really is. Research on parking strategies of other downtowns is being conducted and their approach to downtown parking. Revisions to the zoning ordinance regarding downtown parking requirements are expected as the present parking standards are based on suburban models. Time management of parking, identified areas of new parking needs based on development, land value utilization, walkability and connections to destinations and approaches to provide funding for public parking will be the outcome of the plan. Council member Stephens asked if staff has considered placing bike racks to reduce parking requirements for certain users in the downtown areas, such as the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). Mr. Christopulos stated that bike racks have been considered, but the IRS has a unique policy with their employees whereby they must provide a parking stall for each of their employees at shift change, which requires double the number of parking stalls than employees. The City can suggest various programs to reduce parking requirements, but until such programs yield results the City must address the current parking needs. Discussion centered on the potential to transition to a pay for parking program in downtown Ogden, with Mr. Christopulos stating that the decisions made about such a transition will be based on data provided by the parking analysis and a subsequent study to be completed by a consulting firm. Mr. Christopulos then discussed arts and responded to questions from Council staff regarding staffing changes, updating the Arts Master Plan, and changes with Amphitheater management. He reported Christy McBride has been extended a manager’s position for the accomplishment in increasing and directing the scope of work in arts, events and at the amphitheater. Taking these programs in-house, Ms. McBride is now responsible for five staffers and multiple seasonal employees and contractors. Along with the added programs that came with bringing Arts and Amphitheater in-house, Ashley Bockwoldt will move to full time to support the additional events that are occurring and give Christy more consistent support. Council member Hyer addressed the amphitheater and asked if it would be appropriate to increase the seating capacity at the facility due to the fact that many shows and productions have sold out. Mr. Christopulos stated some new seats have been added and additional seating can be added as revenue structures become evident. Increased volumes are nice, but they also result in an increased maintenance need. He stated he is not sure more fixed seating is needed, but there are several options to consider. Council member Stephens stated he visited an amphitheater in Nashville, Tennessee that had a capacity of 3,000, but not all of that was fixed seating; their productions sell out each year and it is a great program for their downtown area. Mr. Christopulos stated he is hopeful the success of the Ogden Amphitheater will only continue to increase and the City will have the ability to attract larger productions and events. Mr. Christopulos noted that Council staff asked for a review of the changes in code enforcement operations as well as a report on the collections rate for code enforcement actions. Code Services has been focusing on changing the manner in which business is conducted with an emphasis on how staff communicates with citizens and property owners as well as finding ways to obtain compliance without issuing citations. Staff is also working on completing and reorganizing according to the plan that had been approved in the previous year. The geographical areas are being reorganized with an effort to make the areas smaller and this should allow for better review and response. There will be multiple individuals assisting in East Central Ogden with the Code Services Supervisor directly handling large and sensitive housing issues which is something that has been missing. The staff’s focus is shifting as the City starts to deal with more complex issues. It has been relatively simple to deal with weeds, tall grass, junk and debris but as the officers move to work on items such as living conditions, staff will be required to find new tools and tactics. Council member Lopez asked if citizens with code violations on their property are given warning before they are cited. Mr. Christopulos answered yes and stated that property owners are given a 15-day warning period to comply; 80 to 85 percent of those that receive notices bring their property into compliance and they never receive a citation. However, some people do not respond and it has become necessary to focus on escalation training to deal with moving from base infractions to conclusion of a case. Too many enforcements get stuck because of a lack of in depth training and eventually recodification may be necessary to make it easier for staff and enforcers to interpret.  Council member Lopez revisited employee salary increases; he inquired as to the most an employee can receive in the event they are deemed eligible to receive more than four percent. Mr. Christopulos stated that it is typically five percent; it can be difficult for employees to be ranked high enough to receive a five percent increase because he wants people to strive to push the limits of greatness. Council member Hyer asked for more information relative to the suggestion to potentially recodify to centralize all statutes relating to code enforcement action. Mr. Christopulos stated he does not have detailed information about such a process at this time. Council member Hyer stated that it may be possible to enlist the aid of interns to cross-reference various sections of the code relating to code enforcement. Mr. Christopulos stated it is necessary to remove duplications and close gaps in the code, but he cannot identify all of those issues at this point. Council member Nadolski asked for more information about the Code Enforcement Program Report recommendations cited in the Council packet. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson stated that refers to the management audit that was conducted to evaluate code enforcement. Mr. Christopulos stated that his staff has been working to implement recommendations of the management audit, which was completed nearly seven years ago. Council member Nadolski then referenced the organizational structure of the CED Department and asked if business services, building services, and code services are grouped together under one Division Manager, to which Mr. Christopulos answered yes. Council member Nadolski asked how much revenue the City foregoes related to disproportionate fees associated with the Good Landlord Program. Mr. Johnson answered just over $1 million. Mr. Christopulos added the Good Landlord Program is managed within the business license division. Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith provided a brief explanation of the manner in which funding for employee raises are allocated to each Department, noting that the practice for distributing that funding will likely be different in each Department. Mr. Christopulos then discussed the Ogden Airport and he referred to it as the next economic development building block for the City. The vision statement for the Airport is to create a stimulus for the local economy, create a major modern economic stimulus for the region, and serve all stakeholders fairly (including airport users and taxpayers). Goals and objectives for the Airport include: • Create an atmosphere for the development of aviation and aviation related business • Support local airport business including current operations • Decrease or eliminate the need for the city subsidies to the airport • Keep costs of operating an airport manageable to small general aviation users • Improve the visual and quality improvement to support the mission and objectives • Provide impedes for long term investment in hangers • Create areas for improved General Aviation hangers • Through reconfiguration of current hanger stock Mr. Christopulos discussed the current status of the Airport; the current City subsidy of the Airport after taxes paid by current users is in excess of $500,000 per year. Airport maintenance is behind by over $5 million, but Allegiant operations will allow for maintenance to be caught up at a rate of $1million per year. User fees will increase but a single user airport never will make up its operating deficit unless that carrier has a critical mass of flight. The short term target for the Airport is five flights per day. He then noted taxes do not cover the cost of administration of the airport including safety, water, fire and usual and customary costs of government. Current users are subsidized and a good portion of future taxes are needed to keep the airport up to date and growing. Internal investment is needed and the City needs to receive payment for services provided. He stated the bottom line is that the current situation at the Airport cannot continue and to change the course of the airport it will be necessary to attract higher scale operations in general aviation and increase the underlying tax base. A commercial airline is needed to supply air operations and receive additional money to improve airport conditions. Staff levels must increase to meet and support recommended standards. He stated that options for accomplishing these measures include raising taxes City-wide or increase rates (by 100 percent) to hangar and business owners at the Airport. Council member Hyer inquired as to the rates currently being assessed on hangar and business owners. Mr. Christopulos stated that he is not sure, but the rates are low. However, the rates are in line with the market. He summarized the following recommendations relating to the Airport: • Create greater tax increment by more efficiently utilizing airport assets • Larger commercial aeronautic users such as Northrup, Borsight, AMRG and others that have been added to the airport in the past 12 months • Increase of tax base on airport target • $500 billion increase in incremental tax base needed to stabilize airport • Create greater economic multipliers by increasing the revenues on airport through higher standards attracting larger national and regional scale users and their typical higher wage rates • Locate Commercial Passenger Operations at the Airport • One airline at a time • Small carriers if necessary • Air cargo • Summarize the results if things go as proposed • Continue to recruit larger users • Identify action items Mr. Christopulos stated to date CED management and Airport Administration has met with 18 prospective air carriers in the last 18 months, some airlines several times. One meeting was with Allegiant in the last 30 days regarding a potential Los Angeles route. Meetings have been held with Skywest in the last 60 days relative to multiple possibilities at their corporate headquarters. Staff also met with Southwest at their corporate headquarters in the last six months and will be meeting with six airlines in mid-June 2016 at a forum for airline and airports in Denver, Colorado. He concluded his report by discussing the top challenges his Department faces, including a change in operations at the Airport, developing a business plan for Union Station, coordination between Administration and City Council relative to various projects underway in the City, staff turnover and retaining the right staff, and lack of understanding of long range financial needs. Chair White thanked Mr. Christopulos for his presentation and the information provided. Competitive Youth Sports Board Recreation Manager Bridge used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Council with information regarding the proposal to approve the creation of a Competitive Youth Sports Board. The purpose of this board is to facilitate the transition of interested athletes from recreation level sports to competitive level sports in Ogden City. It will be made up of community members who will play a large role in the success of the board, athletes, and coaches who emerge from the board. It will also impact the Junior High and High Schools. He indicated longitudinal studies have shown that children and youth participating in sports, when compared to peers who do not play sports, exhibit; higher grades, expectations, and attainment; greater personal confidence and self-esteem; greater connections with school— that is, greater attachment and support from adults; stronger peer relationships; more academically oriented friends; greater family attachment and more frequent interactions with parents; more restraint in avoiding risky behavior; and greater involvement in volunteer work. He added a 2007 study found that women who played sports in high school were 73 percent more likely to earn a college degree within six years of graduating high school than those who did not play sports. This advantage held up even for students facing socioeconomic challenges to graduating college. Mr. Bridge reviewed a chart illustrating the current structure of the City’s recreational and developmental basketball programs and noted that with the addition of the Competitive Sports Board, the program would grow to include opportunities for participation in competitive basketball leagues prior to entering Junior High or High School; this is a shift that has already happened in other communities and needs to happen in Ogden as well. The Board would assist with identifying coaches for competitive basketball teams and developing teams. He then reviewed a flowchart illustrating the proposed structure of the Board and noted that they would focus on girls and boys basketball, boys baseball, girls softball, and flag football. There is the potential to add different sports to the Board’s responsibility. The Board would help to identify coaches and athletes who would like to play competitive sports beyond the limited opportunity that the recreation division can currently offer. The Board will seek out coach clinics and player clinics and offer those opportunities where applicable. The Board will also be aware of pertinent leagues in the surrounding areas as to be most beneficial to the varying skill levels of the athletes, and will recommend placement in these leagues as appropriate. Vice Chair Blair asked if the creation of this type of Board has occurred in other communities. Mr. Bridge answered no, but indicated that youth in other communities are actively involved in competitive sports programs. He stated he is hopeful that the outcome of the creation of the Board will be creation of a competitive pipeline for athletes in Ogden from youth on through to Junior High and High School. This will also create a culture shift in the community by developing more competitive athletes and streaming them up to the high school level. This board will also encourage collaboration among major entities in the City (Ogden City, Ogden City School District, Weber State University.) Each entity will have a board member and a vested interest in the success of this board. Chair White asked why competitive leagues have developed in other cities if they do not have something like a Competitive Sports Board. Mr. Bridge stated that parents have organized to create competitive teams; that has happened on a much smaller scale in Ogden and the Board would help participation in competitive sports grow. Discussion centered on the makeup of the Board, with a focus on the types of entities that would have a position on the Board. Council member Nadolski stated that he is very passionate about youth sports and the benefits that participation in sports program can create in a young person’s life. He stated he thinks the creation of the Board is a great idea and he has heard nothing but positive feedback about the concept when talking with people in the community. He asked if the idea to create the Board came from the Parks and Recreation Committee. Mr. Bridge answered no and said that the idea was developed as Recreation staff considered the role the Recreation Department should play in competitive sports programs in the community. It would be great if a parent just had to make one phone call to find out how to get their children involved in competitive sports in the community and the Board would provide that opportunity. Council member Nadolski asked if the Board would be considered an extension of the existing Parks and Recreation Committee. Mr. Bridge answered yes; the Committee will be represented on the Board. Council member Nadolski then stated he wonders if the School District should have greater representation on the Board than just one position. Discussion regarding the makeup of the Board continued, with Mr. Bridge noting that the ordinance does allow up to 15 members, but a minimum of nine; there would be an opportunity for the District to have more than one member on the Board. Council member Lopez asked how Board members will be selected. Mr. Bridge stated the positions will be filled in a manner similar to other advisory boards; people will be invited to apply for the positions and appointees will be selected by the Mayor who will seek advice and consent of the Council for the appointments. Council member Lopez asked if there are plans to have diverse representation on the Board. Council Office Supervisor Hawley summarized the process City staff follows to screen applicants and noted that if the Council would like to see more diverse representation they could make that recommendation to the Mayor. Council member Nadolski stated that including cultural context on the Board will be critical to its success. Continued discussion regarding the benefits of the creation of the Board continued, after which Mr. Cook asked if there is support among the Council to move the proposal to a future Council agenda for action. The Council offered their support for creation of the Board. Sales Tax Report Review Chief Administrative Officer Johnson noted that each year the City is required to generate more revenue than money that is expended. This document was developed to measure sales tax through the year because it is such an important component of overall annual revenues. He summarized the report and stated there is a two-month lag between the time the sales tax is submitted to the State and when the City receives the revenue. The report is helpful as it can illustrate instances where sales tax may not be tracking with projected revenues and when this occurs City Administration can slow or halt expenditures accordingly. Mr. Johnson added he has concerns about future sales tax revenues as he feels that online retail sales will continue to result in a decrease in local sales tax revenues. Chair White stated she understands the difficulty the City faces in budgeting based on a moving target. Mr. Johnson agreed; he does not get concerned about fluctuations from one month to the next, but decreases that extend over several months can be very concerning. Council member Nadolski commented he appreciates the Administration keeping the City Council informed regarding trends in sales tax revenues. He asked if there are opportunities for working with the Legislature to address distribution of sales tax for online purchases. Mr. Johnson responded that he does not believe such legislation will gain traction for at least three years. The Council recessed at 5:33 p.m. The Council reconvened at 5:37 p.m. Council Business City Council Priorities: Council Executive Director Cook handed out a draft sheet of the Council priorities. He stated Council staff is proposing work groups for each of the goals listed. Council staff will be assigned to assist the Council members, as well as Administration, if needed. He commented that none of the priorities have been finalized, but he would like Council members to look at the goals and decide which ones they would be interested in supporting. At that time, proposals would come forward to the full Council. Chair White added this process will give each Council member a chance to have ownership for these goals. She feels working in small groups will help get everyone on the same page and have a common goal moving forward and added having a representative from Administration would be great for collaboration. Mr. Cook stated this process would also help Administration with policies that need to be addressed. Council member Stephens asked if some of the Council member’s goals will be involved in the budget session, with Mr. Cook responding all of the goals are for the next Fiscal Year. He added it is important for Council members to share what their goals are with the residents. Council member Lopez asked how often these small group meetings need to take place and if this is the first time this process has been done. Mr. Cook responded the meetings are based off what each group would like to accomplish so they may hold them as often as necessary and added yes, this is the first time this process has been done and he feels it gives each Council member a real opportunity to contribute. Council member Nadolski stated he feels this process is a great idea and a way to get the Council members talking. He asked how Council Leadership would like each Council member to share which goals they are interested in, with Chair White answering they may all send them to her. The Council agreed to move forward with the next steps. The meeting adjourned at 5:51 p.m. ________________________________________ ABBIE HUFSTETLER DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: August 9, 2016  Minutes of Regular Meeting of Council of Ogden City, Utah, May 17, 2016 Page Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, May 17, 2016 at 6:02 p.m., in the Council Chambers on the third floor of the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard, Ogden City, Weber County, Utah. Present: Chair Marcia L. White Vice Chair Bart E. Blair Council members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski Doug Stephens Council Executive Director Bill Cook Council Deputy Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Manager Amy Sue Mabey Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Chief Deputy Attorney Mara Brown Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Public Services Director Jay Lowder Deputy City Recorder Abbie Hufstetler At the request of the Chair, all present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chair Blair. Chair White welcomed the following Boy Scout present from Troop #11, who is working on his Citizenship in the Community Merit Badge: Jacob Glandell. A moment of silence was observed. Proclamation proclaiming May 2016 “Historic Preservation Month” in Ogden City A joint proclamation declaring May 2016 as “Historic Preservation Month” in Ogden City and highlighting the outstanding contributions of local architect Leslie Hodgson came before the Council for consideration. Council member Hyer read the joint proclamation, after which COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED TO APPROVE THE JOINT PROCLAMATION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEPHENS, ALL VOTING AYE. Council member Hyer then presented the proclamation to Greg Montgomery, Ogden City Planning Manager, and members of the Planning Commission and Landmarks Commission who were in attendance. Jared Allen, with the Landmarks Commission thanked the Council and Mayor for this recognition and indicated that the majority of the initiatives undertaken by the Commission are spearheaded by Mr. Montgomery. He stated he is happy to be in Ogden; there is a wealth of great architecture that needs some attention in order to properly preserve it and the City is heading in the right direction to that end. Consideration of cancellation of the regular meeting for August 23, 2016 Council Executive Director Cook reported there was no business to be conducted at the August 23, 2016 regular meeting and recommended the Council cancel that meeting. COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED THAT THE REGULAR MEETING SCHEDULED TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, AUGUST 23, 2016 BE CANCELLED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. Approval of Minutes Council member Hyer stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Regular Meeting of February 2, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Council member Lopez stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Study Session of February 16, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Council member Nadolski stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Work Session of February 16, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Council member Garner stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Closed Executive Session of March 15, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Council member Stephens stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Joint Work Session of March 15, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. COUNCIL MEMBER STEPHENS THEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. Proposed Resolution 2016-18, a resolution of the City Council of Ogden City, Utah authorizing the issuance and sale of not more than $64,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Sewer and Water Revenue and Refunding Bonds, Series 2016 A memo from the City Treasurer regarding issuance and sale of Sewer and Water Revenue Refunding Bonds came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated that based on the recommendations of the City’s financial advisors, Lewis Young Robertson, & Burningham, Inc. (LYRB), the Administration is requesting the Council issue bonds in an amount of up to $64M to allow the refunding of a portion of the 2008 Series Sewer and Water Revenue Bonds and the 2009 Series Sewer and Water Refunding Bonds, and to provide an additional $17M for Water Utility capital projects. Based on the current bond market, LYRB has estimated that the City will save more than $3.8M (net present value) over the life of the bonds. The final maturity dates—the pay-off dates—will not be extended beyond the original maturity dates of the original bonds. (The 2008 bonds have a maturity date of 2038. The 2009 bonds have a maturity date of 2024.) The $17 million in new funding will be used for Water Utility capital projects outlined in the Master Plan. The Water Utility will also use $860,420 from retained earnings toward completion of the projects. The City’s financial advisor, Laura Lewis of LYRB, approached the Council. She stated the purpose of the action is to refund, which means to pay and cancel, the callable portions of the series 2008 and 2009 sewer and water revenue bonds for an economic savings. The call date for the bonds is 2018 and 2019 respectively, but LYRB recommends against waiting until that time because of the inability to predict future interest rates. Current interest rates are low and it is possible to borrow funds at today’s lower rates and putting those funds in an escrow account to call the bonds on their respective call dates. This is known as an advanced refunding and can only be done once for each bond issue. The cost of issuance will be lesser for one bond issue than two and the City will likely secure slightly lower interest rates because investors like to purchase bonds in large ‘blocks’. She reviewed a graph illustrating the revenue bond index projecting rates over a 10-year time period. An additional graph highlighted municipal market data (MMD); this tracks rates for various bond ratings: AAA, AA, and A. The City will benefit from lower rates due to the fact that the life of the bond will be shorter than when they were previously issued. The interest rate on the old bonds is 4.68 percent and 4.16 percent for the 2008 and 2009 series and the new rates are projected to be approximately 2.93 percent and 1.45 percent. This will generate a significant savings, currently estimated to be $5.3 million over the life of the issue or $3.8 million on a net present value basis. Ms. Lewis briefly discussed the timeline for proceeding with the new bond issuance and new bond refunding, noting the projected closing date will be sometime in the last week of July or the first week of August, 2016. She concluded by reviewing two graphs that depicted the savings on the refunding if done on its own and the refunded bonds and new money funds for the various water and sewer projects. Since capital projects were already included in the City’s plans and since the refunding reduces the cost of existing debt service, no rate increase will be needed to facilitate the required debt service coverage. She also briefly reviewed the parameters resolution for the bond and indicated the parameters are higher than will likely be decided upon prior to closing dependent upon negotiation between the City and investors. Blake Wade of Ballard Spahr, LLC the City’s bond counsel, approached and further summarized the intent of the parameters resolution. He stated the decision tonight is not a final decision and the City will still have opportunity to decide against refunding existing bonds and issuing new bonds. The action taken by the Council tonight will simply set the public hearing as well as start a 30-day contest period for the action. Council member Nadolski asked what will take place between tonight and June 7 when the public hearing will be held. Mr. Wade stated two publications will be made notifying the public of the intent to issue the bonds and the purpose of the bonds; it will advertise the public hearing date as well as the protest period and give the public information about the process they would need to follow to file a protest. Council member Stephens asked if the interest rate associated with the bonds could change between now and when final action is taken. Mr. Wade stated the interest rate has not been locked and will not be locked until the bonds go to market. He added this is an excellent time to issue and refund bonds as rates are fairly low. Chair White asked what would happen if the Council were to decide to proceed with refunding the existing bonds but not issue new bonds. Mr. Wade stated the Council could make the decision to proceed with either action independent of one another and the package would be prepared accordingly. Ms. Lewis stated that it would be ideal for the Council to make that decision prior to printing the official statement used for marketing of the bonds; that document will be prepared in the first or second week in July. Chair White then introduced in writing proposed Resolution 2016-18, entitled: “A resolution of the City Council of Ogden City, Utah (the “Issuer”), authorizing the issuance and sale of not more than $64,000,000 aggregate principal amount of sewer and water revenue and refunding bonds, series 2016; fixing the maximum aggregate principal amount of the bonds, the maximum number of years over which the bonds may mature, the maximum interest rate which the bonds may bear, and the maximum discount from par at which the bonds may be sold; providing for the publication of a notice of public hearing and bonds to be issued; providing for the running of a contest period; authorizing the execution by the issuer of a supplemental indenture, a bond purchase agreement, and other documents required in connection therewith; approving an official statement; authorizing the taking of all other actions necessary to the consummation of the transactions contemplated by this resolution; and related matters.”  A copy of the proposed resolution 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 resolution was then read by long title. COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON JUNE 7, 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, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson thanked Ms. Lewis and Mr. Wade for the valuable work they do for the City. Public Comments Travis Pate stated he lives in one of the historic homes on Jefferson Avenue. He stated that in conjunction with Historic Preservation Month he wanted to speak to the Council about a hypothetical situation where a powerful property owner desires to demolish one of the City’s important buildings and only the Mayor has the ability to stop it. The style of the building and its architectural and engineering significance are largely irrelevant because the property owner and the Mayor may not care about those issues. It would not have mattered to them if the building was gothic, revival, art deco, or high modern; preservationists sometimes make the mistake of thinking that because they know what makes places or buildings important, other people should appreciate them for the same reasons. That is rarely the case and most people do not know or care about architect styles or buildings, but they have a deep connection to a place for other less tangible reasons. It is important to understand, celebrate, and respect those connections. He stated he recognizes the City has a long standing desire for historic preservation and he is coming to the City in regards to a building that the City will soon take ownership of to ask for a business plan; it is more than just a building – it is a series of work and a private/public partnership between three families: the Eccles, the Dees, and the Piers families. Eber Piers designed the Berthana Ballroom, the expansion of the Dee Memorial Hospital, and was a draftsman for Leslie Hodgson on the Ogden High School project. His son John designed Weber High School, St. Benedicts Hospital, Dee Elementary, Weber County Library, and the bell tower at Weber State University. His suggestion is that the City look at the Dee School building again and consider a business plan for reuse rather than slate it for demolition. He stated that so the City knows what they are tearing down, he extended an invitation to the Council to the Dee School farewell celebration on June 18, 2016 that will include a reception and program. It is important to understand what the building has meant to the community as well as the recent trend towards preservation of mid-century modern buildings. He provided background materials for the Council and Mayor to review. He concluded that if the reuse proposal is not successful, he will be happy knowing that he tried. He stated it is important to recognize the work of the Dee, Eccles, and Piers families in Ogden and he wondered where the City would be without that work. Eric Allen stated he owns a piece of property in Ogden Canyon and behind his property is a piece of property owned by Ogden City; he would like to know what, if anything, the City plans to do with the property. The property is on a cliff. He plans to renovate his home and he would like to understand the plans for the property behind his. Chair White referred Mr. Allen to the City’s Planning Manager, Greg Montgomery. Mr. Johnson added that some of the property owned by Ogden City in the Ogden Canyon serves as an easement for City utility lines. Mr. Allen added there is a road on the sheer cliff that was vacated in 1998. Mr. Johnson reiterated Mr. Montgomery can have a detailed discussion with Mr. Allen about the property and that Weber County may be helpful as well as the Ogden Canyon is actually under the County’s jurisdiction. Mr. Allen stated that Weber County referred him to Ogden City to discuss future use plans for the property. Mayor Comments In Mayor Caldwell’s absence, Mr. Johnson provided the Council with a report on the recent success of Make A Difference Day; many amazing projects were completed throughout the City by over 2,500 participants. He reported the Mayor’s Walk will be held Friday evening, May 20, 2016 and he hopes to see all Council members in attendance. The Ogden Marathon will be held the following day and he hoped to see a great turnout to support the participants in that event. Council Comments Council member Hyer offered his condolences to Mr. Pate on the recent loss of his mother. He stated he appreciates the work Mr. Pate has done on many different projects in the community as well as his attentiveness and social outreach. Council member Lopez thanked Mr. Johnson and Council Executive Director Cook for organizing tours of the Water Treatment Plant and other water infrastructure locations. He thanked Public Services Director Lowder as well for the tour and indicated it was very educational. Council member Nadolski challenged the Council to participate in the Mayor’s Walk and offered to purchase each participant’s sweater vest for the event. There being no further business to come before the Council, COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 6:34 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. ________________________________________ ABBIE HUFSTETLER DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: August 9, 2016