City Council

Minutes of Joint Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, June 21, 2016 Page Minutes of the Joint Work Session of the Ogden City Council, also acting as the Redevelopment Agency, held on Tuesday, June 21, 2016 at 3:30 p.m., in the Council Work Room on the third floor of the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard, Ogden City, Weber County, Utah. Present: Chair Marcia L. White Vice Chair Bart E. Blair Council members Neil K. Garner Luis Lopez Richard A. Hyer Doug Stephens Excused: Council member Ben Nadolski 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 City Engineer Justin Anderson Information Technology Customer Account Supervisor Jess McClelland Information Technology Operations Supervisor Andy Lefgren Principal Engineer Taylor Nielsen Management Services Director David G. Buxton Comptroller Lisa Stout Deputy Finance Manager Camille Cook Information Technology Manager Blake Wilkinson City Treasurer Brandee Johnson Assistant City Attorney Mark Stratford Human Resources/Risk Manager Shawn Choate Public Services Director Jay Lowder Community and Economic Development Deputy Director Brandon Cooper Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Deputy City Recorder Abbie Hufstetler The purpose of the joint work session is to review the agenda for the City Council and Special Redevelopment Agency meetings scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m., discuss mandatory water connection amendments, Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System, the rezone of 999 Canyon Road from R-2- to R-3, vacation rentals, and Council 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 (RDA) meetings. There was a brief focus on the agenda item dealing with an ordinance amendment relating to predatory towing and Assistant City Attorney Stratford answered questions regarding the regulations included in the ordinance and the manner in which City Administration will communicate the ordinance amendments to tow companies and owners of private parking lots that may be impacted. Mr. Cook concluded he would like to have a longer discussion about the agenda items dealing with the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 budget later in the work session meeting. Mandatory Water Connection Amendments Council Policy Analyst Symes explained City Administration is proposing an amendment that would require culinary water connections when any new development takes place that is within three hundred (300) feet of existing city water infrastructure, when existing private water systems that are within three hundred feet are changed, and when property is annexed into the City. The amendments would also require connection to City culinary water systems for outdoor watering when a secondary water system is available. Assistant City Attorney Stratford explained the proposed ordinance provides clarity on when culinary water connections are required and is intended to limit the use of wells and smaller, private water systems. The proposal outlines four basic scenarios for when connection to the City’s culinary water infrastructure is required. The proposal is specific to the water utility; however, it should be noted that requirements for connection to City sewer infrastructure are already codified. The proposed water connection requirements are similar to the existing sewer connection requirements. The sewer connection requirements are intended to reduce the use of septic systems. He noted that the purpose of the proposed ordinance is to encourage water conservation by discouraging the use of culinary water for secondary purposes such as irrigation of landscaping. The ordinance would require residents with direct access to pressurized secondary lines to connect to that line rather than continuing to use culinary water. This will also help to prevent cross contamination of the secondary and culinary water systems in the City. The Council and staff engaged in discussion regarding the implications of the proposed ordinances by considering hypothetical situations in which the residents could be required to connect to the City’s water system due to installation of new infrastructure or new development. Council member Lopez inquired as to the average cost per connection, to which Mr. Stratford stated that the typical size of a main line is eight inches and connections to that line are one-inch in size. The cost for this type of connection is approximately $1,500 to $2,000 for the connection, water meter, and labor to install the connection line. Council member Lopez asked if the City will offer financial support for residents who may not have the financial means to comply with the ordinance. Mr. Stratford answered no, but indicated the Water Utility Manager has the authority to consider certain instances on a case-by-case basis. Council member Lopez stated he appreciates that, but it may be too subjective and it may be necessary to codify a provision that allows for exceptions or financial aid. Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith inquired as to the number of properties in the City that could be subject to the ordinance. Mr. Stratford stated that the ordinance will apply city-wide, but the number of homes that are not currently connected to the City’s water system is fairly low. He added he does not have an exact number and would need to ask for assistance from the Water Utility Division relative to that data. Council member Hyer stated he is concerned about applying the ordinance retroactively as the City is nearly built-out; however, he is comfortable proceeding with requiring the connection for new development or properties that are annexed into the system. Mr. Stratford responded that the reason for the recommendation to apply the ordinance retroactively is that there are some properties in the City that have a water line in front of their home and they have not paid for a connection. They may be benefitting from the line, but they are not paying the true cost for those benefits. Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith explained City Administration will present plans for the purchase and implementation of a new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) System. The new ERP will update the City’s financial management system as well as other critical management tools. The Administration will review and discuss a proposed lease purchase agreement with Zions First National Bank, proceeds of which will fund the purchase and initial costs of the ERP implementation. Information Technologies (IT) Customer Account Supervisor McClelland stated that the City currently uses Tyler Eden to support many of its financial, payroll and human resources activities. In addition to Eden, the City maintains numerous third‐party and custom developed systems (e.g. Tyler Incode, Cartegraph, Sportsman, etc.). Many of these systems are now antiquated and have reached their end of life. Staff determined that replacing the systems with an integrated software system was the best way to move forward. The City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) in 2015 for an integrated ERP system to replace current systems. Staff recommends Tyler Technologies, Inc. which specializes in software designed for the public sector, as the best qualified bidder to provide an integrated ERP system for approximately $3M. Council member Garner asked if the ERP will include built-in redundancies or something like cloud storage. Mr. McClelland responded that all City data will be stored on-site, with the exception to financial data that will be exposed to the internet for online searching. He added system backups will be performed on a regular basis and back-up files are stored in a cloud based program. IT Operations Supervisor Lefgren added that back-up tapes are created that are stored offsite for a 30-day period. Discussion then centered on the phased approach for implementing the ERP program. During phasing, many current software applications will be removed from service and different parts of the City will be impacted by implementation at different times. This will allow for data conversion to be performed in parts and will give users a longer period of time to adapt. It will also allow the project team to concentrate on one part of the system at a time. Additionally, the phased approach allows the system to build upon itself so that modules implemented in latter phases are based on configuration decisions made in earlier phases. It is particularly important to implement financials first, as changes to the chart of accounts will be propagated throughout the system. City Treasurer Johnson reviewed the terms of the lease purchase agreement. On April 30, 2015, the City issued an RFP for a lease agreement for ERP Software. The RFP was posted on the City’s website and notices were advertised in the Standard- Examiner. As of the deadline for responding to the RFP, May 20, 2015, three respondents completed their submissions. The recommended proposal has offered a five‐year, tax exempt, lease at 1.43% interest, callable at any time with a 30-day advance notice. The lease proceeds are included as a source of funds and the lease payment is included as a use of funds. The amount to finance is $1,157,655 and the total City investment in the ERP is estimated at $3.6M over a five-year period. This includes a commitment of $650,000 in BDO Lease Revenue funds annually over the next five years. Cost savings, efficiencies and consolidation of software programs will eventually save the City money in annual software maintenance costs by year five. Council member Garner inquired as to the life expectancy of the ERP. Mr. McClelland stated that the program could last at least 20 years as long as the vendor continues to maintain it and provide updates. Ms. Eller-Smith then noted that Council staff will continue to work with City Administration to make corrections and updates to the draft lease agreement prior to including an action item for execution of the agreement on the July 5, 2016 City Council meeting agenda. Rezone of 999 Canyon Road from R-2- to R-3  Council Policy Analyst Symes explained Patrick Burns has submitted a petition to amend the City’s zoning on a property located at 999 Canyon Road. The petitioner has purchased the property and has since torn down the single-family home that once stood on the property. The property is currently zoned R-2, or Residential Two-family. The R-2 zoning typically supports either single-family or two-family residential units but may support some increased density under certain approvals. The property is surrounded on all sides by R-2, R-3 or R-4 zoning and the Canyon Road Community Plan allows for the option of R-2 or R-3 zoning in the area where the property is located. Mr. Burns has indicated that he wishes to construct a five-plex on the property and would need the R-3 zoning in order to accommodate the increase in density. Planning Manager Montgomery reviewed an aerial photograph to identify the location of the subject property. He indicated the property is large enough to have the potential of being developed with five units and the Canyon Road Community Plan supports the rezoning of the property to R-3. The majority of the properties in the area are developed and zoned for multi- family uses and staff has concluded R-3 zoning is appropriate for the property. Council member Garner asked if the R-2 zoning could be maintained and the lot split into two lots for the construction of two duplexes. Mr. Montgomery answered no and indicated there is not sufficient frontage to allow for that type of action. Council member Stephens asked for a comparison of setbacks in the R-2 and R-3 zones. Mr. Montgomery stated that a 20-foot front yard and 30-foot rear yard is required in the R-2 zone and there is no percentage of required open space. A 25-foot setback is required in the R-3 zone, with a 30-foot rear yard that can be reduced to allow for parking areas for the multi-family unit development. There is a 40 percent open space or landscape requirement in the R-3 zone to make up for the fact that rear yard space can be reduced to allow for parking. Council member Hyer asked why the subject property was not part of the downzoning action that occurred in the area in 2001. Mr. Montgomery responded that the key reason it was not included in the downzoning was that the Community Plan indicated R-2 zoning was an option for the area. He noted that in the Planning Commission’s review of the application they focused on the appropriate zoning for the subject property, which is a corner lot, and also the prevailing character of the district along Monroe Boulevard. They felt R-3 zoning is appropriate for the subject property and they voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. He stated there were some concerns expressed by citizens who attended the Planning Commission meeting, specifically related to traffic and the relationship between the proposed development and an existing canal on the property. Council member Stephens referenced the aerial map of the area surrounding the subject property and indicated that Canyon Road near the subject property is fairly narrow and that may create some issues relative to traffic and access to the property. Mr. Montgomery stated that may or may not be the case; the land use should generate a maximum of 40 vehicle trips per day and that will be a small percentage of the total number of vehicles that travel on Canyon Road. He stated it will be necessary to consider access to the property and there is a minimum spacing requirement from any intersection for property approaches. Council member Stephens stated that if the property will currently accommodate a duplex he is concerned about changing the zoning to allow greater density. Mr. Montgomery commented that is a concern the Council would need to address, but he reiterated that the requested zone change conforms to the Community Plan and the General Plan. Council member Lopez asked if the neighbors living near the subject property are comfortable with the zone change. Council member Stephens stated that he has heard from residents in the area that are concerned about the increased density on the property and the impact it will have on Canyon Road specifically. He added the neighborhood is largely made up of single-family residences and they would prefer that downzoning occur rather than allowing for increased density. He stated the R-3 zoning would create a negative impact for the neighborhood and it would not be conducive to improving the quality of the neighborhood. He concluded he appreciates the job the Planning Commission does and noted that he typically agrees with their recommendations, but that is not the case for this recommendation. Vice Chair Blair commented that the staff report indicates that one resident spoke about the developer trying to purchase additional property from her. He asked if the developer can accomplish what he is trying to accomplish without that additional property. Mr. Montgomery responded that the numbers and data he provided are based upon the existing lot size. If the developer wanted to create six units, he would need to purchase additional property, but he could locate five units on the property based upon its current size and if the R-3 zoning were approved. Mr. Symes asked if there is additional information the Council would like before proceeding with formally considering the rezone application. Council member Lopez stated he would like to understand the feelings of the community relative to the proposed land use; he asked for minutes of meetings during which the Community Plan was discussed and finalized. Mr. Montgomery noted the Community Plan was adopted in 1990 and the makeup of the neighborhood has likely changed since that time. Council member Stephens agreed. Mr. Symes indicated Council staff can provide that documentation in the packet during which the application is scheduled for final consideration. Council member Hyer added that the residents in the neighborhood will receive notice of the proposed rezone and any potential action the Council may take. Agenda Review Continued Mr. Cook stated that he would like to have a brief discussion regarding the items included on the agenda relating to the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 budget. He started with the salary schedule and indicated that it has been updated in response to feedback provided by the Council during their last review of the document. Mr. Symes stated that the salary schedule initially included a range for Assistant City Attorney titled ACA64, but City Administration has requested that be amended to ACA67. A substitute exhibit has been provided for attachment to the ordinance. He added that if the Council is comfortable with the change, it would be appropriate for a Council member to make a motion to substitute the amended salary schedule for the previous version before adopting the ordinance.  Mr. Cook noted that during the Council meeting, Comptroller Stout will provide an overview of the proposed transfers from the utility funds to the General Fund; there will be a public hearing to allow residents to provide their input regarding this proposal. Ms. Eller-Smith then discussed a recommended adjustment to the proposed budget related to gas tax revenues. In 2015 the State Legislature passed House Bill 365 relating to gas taxes. House Bill 60 was adopted in 2016 to correct revenue calculations. However, the legislation was flawed in that it diverted more revenues to rural counties and reduced revenues to cities. This results in the City’s anticipated revenue decreasing from $1.3 million to $220,000. She stated the Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT) and a group of legislators is interested in working to address and correct the issue in the coming years, but it is necessary to amend the proposed FY2017 budget to reduce the estimate for gas tax revenues. Mr. Cook clarified that the budget initially included $400,000 and that estimate is being decreased to $220,000. This change is included in proposed Schedule A that has been provided to the Council. Mr. Cook reported on an additional change to the budget that Council staff was made aware of this afternoon. The property tax rate included in the proposed ordinance is different than what Council staff was expecting. This difference would result in an increase in property tax revenue of $570,000; the rate in the ordinance is 35.46 percent compared to the 28 percent rate initially discussed among the Council and City Administration. There is no proposal for use of the additional $570,000 and it would remain in a contingency account until decisions can be made about appropriating the money. He noted that for a $165,000 home, the amount of property tax paid would not increase unless the value of the home increased. He added that if the Council does not vote to accept the higher percentage increase this evening, that decision cannot be changed and the only option will be to proceed with consideration of the 28 percent increase following the August 9, 2016 truth-in-taxation hearing. However, if the higher amount is accepted this evening, the Council could still decide to approve the lower amount on August 9. Mr. Cook asked City Administration to provide the Council with their proposal. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson stated original discussions regarding the 28 percent tax increase were based upon estimations. Since those discussions, City Administration has learned that property values in the City have increased, which has caused the certified tax rate to decrease. In order to compensate for those increased values, it is necessary to request a higher tax rate. The 35.46 percent increase will provide for level tax revenues unless property valuations continue to increase. He added that he and the Mayor are comfortable with either tax rate and they appreciate the Council’s willingness to consider any property tax increase. However, it is City Administration’s recommendation that the Council include the 35.46 rate in the ordinance scheduled for adoption tonight. Comptroller Stout provided an overview of the revenues to be generated by different certified property tax rates. The lower tax rate would provide sufficient revenues to cover all commitments the City has made relative to wage increases for the Police and Fire Departments. She added there are other needs in the City’s General Fund that could be satisfied by the additional revenues that would be generated if the Council were to decide upon the higher tax rate. The Council and staff engaged in a discussion regarding the manner in which citizens will be impacted by the two different optional tax rates, with Ms. Stout emphasizing that the amount paid by each resident is based upon their property valuation. Discussion and debate among the Council continued, after which Mr. Cook concluded that the higher tax rate was advertised to the public. However, the higher rate is not the rate upon which the Council based its previous policy decision when considering increasing taxes by an amount that would be equal to the amount of money the City would otherwise lose as a result of retired bond debt. The Council decided upon a property tax rate that would also cover the costs associated with addressing compensation issues in the Police and Fire Departments. He stated that if the Council decides to proceed with the higher tax rate, it will be necessary to have discussions and make decisions regarding how the additional $570,000 would be allocated within the budget. Council member Stephens stated he is concerned about communicating the implications of the proposed property tax increase to the citizens. Council Communications Manager Mabey indicated Council staff is working on a comprehensive communications plan for the truth-in-taxation process; it will include information regarding how the tax increase will impact individual property owners in the City. Chair White facilitated a discussion among the Council regarding each member’s position on the optional property tax rates. Mr. Cook noted dialogue regarding each Council member’s preference is healthy as it will be necessary for the Council to take action on the ordinance including the proposed property tax rate during the Council meeting scheduled for this evening. Vacation Rentals There was not sufficient time to discuss this issue. The meeting adjourned at 5:39 p.m. ________________________________________ ABBIE HUFSTETLER DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: September 13, 2016  Minutes of Regular Meeting of Council of Ogden City, Utah, June 21, 2016 Page Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, June 21, 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 Vice Chair Bart E. Blair Council members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Doug Stephens Excused: Council member Ben Nadolski 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 City Attorney Gary Williams Chief Deputy Attorney Mara Brown Assistant City Attorney Mark Stratford Management Services Director David G. Buxton Public Services Director Jay Lowder Building Services Manager Jared Johnson Comptroller Lisa Stout Deputy Finance Manager Camille Cook Deputy City Recorder Abbie Hufstetler At the request of the Chair, all present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance led by Boy Scout Ian Nicholson. Chair White welcomed Ian who is currently working on his Citizenship in the Community Merit Badge. A moment of silence was observed. Proposed Ordinance 2016-35 amending the Ogden Municipal Code by repealing Chapter 5-8D and adopting a new Chapter 5-8D to implement towing requirements, regulations and fees A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department regarding proposed ordinance amendments relative to non-consensual towing came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated complaints and discussions of this issue date back to 2012. Following the 2015 General Session, representatives from the Utah League of Cities and Towns, the Utah Department of Transportation, the Utah Professional Towing Association, and various local governments formed an ad-hoc interim committee to work through several towing issues, including those related to non-consensual towing. A bill was drafted in anticipation of the 2016 General Session but was never introduced. In May of 2016 the Council office received an administrative transmittal requesting consideration of an ordinance establishing new towing requirements, regulations, and fees. Deputy Director Eller-Smith noted current Ogden City towing regulations identify four ways a vehicle can be towed from private property without a vehicle owner’s consent under the following conditions:  If property is posted with signage in “conspicuous locations” that towing may be enforced  If vehicle is blocking a driveway  If the property owners place a note on the vehicle with a two-hour notice  If vehicle is abandoned for seven days The Administration is proposing an ordinance that adopts new towing requirements, regulations and fees. These proposed regulations provide additional requirements for:  Uniform signage and sign locations  Documentation of parking violations  Waiting period before tow can occur  Notice to vehicle owners when a vehicle has been towed  Ease of retrieval after a vehicle has been towed  The proposed regulations also make it unlawful for property owners and towing operators to share proceeds of tows or otherwise be incentivized to authorize or conduct towing operations. Ms. Eller-Smith stated she feels the Council should discuss the cost associated with implementing the ordinance and requirements for marking parking lots as controlled. Assistant City Attorney Stratford summarized the memo and stated it is his position that the proposed ordinance reflects the discussion regarding two fundamental western America values: one’s right to have a car and one’s right to protect their property. The City has an existing ordinance that provides some protections for property owners in the event they want to tow a vehicle from their property without a property owner’s consent, but over the past few years it has become apparent that there are flaws and a lack of balance in the existing ordinance. The fundamental principal that City Administration is trying to address with the proposed ordinance is that people are entitled to be treated fairly, both property owners and vehicle owners. The ordinance is written with the goal of treating everyone equally and is easy to understand with a clear explanation of the rights and responsibilities of both parties. An additional goal is ensuring compliance with private property restrictions in a way that informs vehicle owners of their rights and responsibilities. Building Services Manager Johnson focused on the requirements, regulations, and fees included in the ordinance and as referenced in the staff report above. Council member Hyer asked if the proposed ordinance addresses the action of ‘booting’ a car to prevent the owner from leaving the parking lot. Mr. Johnson answered yes and noted that all the provisions that apply to a towing company will apply to companies that boot vehicles. Council member Stephens asked how towing companies in the community will be made aware of the ordinance changes that could impact their business. Mr. Johnson responded implementation of the ordinance will require public outreach and Planning Staff will use tools available to them to disseminate information to property owners and tow companies regarding the changes. Council member Stephens asked who will be responsible to pay for the signs that are to be erected in parking lots, to which Mr. Johnson answered the property owner. Council member Lopez inquired as to City Administration’s plans for enforcing the ordinance. Mr. Johnson stated enforcement of the ordinance will be assigned to the Code Enforcement Division of the City. They will address complaints and follow-up with tow company operators or private property owners. Council member Lopez asked how the penalty for violation of the ordinance will be assessed and collected by the City. Mr. Johnson answered that most code enforcement actions, including the issuance of a civil penalty, will be complaint driven and the Code Enforcement Division may not have the capacity to proactively enforce the ordinance. Council member Lopez inquired as to the penalty provisions of the ordinance. Mr. Johnson stated there are two penalty provisions; an owner of a parking lot found in non-compliance could be issued a $500 citation and there is the potential for their business license to be revoked. Council member Garner clarified that many of the fees that towing companies are allowed to charge are mandated by the State of Utah. Mr. Johnson stated that is correct. Chair White asked if the ordinance includes changes to current provisions that require a tow company operator to notify the Police Department upon towing a vehicle. Mr. Johnson answered no and indicated that provision will be maintained. Council member Lopez asked Mr. Johnson to provide an explanation of the difference between controlled and uncontrolled parking lots. Mr. Johnson stated a controlled parking lot has gates, a manned booth, or assigned parking spaces within the lot. A person that chooses to park in a controlled parking lot without approval to do so could have their vehicle towed from the property after a 15-minute period if the parking lot is properly signed. An uncontrolled parking lot is much more typical; this is the type of lot associated with a business or retailer that is not secured and does not include assigned spaces. The owner of an uncontrolled parking lot must wait 24 hours before removing a vehicle and they must notify the vehicle owner by placing a note on their vehicle that the vehicle will be towed. However, if the vehicle is parked in a restricted area, such as a fire lane, the vehicle can be removed immediately. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-35, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the Ogden Municipal Code by repealing Chapter 5-8D; amending the Ogden Municipal Code by adopting a new Chapter 5-8D to implement towing requirements, regulations and fees; and by providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” A copy of the proposed ordinance was deposited with the City Recorder and ordered that the City Recorder have at least one copy available for public inspection in her office during all business hours. Chair White then called for public input regarding the proposed ordinance. Jay Brown, 7121 Cherry Tree Lane, Cottonwood Heights, stated about three years ago his commercial vehicle was towed from a parking lot in Ogden and it was very frustrating and expensive for him to resolve. He appreciates Council member Hyer’s willingness to listen to his concerns about the situation and he appreciates the City working to address it. As a commercial contractor, he has run into this issue in Ogden and other cities and he has had his vehicles towed from parking lots in a predatory manner. In Ogden his vehicle was towed after being parked in a lot for nine minutes and the tow company was watching from a parking lot nearby to find vehicles to tow. They also worked very hard to ensure that he could not pay the towing and recovery fee the same day so that it would be possible for them to charge additional storage fees. He stated that four of the new regulations in the proposed ordinance would have prevented the occurrence and he is appreciative of that. However, he has a question about the signage regulations. In the location from which his vehicle was towed, there are two entrances to the parking lot and the parking lot serves a strip mall. There are numerous spaces labeled for use by patrons of certain businesses, but the rest of the lot is not marked. He asked that the Council ensure addressing the issue of signage for the open portions of these types of parking lots. He added the $500 fee for violation of the ordinance would be covered by two unscrupulous tows by a towing company and it may be necessary to increase that fee in order for it to be more impactful to the operator of a tow company. Michael Love, 1774 Navajo Drive, South Ogden, stated he is the owner/operator of Love Towing; they do a lot of towing for private property owners in the City. He is not opposed to the ordinance, but he wondered if time would be allotted for updating or installing signage at parking lots throughout the City. He stated that he currently has two signs at the entrances of all properties that he monitors and he does not participate in predatory towing practices. He only tows a vehicle upon the request of a manager or owner of a property. He added that he issues parking stickers for apartment complexes and vehicles without parking stickers can be towed and he asked for clarification about how the ordinance will impact this type of practice. He stated he feels he is currently operating according to the regulations of the current ordinance and it should not negatively impact his business, but he wanted to ensure that the City understands that he has not engaged in unscrupulous behavior or predatory towing behavior. He concluded it is unfortunate that some businesses have given the towing industry a bad name. Emily Kunz, no address given, commented she is present to express her support for the proposed ordinance. She feels there is a definite need for it based on experiences that members of her family have had with predatory towing companies in the City; her father was attending a baseball game in downtown Ogden and had his vehicle towed. She stated several people come into the City to enjoy an activity and having their vehicle towed can give the City a bad image. She added she would like to stress it is very important that signage requirements be enforced. The parking lot that her father was parked in was not signed and he was not aware that he was unable to park there. In addition, when he went to pick up his car he barely caught an employee leaving the lot; otherwise, he would have been forced to wait until the following Monday to retrieve his vehicle. She concluded that another person that had their vehicle towed at the same time as her father had their vehicle damaged and they were required to sign a release under duress in order to get their vehicle back and she is glad that the proposed ordinance prohibits that practice. She feels the ordinance is long overdue and encouraged the Council to support it. Sarah Kunz, resident of Salt Lake City, said she also had a personal experience with a very unscrupulous tow company along with her father as previously mentioned by her sister. She stated that another person that had their vehicle towed at the same time as her father’s is diabetic and insulin dependent and the insulin was in her vehicle; this could have created a serious health issue for her. She commented there was no signage in the parking lot in which they were parked. When retrieving their vehicles from the lot, they were told that they had two minutes to pay the retrieval fees in cash or they would be forced to wait until Monday morning, at which time the fees would be over $1,000. She stated she was lucky to be in the company of a former police officer who informed the group that the tow company was required to accept credit or debit cards and this is the only reason that she and her father, as well as others were able to retrieve their vehicles. She added that not all vehicles in the parking lot were towed and those that were towed were newer and nicer vehicles. One person who had their vehicle towed visited the same parking lot the next night to observe a person with a radio walking through the parking lot and contacting a tow truck within 10 minutes of people leaving their vehicles. She stated she feels the ordinance would have prevented many of the things she experienced that night. Ruth Summit, 12th Street, also relayed a personal experience about an instance where her daughter’s vehicle was towed from the Ogden Plaza parking lot while she and her young children were attending a baseball game. The parking lot has some signage, but there is an area near the businesses in the parking lot where there is no signage indicating parking is not allowed. They contacted the Police Department who informed her that their vehicle had been towed by Slick Rock Towing Company, who told her that she could not come retrieve her vehicle. They asked the Police Department to intervene, at which point the tow company told her that she could retrieve the car seats from her vehicle, but could not take her vehicle. The tow company indicated that there was signage prohibiting parking in the lot, but it was not at the entrance of the lot. Her daughter paid $277 to retrieve her vehicle the next day. It was a very terrible experience; she and her daughter and her two young children were not able to return home until 11:30 p.m. that evening. Caitlin Gochnour, 2703 Hill Drive, thanked the Council for addressing this issue and considering the proposed ordinance. She also relayed a personal story of a night when her vehicle was towed while she attended an Ogden Raptors baseball game. She exited the game to find her vehicle missing. She examined the parking lot and did not see any signs, but near one of the entrances she found a sign attached to twine that was lying on the ground. She tried to retrieve her vehicle the same night and the tow company would not allow it and she was forced to wait until the next day. Additionally, the coaches, umpires, and other officials at the game had their vehicles towed. She indicated she is aware that the ordinance includes required measurements for the signs to be used at parking lots, but she suggested that it also include language requiring a certain font size on the signs to ensure it can be easily read by those deciding whether to park in a certain parking lot. Neil Schultz, 3625 South 5100 West, Hooper, stated he is president of the Tow Association of Weber County. He walks a very thin line in his capacity. His own daughter was a victim of Slick Rock towing in the past and he understands the practices that have been occurring in the City. He stated the Association has been working to enact legislation in the State of Utah to address some of the same issues that the proposed ordinance is trying to address. He expressed disappointment in the fact that he has not been involved in the process of drafting the ordinance because he could have informed City Administration and the Council that many of the provisions in the ordinance duplicate or conflict with State Law. He commented the towing companies are the fourth link in the chain; most towing companies only patrol parking lots that are well signed according to State Law. If the lot is not properly signed, a vehicle cannot be removed according to State Law. In addition, the ordinance bypasses the owner of the parking lot by requiring him to do something he is not required to do by State Law and is in conflict with a contract he may already have with a towing company for patrol of his lot. He added that many businesses do not secure enough parking for their patrons. There is not enough parking in downtown Ogden for those attending Ogden Raptors games and that forces people to look for other places to park, which could be a violation of the City’s ordinance. Lee Lions, 371 North 600 East, Provo, stated he manages commercial properties along the Wasatch Front and he knows many of the tow companies because he has been trying to get information from them to better understand the laws and regulations in place in different jurisdictions. He commented the problem he has is that the Ogden City Attorney, the West Valley City Attorney, and the Provo City Attorney have put a stop to any legislation he has promoted in the State. He proposed a bill two years ago to the Legislature that included at least half of the provisions or regulations that are included in the proposed ordinance and they put a stop to it. He stated he does not know why they are opposing his efforts. He has been working to ensure standardized signs are erected throughout the entire State of Utah. He referenced the towing issues associated with Ogden Raptors games and stated that is a problem that Ogden City has created. The City allows businesses to come to the City without providing adequate parking. This forces patrons to park in other lots and the owners of those other lots have the vehicles towed. He suggested that business licenses be revoked for businesses that have not provided adequate parking or that the City require them to increase their parking capacity. He stated the City of Provo constantly builds apartment complexes that will house 900 students, but they only require 700 parking stalls; this is creating a problem from the start. He asked how many people know who they should call when they believe their vehicle has been illegally towed. He added that it is likely that no one but the towers knows that there is a person employed by the Utah Department of Transportation that can fine towing companies up to $5,000 for illegal tows. There is a towing bill of rights that has been enacted by the State of Utah and City officials should be aware of these things. He stated that he monitors several properties along the Wasatch Front and one of his busiest locations is an LDS Chapel. He tows seven to 10 cars from it a week because it is next to a water park that charges for parking so people park in the free parking lot. He added he monitors the Macey’s parking lot in Ogden and there is currently a $250,000 law suit pending from an instance where a lady parked in the parking lot, rode to Salt Lake with a friend, and when she returned to her vehicle there was a half-inch of snow and she fell and was injured. He stated he is arguing that she should not be awarded damages because she did not have a right to park there in the first place. He asked that the Ogden City Attorney work with him to address the issues on a State level because it is not possible for individual cities to accomplish what needs to be done. No additional persons came forward to be heard regarding this matter. Chair White asked that staff address some of the questions and concerns raised during the public input period. Mr. Stratford re-approached and first discussed signage; he stated there are font size requirements in the ordinance. He offered additional clarification about an uncontrolled lot, which is a lot that does not have a gate or manned booth or parking assignments. If there is a sign in an uncontrolled lot for a specific business, there is an opportunity to tow an illegally parked vehicle from the spaces subject to that signage. However, if no signage is used in an uncontrolled lot, a vehicle can be parked there for 24 hours before it is considered to be in violation of the ordinance. He then addressed the comments made by Mr. Lions; there may be insufficient parking for any number of uses in the City and parking could be at a premium during those uses or events, but if adequate signage is in place and notice is given to vehicle owners, there is no problem with the owner of the parking lot waiting the prescribed period of time before having a vehicle towed. He argued the City has not created the issue except to the extent that in the past the City’s ordinance has not been specific enough about how vehicle owners should receive notice that they are illegally parked. He stated this is not the time for a debate about the statewide issues associated with towing; there are problems with addressing statewide legislation because different communities have different needs. Ogden City is within its rights to regulate issues within the City. City Administration wanted to develop an ordinance that was not influenced by private property owners or the towing industry because they wanted to enact regulations that provide the best balance of all competing interests. He added that State Law does require some signage, but the type of signage to be used is fairly limited and that is why the City’s ordinance is more specific. He stated he does not feel the ordinance conflicts with State Law; rather, it fills gaps that State Law does not cover. He concluded the City will not become involved in the relationship between a private property owner and a towing company, except to regulate that any contracts for towing services must comply with laws and ordinances of the City. Mr. Johnson also addressed concerns raised. He discussed the required signage locations and stated that City Administration is aware that it will take some time and effort for property owners to comply with the new ordinance and any issues that come along to that end will be dealt with. He added someone indicated that a $500 penalty is not sufficient to curb illegal towing activity, but City Administration feels it is a fair proposal and if it becomes necessary to reconsider the amount of the penalty in the future, City Administration is willing to consider that. Council member Hyer stated that once the ordinance is enacted, the public will have the ability to rely upon the regulations in the ordinance and they may expect some protection. Mr. Johnson replied that is correct and tow operators will also be expected to comply with the ordinance immediately upon its adoption. However, City Administration understands that it may take some time to erect new signage or replace old signage. He stated staff will work rapidly to educate the public and tow companies on the regulations of the new ordinance. Council member Stephens asked if a Code Enforcement Officer will visit parking lots throughout the City and make suggestions to owners relative to signage. Mr. Johnson reiterated that not all property owners will intend to erect signage, but all property owners will be notified of the ordinance change. He is hopeful that any parking lot owner that wishes to erect signage will reach out to the City to ensure they are proceeding in a manner that is compliant with the City ordinance. He emphasized that only private property owners with the intent to tow vehicles from their lots are required to install signage. Chair White asked if towing companies will be notified of the ordinance amendment as well. Mr. Johnson answered yes and stated that notification will occur immediately. Council member Hyer stated a previous commenter mentioned the use of parking stickers in apartment complexes and he asked if stickers could be used in place of signage for controlled lots. Mr. Johnson responded controlled lots would still need signage at their entrances. Mr. Stratford added that the ordinance provides private property owners with some flexibility. They must use signage, but they can include language on the sign that indicates that people are allowed to park in a lot by permit only. They can then use stickers or another form of permit to allow for legal parking.  Council member Hyer commented that after listening to public comment he feels there is a common theme and that is anger over the practices of one particular towing company that has operated in the City in the past. He stated he feels the proposed ordinance will address those practices. He does not believe the City has caused the problem by allowing businesses to locate in downtown Ogden, but the lack of an ordinance regulating this issue may have been contributing to the problem. He added the proposed ordinance is the City’s attempt to resolve the problems that have occurred. The idea that a property owner would receive a ‘kick-back’ from a tow company operator for removal of vehicles is not reasonable and he is glad that the ordinance addresses that. Council member Lopez stated that he agrees with the commenter that indicated that a $500 civil penalty may not be high enough and he is supportive of increasing that fine. He also asked how many times a company will be allowed to violate the ordinance before the City considers revoking their license. Council member Hyer stated he does not believe the $500 fine is too low because it can be charged per occurrence rather than for a given time period. Vice Chair Blair thanked City Administration for their efforts to draft the proposed ordinance as it has been an issue the City has received complaints about over the course of several years. Council member Lopez agreed. Chair White also thanked Council member Hyer for his efforts to address the issue. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-35 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Council member Nadolski was not present when this vote was taken. The Chair signed the ordinance as passed and adopted and the Chair’s signature was attested by the City Recorder. The authenticated ordinance was then filed with the City Recorder for transmittal to the Mayor for review and consideration. Proposed Ordinance 2016-31 amending the city budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 by increasing the anticipated revenues for a gross increase of $1,620,167 A memo from the Comptroller regarding proposed amendments in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 budget came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated the proposal is to amend the current FY2016 budget to provide for additional revenues in the amount of $1,620,167 not previously anticipated and to appropriate the additional funds for various expenditures. Comptroller Stout summarized the memo and stated the purpose of this action is to recognize any additional revenue from grants, donations, etc. not previously included in the FY 2015-2016 budget, as well as appropriation suggestions for the additional funds. Also included in the amendment are re-appropriations related to pay for performance compensation adjustments as distributed within each department and payroll related budget adjustments due to vacation buyback and retirement. The total appropriation is $1,620,167 and she provided a brief breakdown of how the appropriation will be distributed among various line items in the budget. The Chair then called for a motion to open a public hearing on proposed Ordinance 2016-31, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City amending the budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 by increasing the anticipated revenues for a gross increase of $1,620,167 from sources as detailed in the body of this ordinance; and increasing the appropriations for a gross increase of $1,620,167 as detailed in the body of this ordinance; and providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” The Deputy City Recorder presented written notice of said hearing and affidavit of the publication in the Standard- Examiner on the 12th day of June, 2016, specifying the time and place of this meeting as the time and place when and where the proposed ordinance would be given a public hearing and be considered for final passage. The proof of publication was accepted and filed. VICE CHAIR BLAIR MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOW ALL INTERESTED PERSONS FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. Council member Nadolski was not present when this vote was taken. Max Price, 2854 Adams Avenue, stated that he has felt that Ogden residents are over paying for certain utility services and then he received a notice in the mail indicating the City has a surplus amount in enterprise funds. He commented there are many people in the City that are living below the poverty line, but they are still charged $100 per month for utilities and he does not feel that is appropriate given the surplus the City has on hand. He stated he has lived in California and he has never paid so much for water and sewer and he has a small yard in Ogden. The City should not be in the business of generating revenue for service provision and the City should not have a blank check for future projects. He feels the money should be returned to the customers. He stated that there is also a surplus in the refuse fund, though the City is not quick to respond after wind storms that cause damage and create additional refuse throughout the City. He noted he spoke to his garbage truck driver who indicated to him that he is on welfare and uses food stamps. It seems he should have money to pay his bills given the surplus the City has on hand in the refuse fund. He asked that the City consider developing zones in the City that can be used to identify the income level of residents in those zones and then consider enacting a tiered utility rate system so that those with lower income levels may be assessed a lower water bill. He concluded utilities should not be used as a way to generate money for ‘pet projects’. He would like to understand the actual cost of providing water and sewer services to residents. Chair White stated that the action before the Council tonight is to consider end of year adjustments for the current budget and Mr. Price’s comments may be better directed towards the adoption of the coming Fiscal Year budget.  There being no further persons appearing to be heard, COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. Council member Nadolski was not present when this vote was taken. ON A MOTION BY VICE CHAIR BLAIR AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-31 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Council member Nadolski was not present when this vote was taken. The Chair signed the ordinance as passed and adopted and the Chair’s signature was attested by the City Recorder. The authenticated ordinance was then filed with the City Recorder for transmittal to the Mayor for review and consideration. Proposed Ordinance 2016-30 adopting salary schedules for all employees of the City AND Proposed Ordinance 2016-27 adopting the tentative budget of Ogden City for the 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 AND Proposed Ordinance 2016-34 amending Subsection 4-6-1.C to revise the fee schedule pertaining to fire services A memo from Council staff regarding proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 salary schedules came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated each year the Council approves a salary schedule for all officers and employees of the City. The salary schedule implements the proposed employee wage and benefit decisions. Four salary schedules are proposed as follows: Non-Merit –Special Employees, Merit Employees, Classified Employees within the Police Department, and Classified Employees within the Fire Department. The proposed salary schedule includes the following: 1. A pay increase of up to 4% based on merit - $1,688,275. Also included in the proposed budget is a Police Department steps correction increase of $860,175 and a Fire Department steps correction of $1,076,975. Department managers have each decided how the merit increases will be distributed. 2. Reclassification of 12 positions. 3. A net total of 6 positions added with 8 new positions added and 2 positions eliminated. 4. The health insurance cost increase is $0. 5. Retirement funding increases as required - $0. The total proposed wage and benefit increases equal $3,625,425. An additional memo from Council staff regarding a proposed ordinance adopting the FY2017 Tentative City Budget and setting a public hearing to consider a proposed change in the certified tax rate, and setting a public hearing to adopt the final budget came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated every year the Mayor is required by law to present his/her proposed budget at the first Council meeting in 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 22nd 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. A final memo from the Comptroller regarding proposed revisions to the fee schedule relative to Fire Safety Trailer fees came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated the Fire Safety Training Trailer is used by the Fire Department to help train residents and workers in Ogden. The trailer is used to simulate emergency situations such as kitchen fires or industrial fires. The trailer uses simulated smoke, light, heat and sounds to help with the training. The Fire Department is proposing a small fee for the use of the trailer to help off-set the costs associated with operating and maintaining the trailer. The per-hour cost breakdown for the smoke fluid used to simulate fire conditions, fuel costs, smoke machine cleaning solution, and laser extinguisher props is estimated to be $31.10. The proposed fees for usage are $35 for the first hour and $25 for each additional hour with a minimum charge of $35. The Fire Department has indicated that the personnel costs associated with operation and training are not intended to be covered by this fee as the training is seen as being in line with the mission of the fire prevention division. Revenue for this fee has not been projected in the budget at this time. Any revenues generated from this fee would be added to the General Fund; however, no revenue estimate amount is included with the proposal. Comptroller Stout first provided the Council with information regarding the notices that have been mailed to all utility customers in the City. State Law indicates that any time monies are transferred from a utility fund to a government fund, the City is required to notify utility customers. The notice that was mailed as well as tonight’s public hearing satisfy that provision of the Law. The utility transfers are included in the proposed budget and the practice is not a new activity for the City; the City has approved transfers for multiple years. The proposed budget includes a transfer from the Water Fund of $2,277,000, a transfer from the Sanitary Sewer Fund of $1,325,000, a transfer from the Storm Sewer Fund of $584,000, and a transfer from the Refuse Fund of $663,000. The transfers total $4,825,000 and all monies will be transferred to the General Fund of the City. She stated there is a difference between a transfer and a charge for service. The City is authorized to charge administrative overhead for services provided to the utility departments of the City, but that is different than the transfers that are contemplated in the proposed budget. The transfer is essentially a tax levied on the utility funds: six percent for franchise and six percent for property tax. Additionally, the budget includes a proposal to transfer $40,000 from the Water Fund, $15,000 from the Sanitary Sewer Fund, and $10,000 from the Storm Sewer Fund for a total amount of $65,000 for art funding for future Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) projects. Those monies will be allocated upon a recommendation of the Arts Council. Council Executive Director Cook then summarized the memos and used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Council with information regarding the proposed budget. He noted that one action before the Council is to consider a salary schedule for the City and he indicated a substitute salary schedule was provided to the Council prior to this meeting and Administration has requested it be adopted in place of the schedule that was initially provided. He started by reviewing the Council’s overarching goals for operating the City; these goals are used to move through the budget process and they include:  Having a sustainable, thriving economy.  Having stable and safe neighborhoods.  Having actively involved citizens.  Having quality activities accessible to all.  Being well known for our rich natural environment. The Council has had several budget priorities as they have moved through the budget review process this year and those include:  Employee Compensation.  Property Tax increase to fund Police and Fire compensation changes.  Diversity affairs.  Master plans for recreation, art and culture and transportation.  Redevelopment projects.  Branding initiative.  Capital improvements. Mr. Cook discussed significant changes to the proposed budget when compared to previous year’s budgets: the General Fund is increasing $552,790 or one percent. Employee compensation is increasing by $3.6 Million. A property tax increase is recommended to fund Police and Fire salary increases and would be offset by an equal reduction in property taxes due to a bond that has been paid off. There is no net increase in what citizens pay. There is also a continued focus on City facilities and a management study for Facilities will be completed by July 31, 2016. Work has been underway to develop and facilitate adoption of a new City brand. Mr. Cook then discussed Council legislative priorities, noting the Council has identified six legislative goals for FY2017 that will be the primary focus of its policy making responsibilities. Six workgroups are being formed to address each of these legislative goals. The Council’s legislative priorities focus on public safety, community outreach and engagement, active and healthy living, fiscal sustainability and transparency, cultivating neighborhoods, and improving transportation. Mr. Cook reviewed the process City Administration and the Council has followed to develop the proposed FY2017 budget and indicated he applauds all that have been involved in the process for their hard work and efforts. The total proposed City budget is $180,623,155. There are also budgets for the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and Municipal Building Authority (MBA) and when all three are added together, the total budget for Ogden is $199,611,355. Mr. Cook focused briefly on the salary schedule, which includes four percent merit salary increases, but no retirement cost or health insurance cost increases; the Fire Department retirement rate decreased by 0.1 percent. The salary schedule includes 605 full time positions, 12 reclassifications, eight new positions, 215 benchmark adjustments, and two position eliminations. The Police Department will transition to a 12-step pay plan, which has an associated increase of $1,254,422. The Fire Department will transition to a nine-step pay plan, which has an associated increase of $1,120,054. These two increases will be funded by increased property tax revenues associated with the proposed tax increase. He then noted the “tentative” FY2017 budget modifies the Mayor’s proposed budget as defined in Schedule A, which includes 34 additional changes that have been discussed over the months that the Administration and Council have been moving through the budget process. He added that due to the fact that the Council is considering the tax increase recommended by City Administration, it is not possible to adopt the final budget this evening. The Council must hold a truth-in-taxation hearing prior to adopting the final budget and that hearing is scheduled for August 9, 2016 at 6:00 p.m. An open house regarding the subject will also be held on July 26, 2016 from 5:00 to 6:00 p.m. He concluded this is the first truth-in-taxation the City will have held in its history. He thanked all members of Council staff for their hard work and the energy they have dedicated to reviewing the proposed budget. Fire Marshall Brown summarized the memo regarding the proposed ordinance enacting rental fees for the Fire Safety Trailer; the proposed fees are $35 for the first hour and $25 for each subsequent hour. The fees will cover basic operating costs and consumables used on the trailer, but it will not cover staff time. The Chair then called for a motion to open a public hearing on proposed Ordinances 2016-30, 2016-27, and 2016-34 respectively entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, adopting salary schedules for all employees of the City; and providing that this ordinance will be effective on July 1, 2016.” “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.” “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Subsection 4-6-1.C to  revise the fee schedule pertaining to fire services; and by providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” The Deputy City Recorder presented written notice of said hearing and affidavit of the publication in the Standard- Examiner on the 12th day of June, 2016, specifying the time and place of this meeting as the time and place when and where the proposed ordinance would be given a public hearing and be considered for final passage. The proof of publication was accepted and filed. VICE CHAIR BLAIR MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOW ALL INTERESTED PERSONS FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. Council member Nadolski was not present when this vote was taken. Donna Stevenson, 2595 Eastwood Boulevard, stated she has owned a rental unit in Ogden City for the past 14 years. Initially her water bill was $34 and it has continued to increase over the years until it has neared $100 per month. She received the notification regarding the utility fund transfers and the proposed tax increase and stated that she now understands why the water bill is so high. She said it is double the amount she pays for her own residence. She does not believe the City should pay for recreation items that compete with private industry. She feels it is a dishonest practice and the same as theft. She added she took advantage of one of the special events in the City when she attended a movie at the amphitheater; it was not an enjoyable experience because people were too loud and moving all about. She had to rent the same movie later to understand what it was actually about. She stated there is nothing more basic than water and money should not be taken from the water fund to fund arts projects. There being no further persons appearing to be heard, COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ MOVED THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. Council member Nadolski was not present when this vote was taken. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BLAIR, THE SUBSTITUTE SALARY SCHEDULE, EXHIBIT A, WAS ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE AND PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-30 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Council member Nadolski was not present when this vote was taken. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, THE ORDINANCE WAS AMENDED TO INCLUDE A CERTIFIED TAX RATE OF .003049 (28.26%) AND THE ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-27 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS HYER AND LOPEZ. VOTING NO – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. Council member Nadolski was not present when this vote was taken. The motion failed. Vice Chair Blair stated there are many factors that go into the variable tax rate. He appreciates the intent of Council member Hyer’s motion was to support the lower tax rate, but proceeding with the slightly higher tax rate would offer the Council more flexibility as they move through the truth-in-taxation process. He stated he would feel more comfortable proceeding with consideration of the .00322 rate that was noticed. Council member Garner agreed; the slightly higher rate will give the City more flexibility throughout the truth-in taxation process and the lower rate can still be adopted at a future date if the Council deems such an action appropriate. Council member Hyer stated he understands the need for flexibility, but philosophically he feels the Council should strive to keep the taxes of the community as low as possible. He added he realizes the difference between the two tax rates being considered is very small, but he would like to be cautious when considering things such as taxes that have the opportunity to impact public trust. He was trying to send the message to the public that the Council is trying to be careful stewards of taxpayer dollars and he understands it may be possible to send that message in the future following the truth-in-taxation hearings. Council member Garner commented he also wants to be a careful steward of tax dollars; the Council has made hard decisions in the past and will make more hard decisions in the future and he feels the Council has always been extremely cautious. Council member Stephens stated he feels the Council has been very fiscally responsible, but providing more flexibility in the process will be more beneficial in the long run. The Council will have the opportunity to vote for the lower tax rate after the truth-in-taxation hearing if that action is deemed appropriate. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BLAIR, THE SUBSTITUTE SCHEDULE A WITH A CERTIFIED TAX RATE OF .003103 (31%), WAS ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE AND PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-27 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – COUNCIL MEMBERS HYER AND LOPEZ. Council member Nadolski was not present when this vote was taken. The Chair signed the ordinance as passed and adopted and the Chair’s signature was attested by the City Recorder. The authenticated ordinance was then filed with the City Recorder for transmittal to the Mayor for review and consideration. Council member Hyer asked that City Administration respond to the comments made regarding the rate at which water rates have increased in the City and the manner in which water transfers to the General Fund are used. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson indicated the City has some of the oldest infrastructure in the State of Utah. The utility rate increases have come as a result of the need to replace major infrastructure lines throughout the City. The average length of a pipe is 50 to 70 years and the City has some pipe that is over 100 years old. He added some pipes that have been removed from the ground were made of wood. The main supply line in Ogden Canyon was recently replaced; it was 102 years old and was losing five million gallons of water per day. He stated that if the City does not work to address the problems now, they will only become bigger for the next generation. City water rates were not increased for nearly 30 years until they were increase in the past couple of years. He added other utility companies pay franchise taxes and City Administration felt it was fair that City utility funds also pay an enterprise fee. Mayor Caldwell added that the lion’s share of money received in the Water Fund must remain in that fund and be used to replace or repair infrastructure. He stated he understands the manner in which rates have been increased has been shocking, but it would not have been done if it was not truly needed in order for the City to continue to provide quality water service to residents. Council member Hyer commented the Council first completed a comprehensive water rate study four years ago and the situation the City was in was very difficult. Many projects were needed and the cost to complete those projects was high. The Council could have made the decision to delay the projects further, but the costs would only increase and completing them would be much more difficult for future Councils and City Administration. He concluded the Council does not take those decisions lightly and they do not use enterprise funds for frivolous things. ON A MOTION BY VICE CHAIR BLAIR AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-34 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Council member Nadolski was not present when this vote was taken. Public Comments Alan Parks, 970 Canyon Road, thanked the Council for their involvement in improving Canyon Road below Monroe Boulevard. The installation of new curb, gutter, and sidewalk has been a major improvement in terms of safety of the school children that walk to and from school in the area. He stated the street is somewhat narrow and the speed limit is 25 miles per hour, but people drive on it at much higher rates of speed and it is nice that pedestrians now have the ability to walk on a sidewalk in the area. He then addressed an issue on other portions of Canyon Road. He is aware that there are zoning changes being considered for homes and properties along the street. He is grateful that dilapidated buildings on the street may be eliminated to make way for improved structures and uses. He added there is a structure at 889 Canyon Road, the owner of which has received approval for a duplex. The owner has told residents that he will only have two mailboxes in front of the building, but it actually contains four units. The owner is not a member of the Good Landlord Program and he rents to felons. He asked that the City address those concerns. Jeremy Crowton stated he is representing the Local Fire Fighters Union 552 and he wants to publicly thank the Council for their support of the Fire Department by way of approving a step plan and wage increases. He commented it has taken much hard work and he feels it will allow the Department to more easily retain quality employees. Ogden is a great place to live and work and it is important to retain good public servants. Alisa Wallace, 985 Canyon Road, stated she is also concerned about some zoning changes on Canyon Road; a rezone of property at 999 Canyon Road was recently approved and the owner was given approval of R-3 zoning. She noted this is concerning due to the number of multi-family developments that are present in the area. She stated that allowing five units on the property that is only 2.5 acres in size is very concerning to the neighborhood. The proposed parking for the property was on Canyon Road, but that could be problematic due to the close proximity of the property to the nearby intersection with Monroe Boulevard. She also wants to ensure that mechanisms are put in place to ensure the property is well maintained and she would like to see an emphasis placed on owner occupancy rather than allowing additional rental properties. Chair White clarified that the rezones discussed have not been voted upon; final action on the applications is scheduled for July 5, 2016. Mayor Comments Mayor Caldwell stated he appreciates all those that have attended tonight’s meeting and addressed the Council and Administration. He thanked Council staff and the Council for the great attention they have paid to the budget and the detailed manner in which they have considered it. There is no greater responsibility elected officials have than to carefully consider the use of public dollars and strive to do more with less. He stated he knows that the budget is something the Council and City Administration take very seriously. The Mayor then reported the Farmer’s Market will start on Saturday, June 25, 2016 on 25th Street and one of the largest air shows in the nation will be held at Hill Air Force Base this weekend. Council member Comments Council member Stephens stated he appreciates the manner in which City Administration and Council staff prepare information regarding the budget so that it is easily understandable. One of the major responsibilities of the Council is to be prudent with tax payer dollars and the development of a budget. He said he appreciates the comments of citizens and sometimes new ideas are provided to the Council through such comments. He addressed water rates and stated he understands the rates seemed high and there may be opportunities to relieve some of the pressure on rate payers in the future, but the rate increases were needed in order to provide for the completion of needed infrastructure projects. He mentioned property taxes and reiterated he supported including the higher certified tax rate in the proposed budget in order to provide the Council with flexibility as they continue to evaluate and examine the budget. He also appreciates the residents that spoke about Canyon Road; one of his top priorities as a Council member is to strengthen the neighborhoods throughout the community. He cannot see how certain rezones will benefit and strengthen the neighborhoods and he is also concerned about it. Council member Garner also thanked Council staff for their aid through the budget review process. He also thanked City Administration for giving the Council access to Department Directors and the Finance Division of the City throughout the budget process. He added it has also been an honor to hear from employee groups as well. He acknowledged those that made public comments tonight and thanked residents for their willingness to be involved in their community. He then addressed the comments made by Mr. Parks and stated that that the Council is very focused on improving sidewalks throughout the City. This is a great undertaking and the Council will continue to examine it. He concluded by thanking his fellow Council members; they are a hard working group and though they do not always agree on everything, they are cordial and professional when dealing with one another. Council member Lopez echoed the thanks for those employees involved in the budget process as well as the citizens that spoke this evening. He also stated that he is very appreciative for the Council’s action on the predatory towing ordinance as this is an issue that has needed to be addressed for some time. Council member Hyer also echoed the thanks to all employees, Administration, and Council staff for their involvement in the budget process. He added he and Council member Garner had the opportunity to tour the Weber Basin Water Conservancy District system and he left with the impression that the City has a great water system that will serve the City for decades to come. He noted that the District has rebate programs for users that implement water conservation practices on their own properties. He stated he is hopeful that Ogden citizens will take advantage of the program. There being no further business to come before the Council, VICE CHAIR BLAIR MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 8:13 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. Council member Nadolski was not present when this vote was taken. ________________________________________ ABBIE HUFSTETLER DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: October 25, 2016  Minutes of Special Meeting of Redevelopment Agency of Ogden City, Utah, June 21, 2016 Page Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency held on Tuesday, June 21 at 8:17 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 Board members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Doug Stephens Excused: Board member Ben Nadolski Board Administrator Bill Cook Board Deputy Administrator Janene Eller-Smith Board Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Communications Manager Amy Sue Mabey Also present: Executive Director Michael P. Caldwell Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson City Attorney Gary Williams Chief Deputy City Attorney Mara Brown Assistant City Attorney Mark Stratford Management Services Director David G. Buxton Public Services Director Jay Lowder Comptroller Lisa Stout Deputy Finance Manager Camille Cook Deputy City Recorder Abbie Hufstetler Proposed Resolution 2016-14 amending the budget for Fiscal Year July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 by increasing the anticipated revenues for a gross increase of $22,271,000 A memo from the City Comptroller came before the Board to consider a resolution making year-end adjustments in the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016 budget. The memo stated at the end of each fiscal year, the Administration reviews the financial position of the Agency, identifies any unanticipated revenues, and makes recommendations to the Board for allocation or reallocation of Agency funds as it deems appropriate. The current proposal is to modify the current FY2016 budget to include additional revenue in the amount of $22,271,000 and to appropriate the additional revenue for district expenses. Comptroller Stout summarized the memo and stated the purpose of this action is to recognize and appropriate additional funds in the Redevelopment Agency (RDA), including an appropriation for the bond refunding that occurred in February and the payoff of old bonds. Additionally, there is an appropriation of $111,000 from three RDA Districts: the Washington Boulevard, Lester Park, and 12th Street Districts. Each of these Districts received higher than expected revenues and those additional revenues are being dedicated to the Recreation Center Debt in the Central Business District (CBD) Mall District. The final appropriation is for $99,000 in the American Can District and is being used for an additional payment to the developer in the project area. Chair White called for a motion to open a public hearing on proposed Resolution 2016-14, entitled: “A resolution of the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency amending the budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2015 to June 30, 2016 by increasing the anticipated revenues for a gross increase of $22,271,000 from sources as detailed in the body of this resolution; and increasing the appropriations for a gross increase of $22,271,000 as detailed in the body of this resolution.” The Deputy City Recorder presented written notice of said hearing and affidavit of the publication in the Standard- Examiner on the 12th day of June, 2016, specifying the time and place of this meeting as the time and place when and where the proposed resolution would be given a public hearing and be considered for final passage. The proof of publication was accepted and filed. BOARD MEMBER GARNER MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOW ALL INTERESTED PERSONS FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER STEPHENS, ALL VOTING AYE. Board member Nadolski was not present when this vote was taken. There being no persons appearing to be heard, VICE CHAIR BLAIR MOVED THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. Board member Nadolski was not present when this vote was taken. COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED, AND THE CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SAME. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Board member Nadolski was not present when this vote was taken. There being no further business to come before the Council, BOARD MEMBER GARNER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 8:22 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. Board member Nadolski was not present when this vote was taken. ________________________________________ ABBIE HUFSTETLER DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: October 25, 2016