City Council

Minutes of Joint Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, July 26, 2016 Page Minutes of the Joint Work Session of the Ogden City Council, also acting as the Municipal Building Authority, held on Tuesday, July 26, 2016 at 3:34 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 (participated via telephone until 4:59 p.m.) Acting Vice Chair Bart E. Blair (arrived at 3:34 p.m.) Council members Neil K. Garner (arrived at 3:42 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 Council Policy Analyst Amy Sue Mabey Communications Manager Brittany Griffin Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Assistant City Attorney Mark Stratford Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Community and Economic Development Deputy Director Brandon Cooper Management Services Director David G. Buxton Comptroller Lisa Stout Deputy Finance Manager Camille Cook City Treasurer Brandee Johnson Public Services Director Jay Lowder Deputy Planning Manager Clinton Spencer Deputy City Recorder Julia LaSeure Others: Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, Inc., Principal Laura Lewis Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, Inc., Senior Analyst Fred Philpot The purpose of the Joint Work Session was to review the agenda for the City Council meeting scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m., discuss the proposed vacation of a portion of West 25th Street, discuss a rate adjustment associated with the Series 2006A Municipal Building Authority (MBA) Bonds, review the General Fund Financial Model, discuss the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Budget, and discuss 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. Mr. Cook proposed changing the order of the agenda as the petitioner for the West 25th Street vacation will not be here. The Council agreed to move that agenda item to after discussion on the MBA Bonds. General Fund Financial Model Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith explained the City’s financial advisors will present the General Fund Financial Model (GFFM) developed with input from all division managers and department directors. The GFFM is a tool that will assist the Council and Administration in determining the sustainability of the City’s General Fund. Fred Philpot of Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham (LYRB) made a presentation to provide the Council with additional information about the proposed GFFM. He indicated he would review modeling assumptions, revenues, new expenditures, provide a scenario analysis, and address any questions the Council may have. He reviewed assumptions regarding primary revenues as follows:  Base Year Tax Levy – 0.0032200  Municipal Energy Sales Tax – 3 percent growth  Sales Tax – 5 percent Growth Year 1-3, 3 percent growth year 4-5  Active Transportation – 5 percent growth year 1-3, 3 percent growth year 4-5  Franchise Tax – 3 percent growth  Allocation to Municipal Operations – 3 percent growth   Other Revenues – 0 percent to 3 percent growth, based on historic Mr. Philpot also discussed assumptions regarding primary expenditures as follows:  Salaries – 4 percent growth  Benefits – 7 percent growth, based on historic  General Expenditures – 3 percent growth Mr. Philpot focused more closely on the primary expenditure assumptions relating to benefits as a percentage of compensation and noted that benefit costs would increase in the event staffing levels were increased in any area of the City. Benefits expenditures include workers’ compensation premiums, FICA, retirement benefits, medical insurance, and disability insurance. Mr. Philpot reviewed the primary revenues available to municipalities as follows:  Property Tax – Most stable source, rate controlled by City Council.  Sales Tax – Fluctuates with economy, State Legislature controls the distribution formula.  Franchise Fees – More stable than sales tax but not as stable as property tax. Limited to a maximum of 6 percent on gas and electric and 3.5 percent on telecommunications.  Building and Development Fees – Unpredictable and decrease near buildout, usually cover reimbursement of actual staff time and processing expense.  Charges for Services – Effective cost recovery mechanism if updated regularly. Mr. Philpot explained stability is based on a balanced revenue mix where the City is not specifically reliant on one source of revenue and, rather, can rely on three or even four revenue sources. He explained property tax revenues are the most stable source with the rate controlled by the City Council. While the rate can be controlled by Council, in most cases it is largely ignored and therefore controlled by certified tax rate calculation which is designed to keep the property tax revenues flat. Property tax revenue is based on assessed value of real, personal and centrally assessed property in the City. Variables such as the use of Redevelopment Areas and Board of Equalization adjustments are used to adjust for the five-year average collection rate. The certified tax rate is equal to revenue neutrality plus new growth, which is not what the layperson would think is the definition of the certified tax rate. He stated if the City chooses not to assess the certified tax rate through the Truth in Taxation process, the result will be revenue neutrality wherein the City will ‘live’ off the same amount of property tax means. The General Fund revenues could be based on historic tax revenues dating back to 1987, which is the last time the City’s property tax rate was increased. This can result in a loss in buying power or a decrease in the level of service offered to residents. He reviewed a table illustrating the distribution of the City’s revenue stream offering a comparison of budget years dating back to 2011 and projecting into the future through 2022. He noted that in the 2016 budget, property tax revenues comprise 14 percent of total revenues; general sales and use tax revenues comprise 28 percent of total revenues; and franchise tax revenues comprise 12 percent of total revenues. He discussed proportionality of revenue resources and the City’s ability to control the resources, adding that there may be some risk associated with too great a dependence upon one revenue source that is conditioned upon market factors. He focused on expenditures and indicated three expenditure categories have been identified: General Operations and Maintenance, Non- Departmental Expenditures, and Debt Service. LYRB met with each Department Director in the City to evaluate their budget and consider potential future expenditures from FY2018 to FY2022. That data has been included in a summary chart to communicate new expenditures are not considered in the baseline assumptions for the proforma. Mr. Philpot explained increases in expenditures are primarily driven by additional personnel in the Legal Division, non-departmental increases, equipment and level of service adjustments in the Police Department, increased staffing in Fire Department Administration, increased staffing in the Business Development Division, and increased personnel and expenditure equalization in the Public Services Department. There was general discussion regarding various expenditures included in the summary chart, with a focus on the difference between one-time and ongoing annual expenditures. Discussion also centered on City Administration’s proposal for funding the increases in expenditures. Mr. Philpot reviewed a graph comparing the level of service provided by Ogden City to the levels of service in other jurisdictions for calls per firefighter and calls per police officer. He noted that, given the data that has been identified relative to expenditure and revenue projections, there will be a strain on the General Fund from year to year with a compounding deficit in the fifth year of the proforma, or 2022. To address this scenario, a small tax increase is proposed for FY2018 and a larger increase in FY2019, or direction from the Council to consider tax increases every other year. An alternate option is to connect tax increases to cost of living or consumer price index (CPI) adjustments from year to year, but that would likely not generate enough new revenue to account for the increases in expenditures. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson interjected that if the City had been taking action to maintain the tax rate rather than accept the adjusted certified tax rate provided by Weber County since 1987, the City would be receiving approximately $6 million in additional property tax revenues at this time. Mr. Philpot agreed and stated that maintaining or slightly increasing the certified tax rate from year to year helps to maintain the City’s buying power and allows the City to keep up with expenditure increases. Ms. Eller-Smith added the scenario analysis chart that provides the recommended property tax increase each year is based upon the assumption that the Council will approve the 35 percent tax increase proposed in the FY2017 budget. Mr. Philpot stated that is correct. Council member Nadolski acknowledged that the scenario analysis chart assumes a property tax increase each year, but does not account for any increase in property values in the City, which would result in a natural revenue increase. Mr. Philpot stated that is correct and explained increases in property values are based on annual changes in property valuation based upon market conditions. He stated that is not considered new growth and is often accounted for in the certified tax rate, which is why the County often recommends a decreased certified tax rate. He stated his recommendation is that the City maintain the certified tax rate from year to year and implement small increases to isolate revenues associated with new growth. Council member Nadolski asked for confirmation that his understanding of the proposed tax increases is accurate, based on his calculation, the City Council would be asked to increase taxes again by 36 percent by FY2019. Mr. Philpot answered that is correct if the Council desires to fund 100 percent of the expenditures shown in his presentation. Mr. Johnson emphasized that City Administration is always looking for other opportunities to cover increases in costs without asking for a tax increase. He stated he anticipates that the projected expenditure increases will change from year to year. Council member Stephens said while he understands the need to maintain or increase the current level of public safety services, he is concerned that residents will be upset about proposed property tax increases and will suggest the City live within its means. Mr. Johnson indicated he expects to hear that feedback from the citizens, but he feels the proposed tax increases are justified and likened the City’s current situation to an individual living on the same salary today that they were earning in 1985. That is not reasonable and cannot be sustained. The only revenue the City has any control over is property tax revenue and the City is operating with the same property tax revenue that it was in 1985. The current level of service cannot be sustained at that level. He feels it is more responsible to implement small increases on a regular basis rather than waiting so long that it becomes necessary to implement dramatic increases, which is painful for the residents. There was general discussion with staff regarding the need to increase revenues or decrease expenditures. Council member Lopez indicated he would like the Council to have ample time to continue discussion and debate regarding the proposed GFFM. Mr. Cook said another work session is scheduled to allow the Council to focus on this issue alone. He thanked City staff and LYRB representatives for their work on the proposal and for their input this evening. The meeting recessed at 4:48 p.m. and reconvened at 4:53 p.m. Rate adjustment – Series 2006A MBA Bonds Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith explained City Administration is requesting the Council adopt a resolution authorizing a rate modification for the Series 2006A MBA Bonds and amendments to the Second Indenture of Trust and Master Lease Agreement. A portion of the bonds are callable and can be refunded for an economic savings and the City’s financial advisors have estimated the annual savings to be approximately $90,000. The Administration is seeking a rate modification on the Series 2000A Bonds from the current rate of 4.65 percent to approximately 1.9 percent. Other pertinent information relating to the Series 2000A Bond is summarized as follows: Original Par Amount: $2,865,000 Remaining Balance: $1,280,000 Final Maturity Date: June 15, 2021 Security: First Trust Deed Lien on Public Works Building Reserve Fund Balance: $293,873.69 Original and Current Interest Rate: 4.35 percent Project Refunding Interest Rate: ~ 1.90 percent Estimated Total Annual Savings: (Net of $10,000 Cost of Issuance contribution): $89.926.54 Estimated NPV Savings: 6.121 percent The final refunding interest rate will be determined upon approval by the MBA and the City Council. This transaction involves a rate modification only, and as such, there are no publication, notification or contest period requirements. The proposal from the Administration includes amending the First Amendment to the Master Lease Agreement by:  Deleting Section 4.2 relating to mandatory tender; and  Allowing that the amendment may be executed in several counterparts. All other terms and conditions of the Master Lease and the First Amendment to Master Lease will remain in full force and effect. The proposal from the Administration includes amending the Second Supplemental Indenture of Trust by:  Amending Section 2.2 to amend the interest rate to approximately 1.9 percent (final to be determined just prior to closing) and deleting the final two paragraphs;  Deleting Section 3.2 relating to mandatory tender; and  Allowing that the amendment may be executed in several counterparts. Ms. Eller-Smith discussed the fiscal impact of the proposal and indicated Administration is proposing to pay the transaction costs of approximately $10,000 from existing MBA funds. All revenues of the MBA are derived from lease payments made by the City which means the City would ultimately pay these costs. If the refunding is not approved, the MBA (and through lease payments, the City) would need to pay off the callable portion of the bonds (the “mandatory tender” as determined by the bond documents) of $986,126.31. Laura Lewis of LYRB stated the Council and MBA are essentially being asked to decide between paying 4.35 percent or 1.90 percent interest on the Series 2006A Bonds. She noted this type of bond is most comparable to a personal mortgage and transaction costs associated with the rate adjustment are approximately $10,000. She reviewed the schedule for proceeding with the rate adjustment and closing on the bonds and noted that final action will be needed by both the City Council and the MBA. Ms. Eller-Smith added that action items will be included on the August 16, 2016 City Council and MBA agendas for final consideration. Council member Nadolski asked about the funding source for the transaction costs associated with the rate adjustment. Comptroller Stout indicated the costs will be spread across the Refuse, Storm Sewer, Sanitary Sewer, Water, and General Funds.  The meeting recessed at 4:58 p.m. for the Open House and regular meeting and reconvened at 6:42 p.m. Chair White was excused from the remainder of the meeting. West 25th Street Vacation Council Policy Analyst Symes explained a petition was submitted by James Starkey to vacate a portion of the West 25th Street right-of-way adjacent to property he owns on the corner of 25th Street and D Avenue. Mr. Starkey has indicated that he wishes to build a home on the property and would need the additional lot area to accommodate proper setbacks for the construction of a home. In reviewing the petition, the Planning Division felt that a portion of the 25th Street right-of-way between D Avenue and A Avenue could be vacated as well. The proposal includes both the portion Mr. Starkey is requesting and the additional portion the Planning Division is including. The width of the right-of-way for 25th Street between A Avenue and D Avenue is platted at 99 feet. 99 feet was a common dedication width when the plat for this area was approved. Right-of-way widths that size are still common but are generally reserved for larger collector-type roads. In this area 25th Street is a neighborhood road and does not need to be this wide. Many times when rights-of-way are this size, adjacent property owners are unaware that a large portion of their yard is actually dedicated right-of-way. In this case, the dedication goes well into the yards of the adjacent property owners. Having wider than necessary rights-of-way can impact things like setbacks for buildings. Such is the case in this situation and the reason the petitioner is requesting the street vacation. The current proposal is to vacate 14.5 feet of right-of-way on the north side of 25th Street between D Avenue and B Avenue, and 14.5 feet of right-of-way on the south side of 25th Street between D Avenue and A Avenue. The portion of 25th Street between A Avenue and B Avenue on the north side was vacated in 1996. The resulting vacation would create a right-of-way width of 70 feet for 25th Street between D Avenue and A Avenue in West Ogden. The vacation would not change the existing width or design of the pavement or curb and gutter along this stretch of 25th Street. Deputy Planning Manager Spencer made a presentation to provide additional information regarding the proposed street vacation. He reviewed an aerial photograph to identify the location of the subject property and noted it is the petitioner’s desire to build a home on the corner lot. The current lot width is 49.35 feet, which would only accommodate a 24.35-foot-wide home. The requested 14.5-foot vacation would allow a maximum home width of 38.85 feet, which would be similar to other homes along the street. The street vacation would place the property line one foot behind the sidewalk. For any street vacation request the City is required to consider certain factors, such as the public interest or any injury that could be caused by the vacation. Staff and the Planning Commission have concluded that the vacation will not deny proper access to adjacent properties and the street is not a through street. The 70-foot right-of-way is adequate for public infrastructure, such as roadway, sidewalks, and utilities. Good causes for the vacation include addressing the current 24.35-foot buildable area on the subject property and the creation of a 70- foot right-of-way which exceeds the City standard of 60 to 66 feet. He concluded the proposed vacation meets the intent of the provisions in the General Plan as it will allow for infill development and improve architecture and site design. Mr. Symes reported an action item will be included on the August 16, 2016 Council agenda pertaining to the proposed street vacation. Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 Budget Mr. Cook and members of Council staff facilitated a discussion among the Council members regarding their feelings about the outcome of the open house event held at 5:00 p.m. this evening to allow citizens to offer input or gather information about the proposed budget and the associated proposed property tax increase. The Council also asked for additional data and documentation that will aid them in making their final decision regarding the budget and tax increase during the August 9, 2016 meeting. There was general discussion regarding the way the potential property tax increase has been advertised to the residents and the data included in those message documents. Council Business Mr. Cook reported he recently sent the entire Council an updated copy of the Council staff responsibility matrix. Council Policy Analyst Mabey reported Council staff is working with Information Technologies staff to address issues that have arisen with email password updates for Council emails given that the Council email addresses are not part of the City server. She will continue to update the Council on the best way to navigate the process to change a password. Council Calendar: Mr. Cook reviewed the Council calendar for the month of August. Predatory Towing: Council member Lopez addressed the ordinance recently adopted by the Council pertaining to predatory towing. He asked if the City has the ability to revoke a towing company’s license for violation of the ordinance. Mr. Johnson responded many towing companies that perform work in Ogden are not licensed in Ogden and it may be necessary to consider an amendment to the ordinance to hold the person responsible for calling the towing company, to perform an act in violation of the ordinance, liable for that violation. The meeting adjourned at 7:30 p.m. /s/ Julia M. LaSeure JULIA M. LASEURE, MMC  DEPUTY CITY RECORDER /a/ Bart E. Blair BART E. BLAIR, ACTING CHAIR APPROVED: October 25, 2016  Minutes of Regular Meeting of Council of Ogden City, Utah, July 26, 2016 Page Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, July 26, 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: Acting Vice Chair Bart E. Blair Council members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski Doug Stephens Excused: Chair Marcia L. White Council Executive Director Bill Cook Council Deputy Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Council Policy Analyst Amy Sue Mabey Communications Manager Brittany Griffin Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Chief Deputy Attorney Mara Brown Public Services Director Jay Lowder Public Services Deputy Director Justin Anderson Water Utility Manager Kenton Moffett Deputy Planning Manager Clinton Spencer Police Chief Mike Ashment Police Department Community Outreach Coordinator Diana Lopez Deputy City Recorder Julia LaSeure At the request of the Acting Chair, all present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance led by Council member Nadolski. A moment of silence was observed. Recognizing Charles Trentelman for his outstanding contributions to the Ogden community A memo from Council staff regarding recognition of Charles Trentelman for his outstanding contributions to the Ogden community came before the Council for consideration. Council member Lopez read the certificate of recognition issued by the Ogden City Council and Mayor Caldwell and presented Mr. Trentelman with the certificate. Mr. Trentelman stated as he was driving to the meeting tonight he was thinking how amazing his family is and he is grateful for the wonderful community that his family has had the privilege of calling home. He is grateful to the Standard- Examiner for giving him a platform for so many years, which gave him an opportunity to work with Ogden City government as well as Ogden residents to make the City a better place. He hears people criticize Ogden today and does not know what town they are talking about because it is his opinion that Ogden could give Disneyland lessons on family friendliness and community beauty. He noted that 25th Street is a wonderful place to the credit of the City Council, City Administration, and City staff. He has had the privilege to work with Chief Administrative Officer Johnson on a very regular basis and is always amazed at the dedication of the City employees that he gets to work with. He is grateful for the opportunity he has been given to work with the Union Station Foundation regarding the preservation of that facility. Mr. Trentelman gave credit to his wife, who has been a wonderful support to him for many years. She inspires him to keep finding ways to work in the City. He noted he is also inspired by his children who work to build their towns, Ogden and Salt Lake City, as well as the entire State of Utah. He also gave credit to many people he has worked with over the years who have done so much for him and the community of Ogden. He recognized Elizabeth Sutton, executive director of Union Station, and stated she is working so hard to make the facility what it is today and what it will be in the future. He commented he almost feels silly getting an award for having a good time while helping the town be what it can be. Recognizing Kent Crookston for his outstanding contributions to the Ogden community and Utah’s aerospace industry A memo from Council staff regarding recognition of Kent Crookston for his outstanding contributions to the Ogden community and Utah’s aerospace industry came before the Council for consideration. Council member Hyer read the certificate of recognition for Mr. Crookston issued by the Ogden City Council and Mayor Caldwell. He then presented Mr. Crookston’s wife, Pat, with the certificate.  Ms. Crookston thanked the Mayor and Council for their recognition of her late husband and stated her family is touched by the recognition. Joint Proclamation declaring August 2, 2016 “National Night Out Day” in Ogden City A joint proclamation declaring August 2, 2016 “National Night Out Day” in Ogden City came before the Council for consideration. Council member Garner read the joint proclamation, after which COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE JOINT PROCLAMATION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. Chair White was not present when this vote was taken. Council member Garner presented the proclamation to Diana Lopez, Ogden Police Community Outreach Coordinator, Police Chief Ashment, and other members of the Police Department. Chief Ashment expressed his appreciation for Ms. Lopez. He indicated she puts a tremendous amount of effort into this event and all kudos and accolades the City receives for the event should be passed on to her. Approval of Minutes Council member Lopez stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Work Session of April 21, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Council member Nadolski stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Joint Work Session of May 3, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Council member Stephens stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 3, 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 NADOLSKI, ALL VOTING AYE. Chair White was not present when this vote was taken. Proposed Ordinance 2016-44 amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Chapter Two of Title Nine by adopting a new Section 11 to provide for mandatory connection to culinary water upon annexation and to limit the use of culinary water for outdoor watering where secondary water is available A memo from the Public Services Department regarding proposed ordinance amendments requiring mandatory water connections came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated 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. These scenarios include new development, changes to existing private water systems, annexations, and when secondary or irrigation water is available. The proposal is specific to the water utility; however, is 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. Water Utility Manager Moffett summarized the memo and provided the Council with an overview of the amendments that have been made to the proposed ordinance since the Council voted to table it during their July 5, 2016 meeting. The amendments were made as a result of concerns raised regarding the effects of this ordinance on wells being used for culinary purposes. The revised ordinance adds a section “E” that addresses exemptions for private culinary wells. The section exempts any user, within current City limits, operating a private well up to July 1, 2016. A section “F” has also been added to provide the reader with information regarding how and when the exemption could be terminated. The exemption would no longer apply if, at any time, the property is connected to the City’s culinary water system and the well is no longer used as the source of culinary water for the property. Council member Garner asked about the process a citizen would follow to make a connection to the City’s secondary water system. Mr. Moffett replied that the City does not own or operate the secondary water systems used in the City. He explained that residents are encouraged to contact the company that provides secondary water service in their area to follow their process for connecting. Council member Lopez thanked Mr. Moffett and other City staff that worked to address the concerns raised regarding the implications of the original ordinance. Acting Chair Blair introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-44, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the Ogden Municipal Code by amending Chapter Two of Title Nine by adopting a new Section 11 to provide for mandatory connection to culinary water upon annexation and to limit the use of culinary water for outdoor watering where secondary water is available; 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 Deputy City Recorder and ordered that the City Recorder have at least one copy available for public inspection in her office during all business hours. The proposed ordinance was then read by long title. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-44 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, AND ACTING CHAIR BLAIR. VOTING NO – NONE. Chair White was not present when this vote was taken. The Acting Chair signed the ordinance as passed and adopted and the Acting Chair’s signature was attested by the City Recorder. The authenticated ordinance was then filed with the City Recorder for transmittal to the Mayor for review and consideration. Proposed Joint Resolution 2016-10 authorizing the creation of an exchange zone at the Francom Public Safety Building A memo from Council staff came before the Council to consider a joint resolution creating an exchange zone at the Francom Public Safety Building. The memo stated the proposed joint resolution authorizes the creation of an exchange zone in the public parking area of the Francom Public Safety Building. Additional cameras and signage have been installed in the public parking lot to identify the exchange zone. This will provide individuals with a neutral, well-lighted, video-recorded meeting area where they can conduct private business transactions or family visitations. Police Chief Ashment summarized the memo and explained the Police Department has had a longstanding informal policy regarding the use of the Francom Public Safety Building as a safe exchange location. The City Council recently asked that City Administration follow the lead of other Police Departments in the area and across the nation and develop a formal policy declaring the building as an exchange zone. He has worked with Information Technologies staff in the City to upgrade video monitoring equipment at the building in order to provide a much safer exchange zone for residents. Council member Hyer asked how the zone will be advertised. Chief Ashment replied that information regarding the exchange zone will be included on the Police Department website and a press release will be provided to local media outlets. Acting Chair Blair introduced in writing proposed Joint Resolution 2016-10, entitled: “A joint resolution of Ogden City Council and Mayor Michael P. Caldwell authorizing the creation of an exchange zone at the Francom Public Safety Building, 2186 Lincoln Avenue, Ogden, Utah.” COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ MOVED THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED, AND THE CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SAME. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER STEPHENS, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, AND ACTING CHAIR BLAIR. VOTING NO – NONE. Chair White was not present when this vote was taken. Proposed Ordinance 2016-45 amending the Zoning Map as adopted by Section 15-3-3 of the Ogden Municipal Code, to reclassify as Single Family Residential Zone (R-1-5) property heretofore classified as Multiple Family Residential Zone (R-4) and Limited Manufacturing Zone (M-1), generally located between 26th Street and Binford Street, and F & G Avenues A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department regarding the proposal to rezone properties in the West Ogden community came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated the West Ogden Community Plan was developed and reviewed throughout 2013 and 2014. The Plan was adopted by the Council in April of 2014 and includes a number of potential rezones in West Ogden. Among them was the rezone of a small area zoned R-4 just north of the Cargill plant. The Plan calls for the rezone of this area from the existing R-4 and M-1 zones to the R-1-5 zoning designation. The Plan cites the community’s desire to support family friendly development and a specific strategy to downzone the area north of Binford Street to R-1-5. In addition to these citations, the subject area suffers from a lack of sufficient water pressure to accommodate more intensive development. If the higher densities allowed in the R-4 zone were to take place, a significant investment would need to be made to the City’s water utility to increase pressure to adequate levels. The current proposal is to rezone properties on the blocks between 26th Street and Binford Street between F Avenue and G Avenue from the existing R-4 and M-1 zoning to the R-1-5 zoning. The Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at the meeting of April 6, 2016 and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Council with a 6-2 vote. The Commission’s recommendation was made with the finding that the zone change is consistent with the West Ogden Community Plan and the policies outlined in the General Plan. Deputy Planning Manager Spencer summarized the memo and reviewed a map to identify the location of the properties subject to the proposed rezone action. The rezone is recommended to make the area compliant with the West Ogden Community Plan. Additionally, the majority of the existing land use in the community is single-family or vacant land and only one four-plex would become nonconforming if the area were to be rezoned to R-1-5. Finally, there is not enough water pressure or water flow to support any multi-family developments in the area. He concluded the Planning Commission, on a six to two vote, recommended approval of the rezones. He noted Commissioner Southwick voted not to recommend approval because he felt that zoning should be initiated by developers, not the City and Commissioner Chris voted in opposition due to concerns he had with the change in residential density. Mr. Spencer stated staff feels that the community asked for the zoning change through their involvement in the development of the Community Plan and that the density recommended is appropriate and can be more easily serviced than multi- family or manufacturing land uses. Council member Garner agreed citizens that participated in the development of the West Ogden Community Plan requested that zoning of properties in the area be changed to reflect the dominant land use in the area and to prevent additional manufacturing development. Acting Chair Blair introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-45, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the zoning of Ogden City, as adopted by Section 15-3-3 of the Ogden Municipal Code, to reclassify as single family residential zone (R-1-5) property heretofore classified as multiple family residential zone (R-4) and limited manufacturing zone (M-1), generally located between 26th Street and Binford Street, and F&G Avenues, and providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” A copy of the proposed ordinance was deposited with the Deputy City Recorder and ordered that the City Recorder have at least one copy available for public inspection in her office during all business hours. Acting Chair Blair then called for public input regarding the proposed ordinance. No persons came forward to be heard regarding this matter. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-45 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, AND ACTING CHAIR BLAIR. VOTING NO – NONE. Chair White was not present when this vote was taken. The Acting Chair signed the ordinance as passed and adopted and the Acting Chair’s signature was attested by the City Recorder. The authenticated ordinance was then filed with the City Recorder for transmittal to the Mayor for review and consideration. Public Comments John Christensen, 960 Taylor Avenue, stated he is a member of the Ogden Chicken Alliance and wanted to introduce himself to the Council in preparation for engaging in dialogue with the Council to solicit input regarding the purpose of the Alliance. Comments from City Administration Mr. Johnson recognized the employees who supported the many events that took place during the Ogden Pioneer Days Celebration. Many employees dedicated extra hours and effort to ensure the events were successful. Council member Comments Council members Garner, Hyer, and Stephens echoed the thanks to City employees offered by Mr. Johnson for their support of the Pioneer Days events. Council member Nadolski mentioned there is a small issue in his neighborhood related to the location of a stop sign and he thanked Public Services Director Lowder for his responsiveness to that issue. Many of his neighbors are very excited that the City is willing to examine traffic patterns on the East Bench. Council member Lopez commented it has not been very long since the recent tragic shootings of police officers throughout the nation. He asked that his appreciation and regard be extended to the Police Chief and his employees given that they are likely going through a difficult time as a result of the current state of the nation. He reported he is hopeful that at some point something can be done for the police officers to express gratitude for what they do for the community each day. There being no further business to come before the Council, COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 6:39 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI, ALL VOTING AYE. Chair White was not present when this vote was taken. /s/ Julia M. LaSeure JULIA M. LASEURE, MMC DEPUTY CITY RECORDER /s/ Bart E. Blair BART E. BLAIR, ACTING CHAIR APPROVED: September 13, 2016