City Council

Minutes of Joint Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, October 25, 2016 Page Minutes of the Joint Work Session of the Ogden City Council, also acting as the Redevelopment Agency, held on Tuesday, October 25, 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 (arrived at 3:38 pm) Council members Neil K. Garner (arrived at 4:41 pm) Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski (arrived at 3:35 pm) Doug Stephens 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 Management Services Department Director David G. Buxton Comptroller Lisa Stout Community and Economic Development Director Tom Christopulos Community and Economic Development Deputy Director Brandon Cooper Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Community Development Manager Ward Ogden Chief Deputy Recorder Lee Ann Peterson The purpose of the joint work session was to hear a debate of the Weber State Debate Team, discuss acquisition and demolition of property at 503 26th Street, discuss vacation rentals, and discuss Council and Board business. Weber State University Debate Team; Topic of Income Equality Dr. Omar Guevara, Director of Forensics at Weber State University in the Department of Communication, introduced himself and the other staff members from the Department of Communication. He also introduced the debaters present to debate the topic of income equality. Salma Medina, coached by Liz Dela Cruz, will be arguing on the affirmative side of the topic while Adrian Raso, coached by Bianca Morales, will be arguing on the negative side. The Lincoln-Douglas debate format, which is a one-on-one debate format, will be used this evening. Mr. Guevara commenced the debate, which was observed by the City Council, staff, and other visitors in attendance during the meeting. At the conclusion of the debate Mr. Guevara invited the City Council to address follow-up questions to either of the debaters. Council member Hyer stated that Ms. Medina indicated that rental rates in Ogden are rising, and that may be true in recent history, but there was a long period of stagnation in rent rates and he asked if Ms. Medina took that into consideration. Mr. Raso stated that he actually saw a graph that charted rent rates from 2013 to present and there was a two-percent increase in rates each year. Council member Hyer said Ms. Medina also discussed subsidized housing, but he feels it may be a better idea to subsidize a person so that they can use that subsidy on any housing they choose to provide a homogenous environment City-wide and he asked if either debater took that into consideration. Ms. Medina stated that she feels that is a good idea; she likes that people are protected by Utah law in that they cannot be relocated from their neighborhood unless they consent to move. Council member Stephens inquired as to how the 2 percent increase in rent rates in the City compares with the market. Mr. Raso stated that he did not compare the rent data he had for Ogden with the market. Mr. Guevara stated that the fact that Ogden’s rent rates have been ahead of the consumer price index (CPI) is a relatively new phenomena within the last year and a half. Council member Stephens addressed urban renewal and asked if the debaters reviewed the government and developer incentives being offered to support urban renewal. Mr. Raso stated that he did not look into such incentives too deeply. Mr. Guevara stated that his team is aware that 20 percent of tax increment financing (TIF) in the City’s Redevelopment Fund can be used for affordable housing. Ms. Medina added the City has a program that offers tax cuts for rental properties that are leased to people that successfully pass a background check and can meet other specified criteria. Council member Stephens asked if redevelopment of certain neighborhoods will be the catalyst for redevelopment and improvement in other neighborhoods. Mr. Raso stated there are some area of the City where new homes have been built and are being sold for $180,000 to $200,000, but that is not necessarily incentivizing other people to move from their neighborhoods because they want to remain close to their heritage. The idea of gentrification that he was discussing happens when developers offer residents less than what their property is valued at to make way for new development of additional bungalow style homes. Ms. Medina added that gentrification has a bad reputation, but she does not believe it is such a negative thing; recent studies show that it has worked well in other communities and she hopes that the fears about gentrification in the Oak Den Urban Renewal Area will be allayed. Council member Nadolski stated that the figure that was used relative to rent rate increases was 1.47 percent each year and he asked if that was compared to rent rate increases in other communities. Mr. Raso answered no; the data simply compared Ogden to the Wasatch Front, but did not give a break-down of increases in individual communities. Ms. Medina added that housing prices in Ogden are actually lower than prices in other areas of the State, particularly in and around the Salt Lake Valley. Chair White asked if the debaters gave any thought as to how the City could go about preventing large chain stores from overshadowing smaller, mom and pop stores and even driving them out of business. Mr. Raso stated that is a complex issue, but Ogden is a unique space and should continue to support independent merchants. Mr. Guevara stated that there was an associated press article about the gender gap in Ogden and the fact that many independent stores are owned by females; there are opportunities to offer small business loans, grants, or other incentives to those minority business owners. Chair White asked if the debaters gave any thought about how to fund the City going forward aside from use of property tax revenues. Mr. Maso stated that some analysis has been done in the national media regarding public funding sources and specifically the use of tax revenues to fund private development rather than public schools. Ms. Medina added that private investment is key and it is necessary to integrate those private investors into the policy making process to help the community grow for the better. The Council then congratulated the debaters on a great job debating the topic. They thanked them, Mr. Guevara, and other coaches for the information provided this evening. The meeting recessed at 4:24 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 4:28 p.m. Acquisition and Demolition of Property at 503 26th Street Redevelopment Agency Deputy Director Eller-Smith explained City Administration has made a proposal to purchase property located at 503 26th Street. They are also proposing the 18- unit apartment building located on the property be demolished and the property held for future development. Community Development Manager Ogden used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to provide the Board with additional information regarding the proposal. He indicated the property has been a ‘problem property’ for some time and City Administration is interested in its redevelopment; it recently became available for sale and there is great interest in taking advantage of the opportunity to purchase what has been a target property for so long. He reviewed photographs of the property and the apartment building located upon it; the building has 18 apartment units in it, but only 11 of them are legal. The proposed purchase price is $450,000, which is approximately $45,000 per legal unit and is a price that is acceptable in the market. Closing would take place this coming Friday upon Board approval of the transaction; closing costs are approximately $8,000 and demolition costs will be approximately $100,000. The City will assume the leases of the 11 units and will work with tenants on relocation efforts. He briefly reviewed the terms of the real estate purchase contract (REPC), noting that is differs from other REPC’s the Board has authorized in the past in that the Agency is assuming the property as is a ‘compliance with laws’ section has been removed from the contract due to the City’s knowledge that the building does not conform with several laws and codes. Board member Stephens asked how Agency staff will deal with any tenant that may be difficult to work with and opposes relocation. Mr. Ogden stated that the lease is a legal and binding contract between the tenant and the property owner and the Agency will assume those leases upon closing on the property purchase. There are provisions staff can use to work with people who may present some difficulty. He has had success in similar situations in the past. Board member Stephens asked if tenants will be relocated to similar housing units with similar lease rates. Mr. Ogden answered yes and indicated that there are several comparable units in the market. Vice Chair Blair asked if the tenants will be relocated in the City or Weber County. Mr. Ogden stated that the tenant can choose where to relocate to; there is no requirement that they locate in Ogden or Weber County. Board member Stephens inquired as to how long the relocation process will take, to which Mr. Ogden answered approximately one month. He stated demolition of the building will take place early in 2017 after all tenants have been relocated. He then noted the property is located in the 26th Street/Adams Avenue neighborhood and he reviewed photographs of other properties located in the neighborhood, some of which have been renovated for residential and commercial uses Vice Chair Blair inquired as to the size of the property, to which Mr. Ogden answered 8,580 square feet. Board member Stephens asked Mr. Ogden to review the terms of the loan that will be used to acquire the property. He also asked if the Agency is willing to sell the property to a developer in the future. Mr. Ogden stated that at this point City Administration is not proposing a specific course of action relative to redevelopment of the property; the main focus is to remove the impediment before considering any future opportunities. He added that allowing the Agency to purchase the property will prevent another buyer from purchasing and possibly perpetuating the present use into the future. He then noted the Synchrony Bank line of credit approved by the Board in August will be used to acquire the property. The interest rate on the line of credit is between two and three percent; Quality Neighborhood funding in the next fiscal year (FY) will be used to repay the line of credit. Board member Nadolski inquired as to the balance of the line of credit after the proposed transaction is completed. Mr. Ogden stated he does not have an exact number, but he believes approximately $2.3 million will still be available on the $5 million line of credit. Vice Chair Blair asked why Agency staff is proposing a waiver of the $1,100 in code violation fines as part of the REPC. Mr. Ogden stated it is simply a condition of the acquisition following negotiations between the seller and the Agency.  High level discussion regarding the terms of the line of credit ensued, after which Board member Stephens asked that Agency staff consider other properties in the neighborhood when determining how to use the proceeds of the line of credit in the future. Ms. Eller-Smith asked if any proceeds of a potential resale of the property to a developer would be contributed directly to the line of credit or it would be deposited elsewhere. Mr. Ogden stated that according to the rules associated with the use of the line of credit, any sale proceeds would need to be used to repay the line of credit debt. However, if the debt is already repaid at the time of resale, the money would be deposited into the RDA housing fund. Chair White addressed code enforcement efforts cited in the packet materials for the item. It appears that they have continuously tried to address violations at the property, but there is only $1,100 in fines associated with those efforts and she asked if there is a greater issue with how code enforcement is addressing these types of violations. Community and Economic Development Director Christopulos indicated $1,100 is only the current fine; other code enforcement actions have been collected through judicial procedures. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson noted that the proposed transaction is possible because of code enforcement and the Police Department, it just took some time to get to this point through the efforts of several City Departments. Board member Nadolski stated that he has talked to other property owners in the neighborhood and they are excited about the proposed acquisition. Discussion briefly centered on the timing of the proposal and Mr. Ogden assured the Board that it was not his plan to present this proposal to the Board and ask for action on the same night, but due to exigent circumstances associated with the transaction it has become necessary to request a special action this evening. Agenda Review Board Deputy Administrator Eller-Smith and other members of Council/Board staff briefly reviewed the items listed on the Council and Redevelopment Agency agendas for the meetings to begin at 6:00 p.m. Vacation Rentals Council Policy Analyst Symes explained the Planning Division has been researching the issue of short-term vacation rentals, or the renting of a residential unit for a period of time less than 30 days, in Ogden as the popularity of this use has increased over last few years. The Division developed a proposal and presented it to the Planning Commission which then provided a recommendation of approval to the Council. The proposed ordinance would provide regulations for vacation rentals with regard to spacing, occupancy, off-street parking, maintenance, garbage collection, appearance, signage, management, and other specifics related to a residential unit’s use as a vacation rental. At the September 6, 2016 work session, the Council reviewed the proposed ordinance changes indicated from the August 18, 2015 work session and received a presentation on recent trends and developments around the country regarding short-term rentals. Also at the September 6th work session, the Council gave direction on changes it wanted regarding the August 18, 2015 work session changes. In addition, Administration provided an alternative recommendation from the Planning Commission’s recommendation that the Council could consider. The alternative recommendation would allow short-term vacation rentals in single-family zones if the rentals were owner-occupied. There was only preliminary discussion among the Council about whether the Council should consider this option and limited discussion on what would actually constitute owner-occupancy. At the meeting, Council staff indicated that two options, the original Planning Commission recommendation plus the option presented allowing owner-occupied rentals in single-family zones, would be placed on a future agenda for consideration. As Planning, Legal, and Council staff reviewed the changes that resulted from the direction provided by Council at the September 6, 2016 work session, it became evident that there were policy issues that needed to be addressed in a work session setting prior to the Council’s final consideration of the proposal. The purpose of the October 25, 2016 work session is to allow the Council to discuss policy issues related to the two options for consideration, defining owner- occupancy, impacts of allowing rentals in single-family residential zones, family definitions, and to review several other minor issues. Planning Manager Montgomery then summarized the two options that are being presented to the Council for consideration; the Administration’s alternative recommendation provided at the September 6, 2016 work session would allow short-term vacation rentals in single-family zones if they were owner-occupied. The first option is the option given as a recommendation from the Planning Commission. This option would allow short-term vacation rentals in multi-family zones and in single-family zones only if the owner utilized a unit- reduction incentive that would remove additional dwelling units in larger, older homes. If a short-term rental were to take advantage of this option, the legal nonconforming status of that multi-unit home would be lost. The second, or alternative, option would allow short-term vacation rentals in multi-family zones as originally proposed, but would allow vacation rentals in any single-family zone if the rental was owner-occupied. In this case, there would be no unit-reduction incentive in single-family zones as contained in the first option. There was brief Council discussion throughout Mr. Montgomery’s presentation of the two options with a focus on present non-conforming uses and the potential change to that status as well as whether there would be a limit on the number of short term rentals that would be permitted in single-family zones. Mr. Montgomery then noted the second option of allowing short-term rentals in single-family zones if owner-occupied was discussed only briefly at the September 6, 2016 work session. The discussion did not include a definitive definition of owner occupancy. As staff looked at this issue, it was determined that the definition of an owner-occupied dwelling should be consistent with that of the City’s recently adopted Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) definition. With ADUs, and as proposed in the residential vacation rental ordinance, a property is considered owner-occupied if the unit is the owner’s primary place of residence for at least eight (8) months of the year.  Mr. Montgomery then used the aid of a PowerPoint presentation to provide more detailed information regarding the proposal to allow vacation rentals in single family zones. Any ordinance drafted to allow the use would define the following terms:  Agent: Person or entity who assists in leasing the property but not the internet companies that list the property.  Owner: Person or entity claiming ownership interests in property.  Owner-occupied: Dwelling that is owner’s primary residence and lives at least 8 months of the year in. The new proposal expands the opportunity for vacation rentals to single-family zones; the Planning Commission recommendation in March of 2015 would allow vacation rentals in multi-family residential zones from R-2 to R-5 with one per lineal block; vacation rentals would only be allowed in single-family zones as a nonconforming use. The single-family consideration would allow vacation rentals in owner-occupied dwellings in any zone and in non-owner occupied dwellings in R-2 to R-5 zones with one per block spacing for non-owner occupied. He discussed proposed regulations for owner occupancy as follows:  Purpose is to provide short term rental for nonresidents in a residential zone while being compatible with the surrounding residential use and neighborhood.  Encourage owner occupancy in neighborhood rather than property speculation.  Provide means to retain owner occupancy of single-family homes. Mr. Montgomery noted the proposed ordinance attempts to define owner occupancy; an owner would need to live in the home at least eight months of a calendar year and hold the property title or have rights to the home in a living trust. He discussed additional mechanisms that a property owner can use to prove their ownership, such as taxes, but he noted that taxes can be problematic because most residential properties are taxed at 55 percent of the value because they are the primary residence for someone, whether they are owner occupied or a traditional rental property. The ordinance requires two of the following forms of proof of residency: driver’s license or vehicle registration, voter’s registration card, or address on State or Federal tax return. These mechanisms have been borrowed from other agencies that practice obtaining proof of residency on a regular basis. Chair White wondered if there are other forms of identification that can be used to obtain proof of residency to ensure that the City is not discriminating against any group of individuals who may not have a driver’s license or be registered to vote. Assistant City Attorney Stratford stated that state identification cards or passports could be defined as acceptable forms of identification to prove residency if the Council so directs. Mr. Montgomery then discussed owner occupancy limits; the Ogden City Code currently contains the definition of ‘family’ for the purposes of occupancy. Occupants must be related by blood or marriage, be two unrelated adults and any children of either adult, or three unrelated adults. Parking is a consideration when discussing owner occupancy; when a property is owner- occupied, two parking stalls are required and if a room in the home is being rented when the owner is present, the owner must provide an additional half parking stall per bedroom, to be rounded to the next full number. Renting one bedroom while the owner is present would require three stalls, but renting two bedrooms while the owner is present would also require three stalls. Vice Chair Blair asked of on-street parking can be used to satisfy that requirement. Mr. Montgomery answered no, but indicated that the driveway can be used to meet the requirement since tandem parking is allowed. However, on-street parking is still permitted though it cannot be used to satisfy on-site parking requirements. If the owner occupant is not present during the rental period, the two parking spaces can be used to satisfy the rental parking requirements. He then offered different scenarios in which the ‘family’ definition would still be met based upon the owner/renter occupying a property at a given time. Enforcement of the violation of the ‘family’ definition in owner occupied rentals would be complaint driven because it would be impossible to proactively enforce the issue. Discussion of the recommendation to allow vacation rentals of properties in single family zones ensued, with a focus on preventing the ordinance from being too complicated for owner occupants and renters to understand. The meeting recessed at 5:35 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 5:43 p.m. Mr. Montgomery continued his discussion of the ‘family’ definition for the purpose of determining legal occupancy of a short-term rental property whether or not the owner may be present. The Council engaged in discussion with Mr. Montgomery regarding the definition of ‘family’ and sought to clarify the differences in the proposed regulations for owner-occupied and non- owner-occupied properties. Mr. Symes then sought Council feedback regarding the direction in which they would like to proceed to reach a final conclusion on the issue. If the Council were to proceed with option one, no non owner-occupied short term rental properties would be permitted in single family homes, while option two provides for the land use in single family zones. He reiterated that owner occupancy is defined as the owner living in the home for eight months out of the year. Discussion briefly centered on enforcement mechanisms available to the City regardless of the option selected. The meeting recessed at 6:00 p.m. for the City Council and Special Redevelopment Agency meetings. The reconvened at 7:13 p.m. Discussion and philosophical debate of the matter of permitting short term rentals in the City then ensued among the Council. There was a focus on drafting an ordinance that strikes a balance between the desires of those that currently own and operate illegal short term rental properties and what is in the best interest of the entire City. There was a focus on the public sentiment regarding short term rental properties, which led Mr. Montgomery to review the history of the matter and highlight the public input the City has received to this point. The Council ultimately concluded they were comfortable including an action item on a future agenda that advertises both options for consideration in order for the Council to accept public input on both options before making a final decision. The meeting adjourned at 8:11 p.m. ________________________________________ LEE ANN PETERSON, MMC CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: January 17, 2017  Minutes of Regular Meeting of Council of Ogden City, Utah, October 25, 2016 Page Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 6:04 p.m., in the Council Chambers on the third floor of the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard, Ogden City, Weber County, Utah. Present: Chair Marcia L. White Vice Chair Bart E. Blair Council members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski Doug Stephens Council Executive Director Bill Cook Council Deputy Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Amy Sue Mabey Communications Manager Brittany Griffin Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Chief Deputy City Attorney Mara Brown Management Services Director David G. Buxton Comptroller Lisa Stout Fire Chief Mike Mathieu Community and Economic Development Deputy Director Brandon Cooper Chief Deputy Recorder Lee Ann Peterson At the request of the Chair, all present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chair Blair. Chair White welcomed the following Boy Scouts present from Troop #166, who were working on their Citizenship in the Nation and Communications Merit Badges: Logan Schobe, Brandon Hunt, Cameron Christensen, Dillon Norse, Braxton Schobe, Bryce Montgomery, Kaden Gover, and Chris Gover. A moment of silence was observed. Approval of Minutes Vice Chair Blair stated he had reviewed the minutes of the work session of May 19, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Council member Nadolski stated he had reviewed the minutes of the special meeting of June 14, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Council member Garner stated he had reviewed the minutes of the regular meeting of June 21, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Council member Hyer stated he had reviewed the minutes of the work session of July 5, 2016 and the joint work session of July 26, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. Council member Lopez stated he had reviewed the minutes of the work session of August 2, 2016 and joint work session of August 16, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ THEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. Consideration of an appointment to the Airport Advisory Committee A letter from Mayor Caldwell requesting consideration of the appointment of Michael Nichols to the Ogden Airport Advisory Committee came before the Council for consideration. COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF MICHAEL NICHOLS TO THE OGDEN AIRPORT ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WITH HIS TERM TO EXPIRE MARCH 30, 2018. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. Consideration of appointments to the Weber County Justice Court Nominating Commission A letter from Mayor Caldwell requesting consideration of the appointments of Mike Ashment, Ogden City Police Chief, and Mara Brown, Chief Deputy City Attorney, to the Weber County Justice Court Nominating Commission came before the Council for consideration.  COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENTS OF MIKE ASHMENT AND MARA BROWN TO THE WEBER COUNTY JUSTICE COURT NOMINATING COMMISSION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. Proposed Ordinance 2016- 56 amending the budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 by increasing the anticipated revenues and transfers for a gross increase of $3,000,000 A memo from the Comptroller regarding a proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 budget amendment came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated City Administration is proposing to transfer $500,000 from Retained Earnings in the Medical Services Fund to the Fleet and Facilities Fund for purchase of a new quint (ladder/pumper) fire truck. The $500,000 will be combined with existing fleet replacement funds for a total of $940,000 which should cover the cost of the quint. The Administration is also requesting an increase in the Community Development Division’s budget to accommodate the additional activity in the Infill Program. The amount approved in the FY2017 budget was $1,578,800 of which $1,229,029 has already been spent. The Division needs the increased budget approved in order to complete all of the projects currently underway which include housing projects on Fowler, Gramercy, Eccles, Quincy, Brinker and Madison Avenues. Because this project is self-funding, the additional $2 million budget will allow for additional activity in the program. Funding will continue to come from the Synchrony Bank line of credit and the sale of properties. Comptroller Stout summarized the memo and stated the total budget opening request is $3 million, which includes an appropriation of Medical Services Fund balance to be transferred to the Fleet and Facilities Fund to aid in the purchase of a new fire truck as well as an appropriation of $2 million in the Asset Control Area (ACA) program of the Community Development Division for rehabilitation of homes and new construction in Ogden City. Additionally, there will be a transfer from the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Critical Contingency Fund to the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) for the purchase of property; there will be a similar budget opening in the RDA budget to recognize the appropriation. After the transfer, there will be $15,000 remaining in the Critical Contingency Fund. Fire Chief Mathieu stated he very much appreciates the Council considering the budget amendment to provide for a new vehicle purchase to improve his fleet; a piece of unreliable reserve equipment will be removed from the fleet and the new unit will allow him to move two additional units to the reserve area of the fleet. This will dramatically improve the age and condition of the Fire Department’s front line equipment. The Chair then called for a motion to open a public hearing on proposed Ordinance 2016-56, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City amending the budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 by increasing the anticipated revenues for a gross increase of $3,000,000 from sources as detailed in the body of this ordinance; and increasing the appropriations for a gross increase of $3,000,000 as detailed in the body of this ordinance; and providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” The Chief Deputy City Recorder presented written notice of said hearing and affidavit of the publication in the Standard- Examiner on the 16th day of October, 2016, specifying the time and place of this meeting as the time and place when and where the proposed ordinance would be given a public hearing and be considered for final passage. The proof of publication was accepted and filed. COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOW ALL INTERESTED PERSONS FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI, ALL VOTING AYE. Travis Pate, 2546 Jefferson Avenue, stated he has often expressed concern about things that are occurring in the Jefferson Historic District. While he does not have a concern about the purchase of 503 26th Street, he is opposed to the demolition of the building that presently exists on the property. He feels that the building is historically significant and it housed many people that made a great impact on the City. The City has used money for unit reduction in the City and he feels that this is another opportunity for a successful unit reduction project. He would like the City to reconsider using City funds for demolition of the building, which has a walkability score of 82. He asked that the Council consider the full history of the building before proceeding with the demolition as proposed by City Administration. There being no further persons appearing to be heard, COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI, ALL VOTING AYE. Council member Nadolski asked City Administration to explain the rationale for demolition versus restoration of the building at 503 26th Street. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson asked that City Administration be allowed to answer the question during the upcoming RDA meeting when Agency staff is present. Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith clarified that the money included in the proposed budget opening is not intended for the acquisition of 503 26th Street, but for another property on west 24th Street. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER AND SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BLAIR, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-56 AND ORDERED POSTED AS REQUIRED BY LAW UPON THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. 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. Public Comments Travis Pate, 2546 Jefferson Avenue, stated that the City has spent a small fortune investing in the redevelopment and improvement of Jefferson Avenue and he recommended that efforts be made to provide appropriate care when performing asphalt overlay and other routine road maintenance. This year the tar was slopped over the crosswalks and railroad tracks. Additionally, someone recently ran over the stop sign on the road and it has been replaced with a corrugated steel pipe instead of a black pole that would match the rest of the neighborhood. He asked for consistency in quality of work to protect the investment the City has made into the area. He added he feels there is an opportunity to restore Porter Avenue; Waterfall Academy is still in operation on the street and if the staircase between Porter Avenue and 26th Street would be restored the Academy has committed to perform snow removal and landscape maintenance as routine neighborhood cleanup. He stated the stairway would also provide access to the New Life Apartments. Council member Garner inquired as to the location of the stop sign that was hit by a car, to which Mr. Pate responded the stop sign at 26th Street and Jefferson Avenue. Council member Comments Council member Lopez stated that he requested a crosswalk study for the intersection of 7th Street and Van Buren Avenue several months ago and he stated he would like to understand the status of that study and the potential installation of a crosswalk. Council member Hyer stated it is very exciting to see that the Harrison Boulevard project is nearing completion; the project has been fairly smooth when considering the length of time it took to complete and the project scope. Chair White recognized Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith’s 20 years of service to the City and Council Executive Director Cook’s 15 years of service to the City. There being no further business to come before the Council, COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 6:24 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BLAIR, ALL VOTING AYE. ________________________________________ LEE ANN PETERSON, MMC CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: February 14, 2017  Minutes of Special Meeting of Redevelopment Agency of Ogden City, Utah, October 25, 2016 Page Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency held on Tuesday, October 25, 2016 at 6:25 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 Luiz Lopez Ben Nadolski Doug Stephens Board Deputy Administrator Janene Eller-Smith Board Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Board Policy Analyst Amy Sue Mabey Communications Manager Brittany Griffin Also present: Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Chief Deputy City Attorney Mara Brown Assistant City Attorney Mark Stratford Comptroller Lisa Stout Community and Economic Development Deputy Director Brandon Cooper Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Community Development Manager Ward Ogden Chief Deputy Recorder Lee Ann Peterson Approval of Minutes Board member Stephens stated he had reviewed the minutes of the special meeting of June 21, 2016 and the joint work session of August 9, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. BOARD MEMBER STEPHENS THEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. Proposed Resolution 2016-18 amending the budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 by increasing the anticipated revenues and transfers for a gross increase of $3,795,000 A memo from the Comptroller regarding a proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 budget amendment came before the Board for consideration. The memo stated City Administration is proposing a Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 budget amendment that transfers $85,000 from the City’s Critical Contingency Capital Improvement Project (CIP) account to the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) for future property purchase. The Administration is also proposing that the Synchrony Bank Line of Credit be drawn on in the amount of $3,710,000. The City Council has previously pledged $1 million of Business Depot Ogden (BDO) Lease Revenue annually for five years beginning in FY2017 towards the Quality Neighborhoods Initiative for a total of $5,000,000. The FY2017 funds of $1 million have been committed to another project leaving $4 million for debt service on the Synchrony line of credit. Using an estimated interest rate per the terms of the loan, the Comptroller has calculated how much could be drawn down and be repaid with the $4 million of pledged BDO lease revenue in the four-year time period. It was determined that $3,710,000 in principal could be repaid. Comptroller Stout summarized the memo and stated City Administration is proposing an interagency transfer of $85,000 from the City to the RDA General Fund for the purchase of property in the West Ogden Area of the City. Additionally, the budget amendment calls for the appropriation of $3,710,000 of the Synchrony Line of Credit proceeds to be used in the Quality Neighborhoods Program. Chair White called for a motion to open a public hearing on proposed Resolution 2016-18, entitled: “A resolution of the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency amending the budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 by increasing the anticipated revenues and transfer for a gross increase of $3,795,000 from sources as detailed in the body of this resolution; and increasing the appropriations for a gross increase of $3,795,000 as detailed in the body of this resolution.” The Chief Deputy City Recorder presented written notice of said hearing and affidavit of the publication in the Standard- Examiner on the 16th day of December, 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 HYER MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOW ALL INTERESTED PERSONS FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. There being no persons appearing to be heard, BOARD MEMBER LOPEZ MOVED THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. THE MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. VICE CHAIR BLAIR MOVED THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED, AND THE CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SAME. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LOPEZ, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – BOARD MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Proposed Resolution 2016-20 approving and authorizing the acquisition and demolition of a property located at 503 26th Street A memo from Community and Economic Development Department came before the Board to consider a resolution approving and authorizing the acquisition and demolition of a property located at 503 26th Street. The memo stated City Administration is proposing the purchase of property located at 503 26th Street to be held for future development. Code Enforcement officers have been working for several years to get building owners to bring the property into code compliance. In addition, Weber County Health Department has had to remediate the property several times for drug contamination resulting from illegal drug activities. Community and Economic Development staff have determined that renovation of the building is cost prohibitive. Lack of on-site parking is also a barrier to renovation and reuse of the building. Demolition of the building is planned to occur as soon as possible. Total demolition costs for the property are estimated at $100,000. Community Development Manager Ogden summarized the memo and stated City Administration has recently had the opportunity to negotiate a real estate purchase agreement (REPC) with the property owner, but it is necessary to close quickly on the transaction. The City will purchase the apartment building at 503 26th Street that currently has 18 apartment units, though only 11 of them are legal. A number of modifications have been made to the building and the buildings age as well as ground settling has led to the Building Official declaring it a dangerous building. The negotiated purchase price is $450,000 and closing would take place this Friday with funding the following Monday. There are currently 11 tenants in the building and the City has developed a relocation plan for those tenants. The property is critical to improvement of the neighborhood in which it is located; there has been a number of problems over the past several years and many residents and business owners in the area are eager for demolition of the building and redevelopment of the property. He is very sensitive to the importance of improving historically significant properties, but in this case the challenge is the age and structurally unsound nature of the building; the cost of repairs are not feasible and the building may be left in a condition that would not contribute to the revitalization of the area. He briefly reviewed photographs of other properties in the area that have been improved recently and he hopes the proposed project will contribute to additional improvements in the neighborhood; he is seeking approval of the REPC in order to remove blight in the neighborhood. Chair White inquired as to which Building Official deemed the building unsafe. Mr. Ogden answered Ogden’s Building Official and noted that is not a declaration he makes lightly; much research and careful consideration was given before he issued his findings regarding the condition of the building. Chair White then introduced in writing proposed Resolution 2016-20, entitled: “A resolution of the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency Board approving and authorizing the acquisition and demolition of a property located at 503 26th Street, Ogden, Utah.” Chair White then called for public input regarding the proposed resolution. Travis Pate, 2546 Jefferson Avenue, stated that in 1870 Lorin Farr sold the subject property to William Elmer along with the Scowcroft property to the east. He stated that he feels a restoration campaign for the property is appropriate and he does not believe demolition is in order. He would like for the City to publish a request for proposals (RFP) seeking developers that may be interested in purchasing and rehabilitating the property. He said that staff has indicated there is insufficient parking for the building, but that same argument could be made for several other properties in the City, such as the Municipal Building, Justice Court, and Amphitheater. He stated the walkability score is significant enough that the property should be preserved. The façade of the building may not be historical in nature, but there are still historical characteristics and traits and it may be appropriate to consider abatement of the dangerous conditions rather than demolition. He pointed out the arts center in the City was not structurally sound until it underwent a $1 million restoration. He suggested that the Board take action to acquire the property, but not approve the demolition of the building at this time. No additional persons came forward to be heard regarding this matter. Board member Hyer asked if approval of the demolition of the building at this time is critical or if there may be some time for staff to investigate other options as suggested by Mr. Pate. Mr. Ogden stated that staff has considered that over several years as they have worked with the owner to address code violations at the property; while the REPC negotiation was quick, the analysis of the property was not and staff did not arrive at a quick decision to demolish the building. He noted he is very interested in historical preservation as well and the recommendation to demolish follows lengthy analysis and consideration. Chief Administration Officer Johnson added there are safety concerns associated with not demolishing the building; it is and could continue to be a safety hazard due to the illegal activities that have taken place in the building in that past that would likely only worsen if the building were vacant. Board member Lopez stated that he has some concerns about the recommended action, but he would like to honor the concerns expressed by Mr. Pate. He stated he trusts that Community and Economic Development staff is very aware of the condition of the building, but the Board may not be as familiar with its condition and its history. He stated that in the vein of honoring his constituents, he would like to know if more residents in the area share Mr. Pate’s feelings. Board member Stephens stated that it may be possible to incorporate some historical components into the future redevelopment of the property to address Mr. Pate’s concerns. Board member Lopez stated he fully supports the acquisition of the property and potentially the demolition, but he would like to have additional discussion about the demolition aspect before making a final decision. Board member Hyer stated that the size of the property is very small and rehabilitation of the building on the property may be very difficult due to that factor. He stated that he does trust staff, but he also has concerns about the proposal; however, he feels that staff has adequately addressed all Board questions. Board member Nadolski stated that the people he has spoken with are in full support of the acquisition of the property and demolition of the building there; they were interested in seeing the Board carrying out its due diligence relative to the matter and he feels comfortable that has been done. The demolition of the building may be unfortunate, but also necessary based upon the professional judgement of City Administration; he trusts their recommendation. Board member Hyer asked if the deterioration of the building is directly related to its age and wondered if it could have been saved if the City had acquired it 30 years ago. Mr. Johnson answered it possibly could have been saved 30 years ago, but the main thing that led to the building’s current status were the modifications the owner has performed. He added Mr. Ogden has the greatest track record of anyone he knows in Ogden City when it comes to preserving historical buildings so when he says that the building needs to be demolished his opinion is trusted. He added it would be very difficult to incentivize a developer to rehabilitate the building because it would be so costly, the property is so small, and there is no adequate parking. Though the decision to demolish may be difficult, sometimes it is the only choice and he and the Executive Director Caldwell wholeheartedly support Mr. Ogden’s position. BOARD MEMBER NADOLSKI MOVED THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED, AND THE CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SAME. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER STEPHENS, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – BOARD MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Board member Garner thanked Mr. Pate for his valuable input and for always supporting historical preservation in the community. He added that he trusts City staff and specifically Mr. Ogden’s team; while demolition of the building may be unfortunate, its disrepair has been caused by the current owner. Board member Stephens reiterated it may be possible to include some historical components in any redevelopment project that may take place on the property. Board member Lopez asked that City Administration make their best efforts to keep the Board apprised of pertinent information that is considered when making proposals such as this one. He stated he would like a clearer understanding of these types of projects. Proposed Resolution 2016-21 approving and authorizing the Executive Director to execute the terms and conditions of a real estate purchase contract with Armstrong 1970 Trust for the purchase of .22 acres of property located at 660 West 24th Street A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department regarding the proposed acquisition of property at 660 West 24th Street came before the Board for consideration. The memo stated City Administration is proposing the purchase of property located at 660 West 24th Street (on the northwest corner of 24th Street and D Avenue). The lot has one vacant building and a small portion of undeveloped property. Nate Harbertson of Uinta Homes, Inc. and Armstrong 1970 Trust/Property Source Utah, Inc. have negotiated a REPC with Agency staff. Community and Economic Development Deputy Director Cooper summarized the memo and stated there is currently one building upon the property that has been vacant for four to five years. The remainder of the land is unpaved surface (dirt) that receives marginal maintenance. This property is along the 24th Street Corridor, the main entrance into the downtown, and presents a poor image of the City and the West Ogden neighborhood because of its vacancy and unsightliness. The property is proposed to be rezoned from R-1-5 (residential) to MU (mixed-use) in the West Ogden Community Plan. He noted the negotiated purchase price is $85,000 and City Administration is also proposing that the building on the property be demolished at some point in the future at an approximate cost of $25,000 with a $10,000 contingency. He added that the property has been assumed by the City on assignment from a broker; the purchase price funds are being sourced from the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Critical Contingency Fund and there is sufficient money to pay for the acquisition and demolition. He indicated there are two seller names in the REPC due to some confusion regarding title ownership of the property, but that has been resolved and the seller is Armstrong 1970 Trust. There is a delinquent tax bill against the property and that will be resolved at the time of closing with settlement funds. He then reviewed an aerial photograph to identify the footprint of the subject property and the building located upon it. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Resolution 2016-21, entitled: “A resolution of the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency approving and authorizing the Executive Director to execute the terms and conditions of a real estate purchase contract with Armstrong 190 trust for the purchase of .22 acres of real property located at 660 West 24th Street, Ogden, Utah.” BOARD MEMBER LOPEZ MOVED THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED, AND THE CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SAME. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BLAIR, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – BOARD MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Board member Garner asked if repairs to the sidewalk, curb, and gutter will be made once the property is acquired and potentially redeveloped by a developer. Mr. Johnson stated that will be considered as part of any redevelopment project that may take place on the property. Public Comments Travis Pate, 2546 Jefferson Avenue, stated that in regards to historical preservation a loan is being issued for the property acquisition of 503 26th Street and no federal funds are being used for the purchase. This means City Administration did not need to work with the State Historic Preservation Office and they have found a loophole to get around following historical preservation requirements. If federal funds had been used, City staff would have been required to follow additional steps to vet historical preservation and document the site to determine if it is worthy of restoration. He is very concerned about the process the City has followed. He stated that some City employees receive a salary paid with federal dollars for holding an elected office and they have worked to ensure they are following Hatch Act requirements; the same should be true when considering acquisition of a historical property. City Administration should be concerned about checks and balances and possibly recommend hiring an independent engineer to examine the property. He does not doubt that staff has worked hard and appropriately on the property, but in this case they may be trying to circumvent guidelines. The packet materials relative to the agenda item of concern refer to the property as a one-time historic resource and he wondered why the City is not following State guidelines. He is frustrated that due diligence was not carried out and he is concerned that the City is ‘shooting itself in the foot’ if the property is demolished. City Administration Comments Mr. Johnson asked that Mr. Ogden be allowed to address some inaccuracies in Mr. Pate’s comments. Chair White consented. Mr. Ogden stated one of the steps that he follows regardless of the type of funds used to acquire a property is to perform an analysis of the historical nature of buildings; if federal funds are used a defined process is followed, but a similar process is still followed when using other funding sources. The packet materials indicate that staff has completed an analysis of the historical aspect of the building and according to that survey the determination was made that the property does not contribute historically primarily because of the modifications that have been made to the building. There being no further business to come before the Agency, BOARD MEMBER HYER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 7:05 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BLAIR, ALL VOTING AYE. BOARD MEMBER HYER MOVED TO RECONSIDER THE MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. BOARD MEMBER HYER MOVED TO RETURN THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION OF THE AGENDA. BOARD MEMBER NADOLSKI SECONDED THE MOTION, ALL VOTING AYE. Public Comments Gray Davis, 2508 Jackson Avenue, stated there are number of short term vacation rental property owners in the City that could not attend this evening’s meeting. There is not a large number of short term vacation rentals in Ogden, but he would like to implore the Board to consider that many people have invested in Ogden and put money into their properties with the goal of using them as short term rental properties. He reiterated there is not more than 20 or 30 such properties in the entire City and he understands that the use of the properties cannot be ‘grandfathered’ because they were not legal to begin with, but the property owners are providing a good service to the community and they are properly maintaining their properties, which results in beautification of neighborhoods. His own property was vacant and neglected for nine years before he purchased it and now it is a gem of a property. It seems that the proposed ordinance is written in such a manner to exclude some people from continuing to operate their property as a short-term rental. He asked that the Board consider whether that is truly their goal. He can understand moving forward in the direction is limiting the number of short term rentals on the same block, but there are three such properties on Jackson Avenue and they have been operating for over two years and he feels that operation should be allowed to continue. He stated that in his case, he has met building code requirements to ensure that his property is safe and conforms with the law. He is meticulous about the maintenance of his property and he has hosted some great visitors and events. He said it is nice to allow the use in the community and he asked that the Board carefully consider the way forward. There being no further business to come before the Agency, BOARD MEMBER HYER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 7:11 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. ________________________________________  LEE ANN PETERSON, MMC CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: April 11, 2017