City Council

Minutes of Joint Session of Council of Ogden City, Utah, November 15, 2016 Page Minutes of the Joint Work Session of the Ogden City Council, also acting as the Redevelopment Agency, held on Tuesday, November 15, 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 4:01 p.m.) Council members Neil K. Garner (arrived at 3:46 p.m.) Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez (arrived at 4:30 p.m.) 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: Mayor Michael P. Caldwell Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Management Services Director David G. Buxton Comptroller Lisa Stout Treasurer Brandee Johnson Police Chief Michael Ashment Public Services Director Jay Lowder Community and Economic Development Deputy Director Brandon Cooper Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Senior Accountant Gabe Johns Deputy Recorder Julia LaSeure The purpose of the Joint Work Session was to have a Council-Mayor discussion; discuss the Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 First Quarter Report; discuss mid-year fee changes for security alarm permits, false alarm fees, and returned or dishonored checks; and to discuss Council business and Board business. Council-Mayor Discussion Council member Nadolski stated that he has received several questions about the recent influx of homeless people in Ogden. He indicated many of them have found spaces in the City’s foothills and along the river parkway. He understands this is more than a police issue – it is a social issue with many moving parts, and asked for an update from City Administration that can be communicated to constituents. Mayor Caldwell stated that unfortunately it is largely a police issue at this time and police officers are not trained as counselors for transients, who have constitutional rights to be in public spaces. The Police Department understands it is a delicate issue and one that the Community Policing Division spends the majority of their time working on. He read an email provided by the Police Department regarding the issue that indicated that the officers have been instructed to use whatever legal tools they can to deter illegal activities while taking into consideration constitutional rights. Many transients from Salt Lake City have moved to the Ogden area and they are participating in panhandling activities. They have commented that they were ‘hassled’ so much in Salt Lake that they thought it would be easier to relocate to Ogden and avoid any attention. The officers have informed them that they will receive the same kind of attention and that panhandling is a dangerous activity that will be controlled. He discussed other illegal activities associated with homelessness as well as the efforts of the Police Department to address the issue at a higher level. The homeless population does seem to be more condensed at certain parks near homeless shelters as well as along the river parkway, where overnight camping is prohibited. Difficulties along the east bench of the City include the uncertainty of the boundary between Ogden City and Weber County; overnight parking is allowed on County property and it can be difficult for an officer to determine whether a person sleeping on the east bench is actually in Ogden City limits. The east bench is an enormous area and monitoring illegal activity in that area is difficult for the Police Department. Any residents living on the east bench that notice suspicious activity in the area should report it to the Department. Many transients have gotten very good at relocating quickly and the Police Department is fighting a constant battle to know where the problem may be occurring on a given day and how to curb the activity. He stated that the State of Utah has passed and continues to consider legislation that would provide funding to address homeless issues. He noted Council member Garner chairs the Homeless Coordinating Committee (HCC), which has representatives from many organizations in the City that can offer counseling services for transients. The Committee is working to address the systemic root causes of homelessness that the Police Department does not have the ability to address. Council member Stephens asked about the Lantern House’s responsibility to participate in trying to address the issues. He added he understands that the increase in the transient population is negatively impacting the Newgate Mall. Mayor Caldwell replied that is absolutely correct. The General Manager of the Newgate Mall has worked with the Lantern House to dispatch counselors to the Mall to help address issues that have been occurring there. Many other properties are being negatively impacted by the increase in the transient population and the Code Enforcement Division of the City has been working to address issues such as squatting in vacant homes throughout the City. Council member Stephens asked if there is any legislation the State may be considering in the upcoming legislative session to address the issue. Mayor Caldwell responded there will likely be legislation relative to providing funding for things like counseling services, drug treatment programs, Veterans Affairs, and providing shelters and opportunities for a structured environment that can lead to future success. There is a fine line between providing essential services and providing too much comfort that makes it easy for homeless persons to stay in their unfortunate situation. He stated that locally there are many people working on the issue and he again encouraged residents to continue to contact the Police Department when they notice suspicious or illegal activity. Council member Nadolski stated he appreciates and recognizes the global nature of the issue, but what the Council is hearing from their constituents is that they no longer feel safe in the City’s foothills or on the river parkway. It is important to be sensitive to the people impacted by homelessness, but it is also necessary to be sensitive to the safety issues associated with that homelessness. He expressed his understanding of the many enforcement efforts that happen through community policing, but added they typically only operate during the daytime. He is hearing from constituents that most of the problems they are encountering are occurring in the evening or overnight hours and that is when infractions are occurring. He asked if there are plans for increased enforcement of ordinances and laws that may be violated during these hours. Mayor Caldwell responded that the river parkway is patrolled regularly at night. The parkway is closed after dusk and a number of arrests are made on the parkway over night. He added that if residents report issues in other areas of the City during evening or overnight hours, the Police Department will respond. Chief Administrative Officer Johnson added the City is somewhat short on resources and the Police Chief must strike a balanced distribution of those resources. Mayor Caldwell agreed. Council member Nadolski concluded he is hopeful City Administration understands and recognizes the unique pressure the City is under given homeless issues throughout the entire State of Utah and he is hopeful that it is possible to prioritize resources to address this issue to respond to that pressure. Chair White asked if the City is scheduled to receive any of the $9 million in State funding allocated to address the issue. Mayor Caldwell answered that the City may not receive any money in the first round of funding, but he has been assured Ogden will not be overlooked in future rounds of funding. He added that the relationship between the City and the Lantern House has been somewhat strained as the Lantern House felt that the shelter is Ogden’s shelter and the City should be a main source of resources and funds for the facility. Mayor Caldwell indicated he has clarified that the shelter is a northern Utah shelter that should receive support from other entities, such as Weber County and other municipalities that send their homeless population here. The City has put pressure on some of the other agencies to participate in addressing the problems and many of them have indicated they do not have the resources to assist. They also do not see it as an issue for them because they do not deal with it daily. Council member Garner added that the HCC has also put pressure on the County to provide support. Council member Nadolski stated he will compile the complaints that he has received from his constituents relative to the locations throughout the City that are popular transient spots and forward them to the City Administration. He thanked Mayor Caldwell for being prepared to respond to and address his concerns on the matter. Council member Garner added that the Police Department works very closely with Weber Human Services to identify homeless camps in order to try to offer them resources for housing and other needs. Chair White asked for an update on the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) project. Mayor Caldwell reported that in a recent Weber Area Council of Governments (WACOG) meeting, WACOG unanimously voted to support dedicating funding to the BRT project as they see it is a vital regional transportation project. He has not seen that kind of support for an Ogden project from WACOG in his five years of participating with the group. He stated that Weber State University (WSU) President Wight was instrumental in educating the other members of WACOG about the importance of the project. WSU has already spent $2.5 million in right-of-way acquisition for the project which will travel right through the heart of the campus and is viewed as a ‘game changer’ for the school. The City has been working diligently to get support from other agencies, such as the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) and UTA. UTA is seeking approval of a funding request at their meeting tomorrow night. They are seeking $1 million to be spent on the design and engineering of the project, which is estimated to be $5 million in total. The State of Utah, Ogden City, and WFRC need to match 50 percent of the total project cost, which is estimated to be $60 million. WACOG has committed $2.5 million, WFRC is planning to contribute approximately $1.5 million, and UTA will contribute $1 million. The $5 million to be spent on engineering and analysis can be counted towards the estimated $30 million match. Efforts are underway to find other funding sources for the project that will ultimately benefit the entire community. Council member Stephens noted the Governor spoke about the fuel tax today and he indicated that the Legislature is revisiting that issue. He asked what City Administration anticipates will come of that issue in the upcoming legislative session. Mayor Caldwell replied the fuel tax was first considered two years ago, but last year the Utah Association of Counties promoted legislation that altered the formulas used for distribution of gas tax revenues and the outcome was very negative for many cities and counties along the Wasatch Front in favor or redirecting the bulk of the money to rural Utah. When the Utah League of Cities and Towns (ULCT), along with cities and counties, became aware of the problems associated with the legislation they worked feverishly to address the issue with the legislature. The formulas have now been corrected and from this point forward the City will receive the amount originally allocated in the first gas tax bill, which is approximately $800,000 per year. Chair White stated there is a project to reconstruct sidewalks along Mount Ogden Park and wondered if the City makes an attempt to reach out to residents in the neighborhood of such a project to allow them to participate in the project by replacing or repairing their sidewalk through the 50/50 sidewalk program. Public Services Director Lowder responded the City will occasionally reach out to residents for such projects, but it is not a general practice because it may be difficult to determine how far to extend the project since there are so many problematic sidewalks in the City. Chair White said that it may be possible to consider a policy that would allow City Administration to reach out to residents within a half-mile radius of a project area. Mr. Lowder stated residents will question why the City would stop at a half-mile when there are so many sidewalk issues. He concluded the City has a set amount of funding for sidewalks each year and all that money is used to repair or replace as much sidewalk as possible, with an effort to address the most hazardous areas of the City. However, there will always be sidewalk hazards in the City. Council member Garner mentioned he has had several citizens contact him to thank the City for the new crosswalk at 29th Street and Monroe Boulevard, which provides safer passage to St. Joseph’s Elementary School. Discussion centered on the recent demolition of the old Fred Meyer building, with Mayor Caldwell noting he is looking forward to many redevelopment projects that are or will be underway in the City soon. Mayor Caldwell stated the three things that have consumed most of his time lately include his Chairmanship of WFRC, his participation in selecting a new President, Chief Executive Officer, and Chief Operating Officer of Economic Development Corporation of Utah, and his participation with the Northern Utah Chamber Coalition relative to the Interstate 15 24th Street interchange project. The project is at the top of the list for funding priorities. He then noted that within a five-week period, Business Depot Ogden (BDO) closed on one million additional square feet of space at the installation. They could not be building faster and the pace of many projects is fast and furious. Completing the projects on such a quick time frame would not be possible in any other city in the State and that is due to the relationship between the Community and Economic Development Department of the City and BDO management. Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 First Quarter Report Council Deputy Director Eller-Smith reported that with the exception of some General Fund revenues, the budget seems to be tracking with the FY2017 budget. Relative to General Fund revenues, the report suggests that some revenues may have been overestimated and City Administration is currently projecting a $277,999 shortfall. Other City funds appear to be tracking with the FY2017 Budget. Comptroller Stout explained that many revenues are not received by the City until January; additionally, the City is still working through the annual audit and carryover funding actions will not be finalized until the audit is complete. She reviewed page 10 of the first quarter report and indicated she is estimating a shortfall of up to $200,000 in sales tax revenue. The actual revenues have been short of the projections included in the budget. This may change at the conclusion of the holiday season, but she wanted the Council to be aware of the potential shortfall risk. She noted fines and forfeitures revenues are not tracking with the projection included in the budget and she is predicting a shortfall of approximately $90,000. Council and staff discussion centered on the budgeting practices used to determine the revenue projections included in each budget, which led to a larger discussion regarding the sales tax revenue trends occurring in other areas of the State of Utah. Mr. Johnson noted that there are so many factors considered when developing revenue projections; it is an art that no city has ever been able to perfect. Ms. Stout stated an internal committee meets monthly to examine revenues and they have decided they are comfortable waiting one more month before making any kind of recommendation to freeze expenditures or recommend budget adjustments. Ms. Stout then referenced page 23 of the report and reported the Airport Fund has a negative revenue of $243,000 related to an accrual for a grant receivable; once the receivable has been paid to the City, the deficit will be corrected. Additionally, the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Fund 4100 on page 15 will continue to fluctuate as the City receives a carryforward of grant funds from last year. She concluded by addressing the miscellaneous grants fund which generally does not have a large budget at the beginning of the year. It has a negative revenue associated with the late receipt of a reimbursement from the Federal Emergency Management Agency. She is hopeful the City will receive the reimbursement before the end of the fiscal year, but if not it will be necessary to recognize the expense in the General Fund or elsewhere in the budget. Mid-year Fee Changes for Security Alarm Permits, False Alarm Fees, and Returned or Dishonored Checks Council Policy Analyst Mabey explained City Administration is proposing mid-year fee amendments for security alarm permits and false alarm calls that request a police response, and to incorporate a reference of these fees into the city-wide fee schedule. The Administration is also proposing to modify the returned check fee in the general fee schedule in order to have the ability to charge for additional collection costs. She noted that approximately 18 months ago, the City Treasurer’s office began working with the Police Department to actively bill for residential and commercial security alarm permits. Prior to this effort, permits were paid for and issued only if property owners contacted the Police Department directly to gain a permit. These efforts resulted in learning more about who has been issued permits and how many false alarms are occurring in different entities. Although residential entities have more than half of the issued permits, comparatively these only produce a small portion of the false alarm calls. There are more than eighty alarm companies in Ogden and it has been difficult for the City to establish and maintain relationships with each company. Aside from permits received, the City has no way of knowing whether an alarm is installed unless the alarm goes off. Ms. Mabey noted that all security alarm users (commercial, non-commercial and residential) are required to submit a permit and to pay a one-time permit fee of $25. Users of alarm systems with both a robbery and an intrusion alarm system are required to obtain separate permits for each system. Because permits do not expire, there is no current mechanism to update property owner contact information. A full name, address and telephone number are provided as part of the permit along with the name of the company installing, maintaining, and/or servicing the alarm. The application also includes the names, addresses and telephone numbers of three individuals who know how to operate the alarm; these individuals may be contacted by responding police on an as needed basis. The Police Department also furnishes a copy of the alarm permit to the named licensed alarm business or company that will monitor, maintain, and service the system. Revenues for security alarm permit fees were approximately $8,850 for FY2016, which is more than double the amount collected in FY2015. This increase is likely a result of the City’s concentrated efforts to get more alarm users to submit permits. She noted the proposal from City Administration includes a change that would require commercial users to submit a permit annually with a fee of $25, versus the current one-time permit fee. Ms. Mabey explained Ogden City charges a fee for excessive false burglary and robbery alarms that request a police response. Currently, false alarms are considered excessive if there are more than three false alarms from any one source within a 12-month period, and a $100.00 service fee is charged. The Police Department estimates a $50 cost in wages and overhead for each response, in addition to other administrative costs to bill and collect the false alarm fee. False alarms also result in having fewer police officers available to address legitimate dispatch calls. An alarm permit may be revoked if a user has more than six false alarms within a 12-month period or if the alarm user fails to pay an assessed service fee. Once a permit has been revoked, the Police Department will no longer respond to alarm system activities. A user can reinstate police response to an alarm by submitting a new permit and paying a reinstatement fee of $200.00, in addition to paying any unpaid service fees. Between FY2015 and FY2016 there has been a substantial increase in the revenues for false alarm response fees. This is also a likely result of city efforts to work with alarm users. The proposal from City Administration entails that a false alarm response fee will continue to apply to all users, regardless of whether an entity is commercial or noncommercial. This also entails that after a second false alarm occurs within a 12-month period a fee of $150 will be charged for each consecutive false alarm, as opposed to $100 that is now charged after a third false alarm. She concluded by discussing returned check fees. The City currently allows personal checks to be used for various City payments and as permitted by Utah State Law, any checks that are returned are currently assessed a $20 service charge. City Administration is proposing to change the language from “returned check” to “dishonored check.” The proposal also includes having the $20 amount continue to be listed as the charge with the addition of an undefined amount of applicable collection costs. This change is being proposed to align with Utah State Code § 7-15-1, which allows for additional remedies and fees to recover the cost of collections for dishonored checks. The Administration anticipates the fiscal impact of adding the returned check fee to be immaterial and it is intended only to offset some of the staff costs for handling returned checks. Council member Hyer asked if residents with a security system on their home would be required to obtain alarm permits. Ms. Mabey answered no, but indicated that when applicable they would be subject to the fee associated with false alarm responses. She then reviewed a chart that contained benchmarking information for similar fees charged in other jurisdictions. Senior Accountant Johns facilitated a discussion among the staff and Council to address the following questions included in the Council staff review document: 1. Please describe the urgency of each proposed fee amendment and why these are proposed to be amended mid-year versus during the regular budget process. Mr. Johns indicated that City Administration would like to take advantage of the City’s existing business licensing process as the alarm permits could be connected to any new business license or renewal. He added there is no urgency for the returned check fee. Council member Hyer stated he is not opposed to an annual fee for alarm permits as he has never really understood how the one-time alarm permit and fee was effective. 2. Please describe why the proposal solely includes a requirement for commercial entities to obtain permits versus non-residential. Mr. Johns explained the City has limited resources to focus on the issues associated with alarms and City Administration feels dropping residential users from the program would reduce the burden on City staff. Residential users make up 60 percent of those invoiced for alarm fees, but there is a very high delinquency rate and the amount due is very hard to collect; however, residences only make up 9 percent of false alarms. Mr. Johnson clarified that rental properties are classified as commercial businesses. This led to philosophical discussion regarding the party that should be responsible for false alarm fees associated with a rental property. Council member Hyer noted that a tenant can install a security system without the property owner’s knowledge and he does not feel it is appropriate to hold that property owner responsible for false alarms associated with that system. Vice Chair Blair asked if a person whose alarm system generates a false alarm is found to not have secured an alarm permit will be charged a penalty for failure to do so. Mr. Johns answered yes and indicated that the person would be charged the $25 permit fee. Ms. Mabey clarified that a property owner is required to secure a permit for each alarm they have on their property. She stated an alarm requiring a permit is any alarm that could notify emergency services in the case of an emergency. 3. How many entities currently have an alarm permit with the city? Mr. Johns stated there are approximately 4,400 commercial permittees and 2,000 residential permittees. The issue with these numbers is that they are associated with one-time permits and without requiring an annual renewal, City Administration has no way of knowing how accurate the numbers are. 4. Why is it being proposed to change the alarm permit fee from a one-time fee to an annual fee? Mr. Johns indicated that implementing an annual fee requires the permittee to update their records so that the City has accurate information. 5. Please describe outreach efforts that have occurred to make residents and businesses aware of the fees required for an alarm system that notifies police. Mr. Johns indicated there has not been much outreach thus far. 6. What additional outreach efforts are planned if these changes are implemented? He noted there are two outreach components planned for the future: first is to inform licensees of the change at the time that they renew their business license and second is to generate a notice to property owners once they have had their first false alarm. They will be notified of the requirement to secure an alarm permit. Council member Hyer pointed out that does not address outreach  for residential users. Mr. Johns stated that is correct and those issues will be addressed on a case-by-case basis since they are so rare and it is much easier to address them individually. Chair Hyer suggested that the fee changes or permit requirements be advertised through the local alarm companies. Mr. Johnson stated that may be an option for City Administration to consider. 7. Please describe how residential and other non-commercial false alarms will be handled without having access to permit information. Mr. Johns stated that after receipt of a false alarm, the City sends an invoice to the physical location of the alarm. This is currently problematic and many invoices are never received by the property owner, but if permittees are required to update their contact information annually the problem should be largely resolved. 8. How many false alarms did police respond to during the past year? Have these been increasing over time? Mr. Johns replied that over the last five years the number of false alarms average at 1,100 per year and that number has been fairly stable over time. 9. Why was the third false alarm determined to be the point of a finable infraction? Have other options been considered? Mr. Johns explained that the third alarm was chosen because City Administration felt at that point it would be appropriate to reach out to a property owner to prompt a change in behavior. The goal of the program is to reduce false alarms. The collection of fines associated with false alarms is secondary. He indicated this is fairly similar to how other cities handle false alarms, though some cities actually cite a property owner upon their first false alarm. Chair White indicated she appreciates that an offender will not be fined until their third false alarm as she believes fining someone after their first false alarm would likely push them to disarm their system. Council member Lopez asked about the amount of revenue City Administration anticipates generating with the fines. Mr. Johns replied the program will likely be revenue neutral. 10. Were any changes considered to the reinstatement fee of $200? Mr. Johns indicated there has never been an instance where the reinstatement fee has been charged because it would be impractical to decline responding to a false alarm, hence there has never been a need for reinstatement. Council member Hyer asked if the Police Department collects data regarding what caused the false alarm. Mr. Johns answered that typically most false alarms are system malfunctions or an employee of a business going out the wrong door of a building. 11. Which city services and fees allow payment by check? Mr. Johns stated all fees can currently be paid by check and there has been no consideration of disallowing checks as a payment type. The City receives nearly 6,000 checks each month and checks are the second most popular payment type, second only to credit cards. 12. How many returned checks does the City handles on an annual basis? Mr. Johns responded by reporting the City sees about 11 returned checks each month. 13. Please describe the costs for the City to address a dishonored check. What is the average amount that is anticipated to be charged for collection costs? Mr. Johns answered the City is currently charged approximately $5.00 for a returned check, which leaves $15.00 to cover the City’s administrative costs associated with dealing with a returned check. Depending on the efforts of a given department to collect the check amount, those administrative costs can vary widely. He noted that the change is proactive and will simply give the City options for collecting on the check if deemed necessary. Council member Hyer reiterated his concern about holding a landlord responsible for false alarm fees when they may be unaware that tenant has installed an alarm system. Ms. Mabey stated that issue is not defined in the proposed ordinance and there may be an opportunity to provide clarification to address Council member Hyer’s concerns. She then reviewed the timeline for further consideration of City Administration’s proposals relative to mid-year fees. Agenda Review Council Executive Director Cook and other members of Council staff briefly reviewed the items listed on the agendas for the City Council and Redevelopment Agency meetings scheduled to begin at 6:00 p.m. Council Business Council Calendar: Council staff reviewed the Council calendar for the remainder of the month of November and the first few weeks of December. There was brief discussion about calendar notification issues the Council has been experiencing based upon the manner in which a meeting is scheduled and added to the Council calendar. Intergovernmental Reports: Council member Nadolski provided the Council with a report on the progress on developing the request for proposals for the Police Department Management Study. Ms. Mabey stated the draft schedule for the project will be provided to the entire Council. The meeting adjourned at 5:28 p.m. /s/ Julia M. LaSeure JULIA M. LASEURE, MMC  DEPUTY CITY RECORDER /s/ Marcia L. White MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: February 14, 2017  Minutes of Regular Meeting of Council of Ogden City, Utah, November 15, 2016 Page Minutes of the Regular Meeting of the Ogden City Council held on Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 6:10 p.m., in the Council Chambers on the third floor of the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard, Ogden City, Weber County, Utah. Present: Chair Marcia L. White Vice Chair Bart E. Blair Council members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski Doug Stephens Council Executive Director Bill Cook Council Deputy Director Janene Eller-Smith Council Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Council Policy Analyst Amy Sue Mabey Communications Manager Brittany Griffin Also present: Mayor Michael P. Caldwell Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson Community and Economic Development Deputy Director Brandon Cooper Public Services Director Jay Lowder Public Ways and Parks Manager Perry Huffaker Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Deputy City Recorder Julia LaSeure Approval of Minutes Council member Garner stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Special Meeting of August 9, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER THEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. Joint Proclamation declaring Jo Packham as Honorary Mayor for the 2016 Ogden Christmas Village and proclaiming November 26, 2016 as “Jo Packham Day” in Ogden City A joint proclamation regarding the declaration of Jo Packham as Honorary Mayor for the 2016 Christmas Village and proclaiming November 26, 2016 as “Jo Packham Day” in Ogden City came before the Council for consideration. Council member Nadolski read the joint proclamation, after which COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI MOVED TO APPROVE THE JOINT PROCLAMATION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. Chair White then presented the joint proclamation to Ms. Packham. Ms. Packham stated she is honored to receive this recognition, but she feels guilty accepting it as the work was done by so many youths in the community as well as City staff and Administration. She added she loves Christmas Village and will continue to be passionate about its success and future improvements and additions. Mayor Caldwell read a quote from Niccolò Machiavelli, who said “it is better to be feared than loved if you can’t be both.” He noted that Ms. Packham is both feared and loved; her fingerprints are all over the community and he cannot thank her enough for everything she has done. Council member Hyer recognized the members of the Christmas Village Committee in attendance as well and thanked them for their hard work to make Christmas Village a success year after year. Joint Resolution 2016-13 challenging citizens to join the Ogden City Council and Mayor Caldwell in doing holiday shopping within Ogden City limits A joint resolution regarding the Buy Local Initiative came before the Council for consideration. Vice Chair Blair read the joint resolution, after which VICE CHAIR BLAIR MOVED TO APPROVE THE JOINT RESOLUTION. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. Chair White then presented the joint resolution to local First Utah Executive Director Kristen Lavelett. Ms. Lavelett thanked the Council for this recognition and for supporting the Buy Local Initiative. She stated she loves to hear reports regarding the success of local businesses on 25th Street in Ogden as well as other independent businesses in other commercial centers. She commented that the entrepreneurs in Ogden work hard to make the City what it is. The Shift Your Spending campaign will be launched on Black Friday and the goal of that campaign is to get people to do at least ten percent of their holiday shopping with local businesses. Local businesses are given marketing materials to get them involved in the campaign as well. She added a Small Business Saturday event will be held on 25th Street this year and there is great material available for businesses and customers that participate in that event as well. Proposed Ordinance 2016-59 amending the Fiscal Year 2017 budget by increasing the anticipated revenues for a gross increase of $290,200 A memo from the City Comptroller regarding a proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 budget amendment came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated the Council is being asked to consider setting a public hearing on an ordinance that authorizes budget amendments totaling $290,200. The budget amendment recognizes revenue from a Comcast grant ($21,200) and funds from the Sanitary Sewer Retained Earnings ($269,000) to partially fund a loan to the Redevelopment Agency (RDA). The budget amendment appropriates the grant funds to a special projects account for Make a Difference Day projects ($21,200) and transfers loan funds to the RDA for a future property purchase ($912,000). Chair White then introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-59, 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 $290,200 from sources as detailed in the body of this ordinance; and increasing the appropriations for a gross increase of $290,200 as detailed in the body of this ordinance; 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. The proposed ordinance was then read by long title. COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON DECEMBER 6, 2016 DURING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M. AND THAT THE CITY RECORDER BE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. Proposed Ordinance 2016-60 amending the FY2017 budget by increasing the anticipated revenues for a gross increase of $1,133,325 A memo from the City Comptroller regarding a proposed FY2017 budget amendment came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated the Council is being asked to consider setting a public hearing on an ordinance that authorizes budget amendments totaling $1,133,325. The budget amendment recognizes and appropriates various revenues for arts programs and police grants. The budget amendment also recognizes and transfers $1,000,000 of Business Depot Ogden (BDO) Lease Revenue Retained Earnings to the RDA for a future property purchase ($900,000) and to the General Fund for a future demolition project ($100,000). Chair White then introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-60, 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 $1,133, 325 from sources as detailed in the body of this ordinance; and increasing the appropriations for a gross increase of $1,133,325 as detailed in the body of this ordinance; 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. The proposed ordinance was then read by long title. COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE BE HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON DECEMBER 6, 2016 DURING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING TO BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M. AND THAT THE CITY RECORDER BE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. Proposed Ordinance 2016-58 amending the BDO Street Master Plan by removing 1070 West as a public street between 200 North and 600 North A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department regarding a proposed amendment to the BDO Street Master Plan came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated Blake Wahlen, General Manager at BDO, has requested an amendment to the street master plan for BDO. The amendment would remove 1050 West Street (shown on some documents and labeled with street signs on location as 1070 West Street) from the plan for future public streets between 200 North Street and 600 North Street. Mr. Wahlen has indicated that the amendment and subsequent vacation of the dedicated right-of-way would allow for the development of future buildings in the area and eliminate conflicts that arise with the maneuvering and loading/unloading of trucks on publicly dedicated streets. Council Policy Analyst Symes noted Mr. Wahlen also submitted the required street vacation petition. The petition is part of a series of amendments needed to vacate the street including a BDO Street Master Plan amendment, the street vacation itself, and a subdivision plat amendment. The physical road does not exist in this area other than a small portion of the intersections of 200 North Street and 400 North Street. . Planning Manager Montgomery summarized the memo and used various maps to provide a brief history of the various street layouts at BDO over the years. He added the Planning Commission reviewed this item on October 5, 2016 and found that the amendment will not impact general public circulation and the layout of land east of buildings 15B and 15C is consistent with private street patterns rather than public. The Planning Commission recommended approval of amending the BDO Street Master Plan by eliminating 1070 West Street as a public street. Chair White asked if this is the only proposed street vacation. Mr. Montgomery replied this is the only street vacation proposed at this time; however, other future amendments may be forthcoming. Council member Nadolski asked who will be responsible to maintain the street once it is vacated. Mr. Montgomery answered that since the street will no longer be public in nature, it will be the responsibility of BDO to maintain it. Council member Stephens asked if any improvements are needed in the area of the street proposed for vacation. Mr. Montgomery replied no and added there is currently no physical street in place. He explained as development takes place the street will be constructed to provide an asphalt connection between the properties to the east and west which will require utility infrastructure installation and other improvements. Mr. Wahlen thanked the Council for their consideration of the petition to amend the BDO Street Master Plan. He added that he will be submitting an additional petition in the future to vacate a street to the north of 1070 West Street. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Ordinance 2016-58, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah, amending the BDO Street Master Plan by removing 1070 West between 200 North and 600 North as a public collector road; 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. Chair White 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 STEPHENS, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-58 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. Proposed Ordinance 2016-57 vacating a portion of 1050 West from 200 North to 400 North and quit claiming the property within the vacated portion to the abutting property owners A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department regarding a proposed street vacation came before the Council for consideration. The memo stated the petitioner, Mr. Wahlen, has submitted a petition to vacate approximately two blocks of 1050 West Street in BDO. The petition is part of a series of amendments needed to vacate the street including an amendment to the BDO Street Master Plan, the street vacation itself, and a subdivision plat amendment. Mr. Wahlen had indicated that the vacation of 1050 West Street as a public street is needed to accommodate the maneuvering of trucks and future building development. The physical road does not exist in this area other than a small portion of the intersections of 200 North Street and 400 North Street. The proposal was reviewed by the Planning Commission at the October 5, 2016 meeting. The Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Council with a 5-0 vote with the finding that good cause exists for the vacation and that neither the public interest nor any person will be materially injured by the vacation. Mr. Montgomery summarized the memo and stated that following Council approval to amend the BDO Street Master Plan, it is notwpossible to consider vacating the platted street between 200 North Street and 400 North Street. He reviewed a map to identify the location of the road within BDO. The Planning Commission found that the proposed vacation meets the intent of the provisions of the general plan. They unanimously recommended approval of the vacation of 1050 West Street between 200 North Street and 400 North Street. BDO management has mentioned they will likely be petitioning for the vacation of 1050 West Street between 400 North Street and 600 North Street at a future date, but that is not part of this petition. Council member Stephens asked who will be responsible for paying for the improvements of the road as a private street. Mr. Montgomery replied those costs will be borne by the development. The Chair then called for a motion to open a public hearing on proposed Ordinance 2016-57, entitled: “An ordinance of Ogden City, Utah vacating a portion of 1050 West from 200 North to 400 North; quit claiming the property within the vacated portion of said street to the abutting property owners as their interests may appear; reserving a right-of-way for all utilities that may now exist in said portion of such street; directing the City Recorder to record this ordinance in the office of the County Recorder; and providing that this ordinance shall become effective immediately upon posting after final passage.” The Deputy City Recorder presented written notice of said hearing and affidavit of the publication in the Standard- Examiner on the 5th day of November, 2016 specifying the time and place of this meeting as the time and place when and where the proposed ordinance would be given a public hearing and be considered for final passage. The proof of publication was accepted and filed. VICE CHAIR BLAIR MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ALLOW ALL INTERESTED PERSONS FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI, ALL VOTING AYE. There being no persons appearing to be heard, COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED THE PUBLIC HEARING BE CLOSED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. ON A MOTION BY COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER AND SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ, ORDINANCE WAS PASSED AND ADOPTED AS OGDEN CITY ORDINANCE 2016-57 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. Proposed Resolution 2016-25 approving the write-off of certain advances receivable pertaining to interfund loans to Redevelopment Agency project areas A memo from the City Comptroller came before the Council to consider a resolution approving the write-off of interfund loans to RDA project areas. The memo stated City Administration is requesting authorization to write-off three advances made by the City to the RDA. The total amount for the three advances is $5,771,660. The total for each RDA area is as follows:  25th Street RDA - $1,003,106  Washington Boulevard RDA - $3,016,953  Central Business District (CBD) Mall RDA - $1,751,601 The Washington Boulevard and 25th Street RDA districts have both expired; therefore, no additional tax increment will flow to the RDA from these districts. The CBD Mall District was extended to 2026, but the tax increment during the extended period has been pledged to repay bonded indebtedness so the RDA will have no excess tax increment flowing from the CBD Mall District. The finance staff has calculated that the City has received payment over and above the original principal amounts for the 25th Street and Washington Boulevard advances to the RDA. The memo concluded that finance staff anticipated these advances to the RDA would not be repaid and made adjustments in the financial records, specifically the Interfund Loans account, in FY2007 and approval of the write-offs will have no budgetary impact. Comptroller Stout summarized the memo and stated the Redevelopment Agency has three advances made to it from the City that have balances outstanding currently allowed for since it was uncertain if they would ever be repaid to the City. Those advances had estimated collections and outstanding balances/net allowances of $0, as shown in Exhibit A of the proposed resolution, and as described below:  The 25th Street RDA expired in 2015 as it pertains to funding for payments related to these advances. It was determined that this debt would never fully be repaid and an adjustment on the advance, in the form of an allowance, was made in FY2007. The original principal for this advance was $4,211,805. Total principal and interest paid to the City on this advance equal $8,064,927. The City recovery in excess of the original loan balance is $3,853,122.  The Washington Boulevard RDA expired in 2008 and increment from that district could only be used for The Junction debt payment after 2008. Since increment could not be used to repay the debt in that area as it pertained to the advances of interfund loans, the entire balance was adjusted for in the form of an allowance during FY 2007. Original principal for this advance was $3,021,617. Total principal and interest paid to the City on this advance equal $3,106,265. The City recovery in excess of original loan balance is $84,648.  The advance to the CBD Mall RDA in the amount of $1,751,601 was also allowed for in FY2007. The increment revenue from this district is necessary for bonded debt repayment and maintenance on the parking structures in the CBD Mall RDA. It is anticipated that this advance will never be repaid, even though the district does not expire until tax year 2026, which is FY2027 for the City. City Administration is recommending the RDA completely write off the advances from the City against the allowances on those advances, since no additional increment is anticipated to be available to repay these advances to Ogden City. There will be no fiscal impact to the RDA or the City. When an allowance on debt is established, an expenditure is recognized in the amount of the allowance at that time, in this case in 2007. To remove the receivable and the allowance from the books, it is a balance sheet transaction only; no additional expense will need to be recognized in FY2017. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Resolution 2016-25, entitled: “A resolution of Ogden City Council approving the write-off of certain advances receivable pertaining to interfund loans.” COUNCIL MEMBER LOPEZ MOVED THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED, AND THE CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SAME. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER NADOLSKI, ALL VOTING AYE. Public Comments Travis Pate stated that he wishes to follow up on comments he made to the Council in the past regarding historic preservation. There are several items that have been classified as non-contributing and those items have not been readdressed. Homes at 2547 and 2549 Jefferson Avenue are classified as non-contributing; however, one is being restored currently and the restoration on the other is almost completely done. He would like the Council to address these issues and feels that some of the buildings classified as non-contributing should be reclassified as historical to protect them from demolition. He indicated he does not doubt that City staff is able to evaluate a property’s historical value, but he would like involvement from the State Historical Preservation Society. He stated many buildings are an asset to the community and an independent assessment of that value would be worthwhile. He provided a brief history of properties included in the 1895-1896 Polk Directory, which discusses a property occupied by Sarah and George S. Herb. Mr. Herb was the secretary of the Ogden Electric Light Company which incorporated in May of 1880. He explained this Company brought power to Ogden City and that history should be considered when weighing whether the property should be demolished or preserved for historic reasons. Mayor Comments Mayor Caldwell reported the Washington National Christmas Tree made a stop on 25th Street as it made its way from the Paiute National Forest to the nation’s capital. He stated in this day and age people need symbols of peace, hope, and coming together and it was great to be able to gather around that symbol today. He thanked Public Services Director Lowder and his staff for creating the kind of environment where these types of events are possible. He invited everyone to the City’s Holiday Electric Parade and Christmas Village lighting ceremony. Council member Comments Council member Garner expressed his appreciation to those that made the Veteran’s Day Parade a success. It was very touching to walk the parade route and see all the youth saluting the members of the military that participated in the event. Council member Stephens said very important items of business were addressed during this meeting, one of which was choosing an Honorary Mayor of Christmas Village. He thanked Mr. Lowder and his staff as well as all the volunteers that support Christmas Village. The Village adds a special spirit to the community and has done so for many years. It gives the residents of Ogden, was well as many visitors, an opportunity to enjoy the Christmas spirit. He also referenced the Buy Local Initiative and commented that it generates tax dollars that benefit the entire City and it is essential to encourage all residents to buy local whenever possible. He stated that he also enjoyed the Veteran’s Day Parade. The people watching the parade appreciate the freedoms they enjoy that have been afforded them by those currently serving and those that have served in the armed forces in the past. Chair White thanked the Council for wearing their Christmas Village sweatshirts this evening. Council member Lopez thanked Mr. Pate for his comments regarding historical preservation in the community and asked that the Council be informed of any response to those concerns provided by City Administration. Consideration of adjourning into a Closed Executive Session At this time, the Council gave consideration of adjourning into a Closed Executive Session pursuant to one or more of the provisions of Section 52-4-205(1) of the Open and Public Meetings Law: a. Discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual b. Strategy session to discuss collective bargaining c. Strategy session to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation d. Strategy session to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property e. Strategy session to discuss the sale of real property f. Discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems g. Investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct COUNCIL MEMBER HYER MOVED THE COUNCIL ADJOURN INTO A CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 52-4-205(1) OF THE OPEN AND PUBLIC MEETINGS LAW. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY VICE CHAIR BLAIR, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – COUNCIL MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR, AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO - NONE. The meeting adjourned into Closed Executive Session at 6:53 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 7:52 p.m. There being no further business to come before the Council, COUNCIL MEMBER GARNER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 7:52 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY COUNCIL MEMBER HYER, ALL VOTING AYE. /s/ Julia M. LaSeure JULIA M. LASEURE, MMC DEPUTY CITY RECORDER /s/ Marcia L. White MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: February 14, 2017  Minutes of Special Meeting of Redevelopment Agency of Ogden City, Utah, November 15, 2016 Page Minutes of the Special Meeting of the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency held on Tuesday, November 15, 2016 at 6:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers on the third floor of the Municipal Building, 2549 Washington Boulevard, Ogden City, Weber County, Utah. Present: Chair Marcia L. White Vice Chair Bart E. Blair Board members Neil K. Garner Richard A. Hyer Luis Lopez Ben Nadolski Doug Stephens Board Administrator Bill Cook Board Deputy Administrator Janene Eller-Smith Board Policy Analyst Glenn Symes Board Policy Analyst Amy Sue Mabey Communications Manager Brittany Griffin Also present: Executive Director Michael P. Caldwell Chief Administrative Officer Mark Johnson City Attorney Gary Williams Comptroller Lisa Stout Public Services Director Jay Lowder Community and Economic Development Deputy Director Brandon Cooper Planning Manager Greg Montgomery Deputy Recorder Julia LaSeure At the request of the Chair, all present stood and recited the Pledge of Allegiance led by Boy Scout Xander Eads. Chair White welcomed Boy Scouts present from Troop #16, who were working on their Citizenship in the Community Merit Badge. A moment of silence was observed. Approval of Minutes Board member Hyer stated he had reviewed the minutes of the Special Meeting of August 16, 2016 and found them to be accurate to the best of his recollection. BOARD MEMBER HYER THEN MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES AS PRESENTED. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LOPEZ, ALL VOTING AYE. Proposed Resolution 2016-22 amending the Fiscal Year 2017 budget by increasing anticipated revenues and transfers for a gross increase of $2,050,000 and increasing the appropriations for a gross increase of $2,050,000 A memo from the City Comptroller regarding a proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2017 budget amendment came before the Board for consideration. The memo stated the Board is being asked to consider setting a public hearing on a resolution that authorizes budget amendments totaling $2,050,000. The budget amendment recognizes loan proceeds from the Sanitary Sewer Fund and Central Business District (CBD) Mall Redevelopment Area. The budget amendment also appropriates funds for a future property purchase. Chair White then introduced in writing proposed Resolution 2016-22, 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 transfers for a gross increase of $2,050,000 from sources as detailed in the body of this resolution; and increasing the appropriations for a gross increase of $2,050,000 as detailed in the body of this resolution.” A copy of the proposed resolution was deposited with the Deputy City Recorder and ordered that the City Recorder have at least one copy available for public inspection in her office during all business hours. The proposed resolution was then read by long title.  BOARD MEMBER GARNER MOVED A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON DECEMBER 6, 2016, DURING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TO BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M. AND THAT THE CITY RECORDER BE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER NADOLSKI, ALL VOTING AYE. Proposed Resolution 2016-23 amending the FY2017 budget by increasing anticipated revenues and transfers for a gross increase of $900,000 and increasing the appropriations for a gross increase of $900,000 A memo from the City Comptroller regarding a proposed FY2017 budget amendment came before the Board for consideration. The memo stated the Board is being asked to consider setting a public hearing on a resolution that authorizes budget amendments totaling $900,000. The budget amendment recognizes loan proceeds from a transfer from the City and appropriates the funds for a future property purchase. Chair White then introduced in writing proposed Resolution 2016-23, 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 transfers for a gross increase of $900,000 from sources as detailed in the body of this resolution; and increasing the appropriations for a gross increase of $900,000 as detailed in the body of this resolution.” A copy of the proposed resolution was deposited with the Deputy City Recorder and ordered that the City Recorder have at least one copy available for public inspection in her office during all business hours. The proposed resolution was then read by long title. BOARD MEMBER GARNER MOVED A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED RESOLUTION BE HELD IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS ON DECEMBER 6, 2016, DURING THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING TO BE HELD AT 6:00 P.M. AND THAT THE CITY RECORDER BE DIRECTED TO PROVIDE NOTICE AS REQUIRED BY LAW. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER NADOLSKI, ALL VOTING AYE. Proposed Resolution 2016-8 terminating and dissolving the Washington Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area A memo from the Community and Economic Development Department came before the Board to consider a resolution terminating and dissolving the Washington Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area. The memo stated City Administration is requesting the Board adopt Resolution 2016-8 officially noticing the termination of the Washington Boulevard Redevelopment Area. The Administration has submitted a proposal to authorize forgiveness of the Redevelopment Agency debt owed to the City as requested by the Board. The City Council will consider a write-off of the outstanding debt on November 15, 2016. Community and Economic Development Deputy Director Cooper summarized the memo and stated the Washington Boulevard Redevelopment Area expired December 31, 2015 and staff recommends the Board formally recognize the expiration via resolution. The Area was created in 1983 to facilitate major redevelopment in the Central Business District of the downtown area, including construction of a 600-stall parking garage near the Marketstar Building. There was a bond for this project, and the bond debt was retired in 2006. The base value of the area when it was established in 1983 was just over $26 million. The current value is $54 million which is an increase of $28 million. As the Area is retired the City’s general fund will experience an increase of approximately $88,000 per year through the new growth calculation based upon the certified tax rate. Chair White introduced in writing proposed Resolution 2016-8, entitled: “A resolution of the Ogden City Redevelopment Agency terminating and dissolving the Washington Boulevard Redevelopment Project Area.” BOARD MEMBER HYER MOVED THE RESOLUTION BE ADOPTED, AND THE CHAIR BE AUTHORIZED TO SIGN THE SAME. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER LOPEZ, WITH THE FOLLOWING ROLL CALL VOTE: VOTING AYE – BOARD MEMBERS GARNER, HYER, LOPEZ, NADOLSKI, STEPHENS, VICE CHAIR BLAIR AND CHAIR WHITE. VOTING NO – NONE. Public Comments John Christensen, representing the Ogden Chicken Alliance, referred to a handout provided to the Board regarding an egg recall associated with risk of salmonella which occurred in October 3, 2016 in three states. Another portion of the handout included an article regarding a fine issued against Quality Egg for selling tainted eggs. The company agreed to pay $6.8 million in fines for selling old eggs with false labels, which led to a nationwide salmonella outbreak in 2010. He said these are some of the reasons people want to keep backyard chickens; they want to know where their food source is coming from. He indicated he has spoken with Mayor Caldwell about these issues and will continue to provide information regarding his participation with the Ogden Chicken Alliance. There being no further business to come before the Council, BOARD MEMBER HYER MOVED THE MEETING ADJOURN AT 6:10 P.M. MOTION WAS SECONDED BY BOARD MEMBER GARNER, ALL VOTING AYE. ________________________________________ JULIA M. LASEURE, MMC DEPUTY CITY RECORDER ________________________________________ MARCIA L. WHITE, CHAIR APPROVED: April 11, 2017