City Council

River Heights City COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, August 31, 2021 Notice Is hereby given that the River Heights City Council will hold its regular council meeting beginning at 6:30 p.m., anchored from the River Heights City Office Building at 520 S 500 E. The meeting will be held in person and through Zoom. Those wishing to provide comment on any of the agenda items or other topics can do so by email to office@riverheights.org (by noon on the date of the meeting). Adoption of Previous Minutes and Agenda Reports and Approval of Payments(Mayor,Council, Staff) Public Comment Discuss Sidewalk Replacement Discuss the Old Church Proposal Discuss the PUD Draft Discuss ARPA Local Matching Grants Program Adjourn To join the Zoom meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84182627494 Dial: 1 346 248 7799, Meeting ID: 841 8262 7494 Posted this 26^^ day of August 2021 Sheila Lind, Recorder Attachments for this meeting and previous meeting minutes can be found on the State's Public Notice Website (https://www.utah.gov/pmn/). In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations(including auxiliary communicative aids and services) during this meeting should notify Sheila Lind,(435)770-2061 at least 24 hours before the meeting. 520 South 500 East River Heights, Utah 84321 Phone & Fax (435) 752-2646  River Heights City 2 3 Council Meeting 4 August 31, 2021 5 6 7 Present: Mayor Todd Rasmussen 8 Council members: Doug Clausen, electronic 9 Sharlie Gallup 10 Nancy Huntly 11 Chris Mllbank 12 Blake Wright 13 14 Recorder Sheila Lind 15 Public Works Director Clayten Nelson 16 Treasurer Wendy Wilker, electronic 17 18 Excused: Finance Director Cliff Grover 19 20 Others Present: Linda Lorraine Demars, Ryan Seager, Carrie Stone, Cassie -21 Stone, Mary Seager, Debra Demars, Vern Fielding, Cindy Schaub, Heather Lehnig, David Bush, Troy Wakefleld. Electronic: Ron Demars and Boyd Humpherys 24 25 26 The following motions were made during the meeting: 27 28 Motion #1 29 Councilmember Milbank moved to "adopt the minutes of the council meeting of August 3, 2021 30 and the evening's agenda." Councilmember Gallup seconded the motion, which passed with Clausen, 31 Gallup, Huntly, Milbank, and Wright in favor. No one opposed. 32 33 Motion #2 34 Councilmember Gallup moved to "pay the bills." Councilmember Huntly seconded the motion, 35 which carried with Gallup, Huntly, Milbank and Wright In favor. No one opposed. Clausen had left the 36 meeting. 37 38 39 Proceedings of the Meeting: 40 41 The River Heights City Council met at 6:30 p.m. in the Ervin R. Crosbie Council Chambers in the 42 River Heights City Building on Tuesday, August 31, 2021 for their regular council meeting. 43 Adoption of Previous Minutes and Agenda: Minutes for the August 3, 2021 meeting were reviewed. luvQii I laighto^Sity C Piiaotingj o/aarSg 520 South 500 East River Heights, Utah 84321 Phone 8c Fax (435) 752-2646 45 Councilmember Milbank moved to "adopt the minutes of the council meeting of August 3, 2021 46 and the evening's agenda." Councilmember Gallup seconded the motion, which passed with Clausen, 47 Gallup, Huntly, Milbank,and Wright in favor. No one opposed. 48 Reports and Approvai of Payments(Mavor. Council. Staff): 49 PWD Nelson didn't have anything. 50 Councilmember Huntly 51 • She has a meeting set up with the irrigation company to work on a maintenance agreement. 52 Councilmember Milbank 53 • He reported that the irrigation wateris now running through Cobblestone and seems to be going 54 well. It appeared that the west box, installed by Cameron Nelson has worked. 55 • He received plans from Sandy Davenport (of Bio West)for the Stewart Hill Park development, 56 which are 50% complete. He put the plans in the Drive for those who wanted to look at them. 57 Councilmember Gallup 58 • She reported on a good turn out to bike night and movie night. She thanked those who helped 59 with Apple Days. 60 Recorder Lind 61 • She reminded that newsletter contributions are due by September 15. 62 • She thanked the mayor and council for their help with Apple Days. 63 Councllmember's Wright and Clausen didn't have anything to report. 64 Public Comment: Cindv Schaub stated that she really enjoyed Apple Days. She described some 65 pine trees at River Heights Boulevard and 400 East, which are obstructing vehicle sight. Regarding the 66 PUD ordinance, she hoped the council wouldn't approve any lots smaller than 8,000 square feet. If 67 younger families want to live in the area, they could move to the Vineyard in Providence. 68 Mary Seager explained she is one of the joint owners of the Demars property, along with others of 69 her siblings. They would like the moratorium lifted as quickly as possible. She asked that they work with 70 the developer (David Crocket)to help him do what he wants so they can close on their property. They 71 have a lot of family members with health problems who can really use the money from the sale of their 72 property. They have a lot of faith In Mr. Crocket to bring a beautiful development to the community. 73 Carrie Stone (Mary's daughter)said their property has been in the family for many years. 74 Fourteen years ago, their grandmother put the property in a trust for their family members. She 75 explained some of their family members situations. She said the council has an opportunity to help 76 beautify the city and the state. 77 Debra Demars explained she had received a bad diagnosis this week. She and her sister are on 78 disability, and struggle to keep things going. They have wonderful parents and grandparents who have 79 left property to help their children provide for their needs. She implored the council to help the 80 developer so they can sell their property and get the help they need. 81 Vern Fielding, realtor for the Demars and Ellis properties, read a letter from Howard Demars, in 82 which he pled for the council to speedily lift the moratorium. Mr. Fielding reminded that the moratorium 83 has gone on a long time. He'd like them to move speedily so they can sell the property. 84 Discuss Sidewalk Replacement: Mayor Rasmussen said money has been set aside for sidewalk 85 replacement, but it's difficult right now to get concrete contractors. For four years they have been trying 86 to get several bad sidewalks replaced. The Council agreed last year that they wanted to move ahead and 87 have the city replace certain sidewalks that could cause a liability. Councilmember Huntly said she has 88 seen a list of bad sidewalks, but it wasn't prioritized. She's not sure of the specific ones they are talking 89 about. River Heights City Council Meeting, 8/31/21  ; PWD Nelson said the list he put together is prioritized. The company that grinds off the high spots 91 wiil be here in a couple weeks. They work on a section of town at a time since it gets more done than if 92 they moved around to different areas. He discussed issues with property owner's trees breaking 93 sidewalks and an instance where, during a home construction, the large trucks broke the sidewalk. If the ■ 94 city pays to have sidewalks replaced, where tree roots caused the problem, then the trees need to be 95 mitigated or it will happen again. Mayor Rasmussen said they talked about the city removing the 96 sidewalk, the property owner solves the tree problem and then the city comes back and pours the new 97 sidewalk. PWD Nelson reminded that the ordinance states the city will pay half of sidewalk replacement 98 when requested by the homeowner. He recommended the homeowner schedule the project and then 99 the city pay half of what the sidewalk replacement costs are. Councilmember Wright said it was ridiculous 100 that the bad sidewalks have not been replaced. Mayor Rasmussen asked if the city has talked with Total 101 Tree Care about mitigating the root issues. The city needs to make sure there is an approved method to 102 deal with the roots. 103 The Council asked for the priority list. PWD Nelson said he would resend it to them. Mayor 104 Rasmussen reminded that the city also needs to maintain the sidewalks on the county roads. 105 Discuss the Old Church Proposal: Mayor Rasmussen explained the RFP went out and was due by 106 July 29. He said there were three groups interested in the space. A faith-based group, who was confused 107 and thought the due date was a month later, Tony Johnson, who missed the deadline by a half hour and ^ 108 Troy Wakefield, who turned his in on time. The city attorney said the council could accept Mr. 109 Wakefield's proposal, reject it and/or open it up for bid again. 110 Councilmember Milbank asked about the church group who was interested in the building. Mayor Rasmussen said, because of some financial difficulties, they are leaning toward a long-term lease of the Old School, rather than the Old Church. 113 Councilmember Huntly pointed out that the RFP was changed to focus on single family residential 114 or community uses, because during a public hearing the residents objected to high density housing. She 115 felt it unfair to accept a proposal that didn't fall under the specs of the RFP. 116 Councilmember Gallup read from the scope of the RFP. 117 Councilmember Wright felt the Wakefield proposal met the described scope. They are single 118 dwellings, which are attached. Councilmember Clausen remembered, in a previous meeting they said 119 they did not want multi-family units, which Is certainly what the proposal showed. Councilmember 120 Milbank remembered the most vocal neighbors were against rentals and the apartment look. 121 Councilmember Clausen reminded that the RFP was worded to say,"Single family housing will be 122 considered." Mr. Wakefield's proposal includes multi-family housing. To accept his proposal would be 123 unfair to Tony Johnson since they rejected his proposal last time for the same reason. Councilmember 124 Milbank said the RFP was ambiguous. Mr. Clausen pointed out it didn't state that multi-family would or 125 wouldn't be considered. 126 Counciimember Huntly reminded that she met with Tony Johnson, at the request of the council. 127 He said he was willing to change his units to condos, which he would sell. At that time, three council 128 members said they wouid not entertain the idea because the density would still be too high. She felt 129 there was a fundamental unfairness to accept Mr. Wakefieid's proposal of 8 units after they rejected Mr. 130 Johnsons with 6-7 units. 131 Mayor Rasmussen didn't think the two plans could compare because one was spread out on the 132 property and the other was denser In space. Councilmember Milbank didn't remember not wanting multi-family. He recalled thinking units for 55 and older would be ideal. He remembered a large majority of residents were against rentals, transient River Heights City Council Meeting,8/31/21 135 and younger populations who may party and cause noise. He said the current proposal looked nice and 136 seemed quite different than what Mr.Johnson proposed. He suggested asking the community again. 137 Councilmember Wright said he wouldn't like any proposal that wouldn't allow the city to keep 138 part of the parking lot for a while. He thought there were too many units, and he didn't like the design. 139 He suggested tearing down the building and selling off a couple single family lots and keeping the parking 140 lot. 141 Councilmember Huntly reminded that she and Councilmember Clausen took a realtor through the 142 building, who offered advice. She felt the city would be better off to have the building torn down and sell 143 the lots themselves. She also suggested, with the current housing market, someone may want to 144 purchase the building to restore it, with the help of grants. Her point was that the city could do better 145 financially than what Mr. Wakefield's proposal offered. 146 Councilmember Milbank suggested waiting until the master plan between city hall and the old 147 school is developed since this property may be addressed as part of that plan. 148 Councilmember Gallup agreed that the proposal seemed like multi-family. She remembered that 149 rentals and density were things residents didn't want. She was in favor of rejecting. 150 Councilmember Wright said it was unfair of the city to put RFPs out when they didn't really know 151 what they wanted. It costs a lot of money to put proposals together. He suggested really figuring out 152 what they want and learn from the RFP processes they had gone through. 153 Mayor Rasmussen suggested rejecting the proposal, tearing down the building and either sell or 154 sit on the property. 155 Councilmember Huntly doesn't like tearing down something that still has value, but at this point 156 she could support tearing it down and making a better use of the property. 157 Councilmember Milbank pointed out that the city doesn't have the staff to manage the property, 158 as well as the Old School. 159 Councilmember Huntly wondered if it would qualify for ARPA funds If the city fronted half of the 160 money. She suggested keeping the gym for community use, creating a community garden or other things 161 that would benefit public health. 162 Councilmember Clausen was leery of renting out parts of the building, getting ARPA funds, which 163 would require fronting money and using the building long term for that use. He didn't think they could 164 come to an agreement and apply within two weeks. Councilmember Huntly said matching funds could 165 come from somewhere else. 166 Councilmember Wright favored razing the building and wasn't in favor of a community garden. 167 Councilmember Huntly suggested the city could also apply for money to tear the building down. 168 Mayor Rasmussen agreed she could put an ARPA application together if she wanted. Councilmember 169 Clausen agreed since FD Grover found out the water project, previously discussed, would not quality for 170 the grant. He would like the council to see what the submission looked like at their next meeting. 171 The Council was unanimous in rejecting Mr. Wakefield's proposal. 172 Discuss the PUD Draft: Mayor Rasmussen said they were waiting on a meeting with the city 173 engineer and attorney at the same time to get their approvals and suggestions. 174 Councilmember Wright reported that he and the mayor had met with the residents of the 175 Riverdale area and received feedback from the developer, David Crocket. The purchaser of the Lois 176 Weston property is probably going to buy the property east of the church, which would create a property 177 as large as the Riverdale area and will impact a higher number of the city's residents. He and the mayor 178 had hoped to receive comments from the property owner but haven't heard back so he suggested they 179 move ahead with the attorney and engineer. River Heights City Council Meeting, 8/31/21  Councilmember Milbank asked if there were things in the draft that had changed since they last 181 reviewed it. Councilmember Wright said there had been changes, but he wasn't prepared to discuss them 182 in detail. He wanted the attorney and engineer to give their input. He expected it would come to the 183 council at their second meeting in September. He will get it to the council a few days in advance. There's 184 a chance it could be ready to adopt at that meeting. He felt the Intent hadn't changed so it probably 185 wouldn't need another public hearing but will check with the city attorney. 186 Discuss ARPA Local Matching Grants Program: Mayor Rasmussen reiterated that the previously 187 discussed water project did not meet the grant qualifications. It needs to be an investment in water 188 infrastructure or support public health. Councilmember Huntly considered meeting with FD Grover to see 189 if raising of the Old Church would fall under the ARPA guidelines. 190 Councilmember Gallup moved to "pay the bills." Councilmember Huntly seconded the motion, 191 which carried with Gallup, Huntly, Milbank and Wright in favor. No one opposed. Clausen had left the 192 meeting. 193 The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. 194 195 196 197 Sheila Lind, Rec/ 198 zui Todd A. Rasmussen, Mayor River Heights City Council Meeting, 8/31/21  River Heights City Bills To Be Paid August 18, 2021 Payee Description Admin. P&Z Parks/Rec Pub. Safety Com. Aff. Roads Water Sewer Total JUNES Sharlie Gallup Summer reading & Ambassador $122.33 $122.33 Thurcon, Inc. Storm Water Water Repairs $2,665.00 $7,485.00 $10,150.00 JULY $ All Tech Monthly Billing $24.32 $24.32 $24.32 $72.96 All Tech Podium Stand & Desk Top Mount $626.58 $626.58 Badger Screen Printing, Co. Ambassador Shirts $32.85 $32.85 Bear River Health Water Coliform Testing $40.00 $40.00 10 Bio-West Stewart Hill Drive $4,287.79 $4,287.79 11 Cache Valley Fire Protection Fire extinguishers $182.00 $182.00 12 Cameron Reed Mulch for Ryan's Place - Reimburse $406.00 $406.00 13 Caseiie, Inc. Monthly Billing $91.69 $91.66 $91,65 $275.00 14 City of Logan Garbage. 911, Sewer $14,836.45 $2,034.00 $12,299.00 $29,169.45 15 Daines & Jenkins Legal Fees $1,120.50 $1,120.50 16 Forsgren Associates, Inc. General Consulting, Stewart Hill. Well $382.50 $503.75 $1,193.75 $2,080.00 17 Freedom Mailing Services, Inc. Monthly Billing $148.27 $49.42 $49.42 $247.11 18 Kadee Hoffer Concert in the park $350.00 $350.00 19 Kilgore Companies Water Leak Repairs $807.25 $807.25 20 Logan City Water Consumption $1,243.26 $1,243.26 21 Lowe's Ceiling Repair at School $45.98 $45.98 22 Rocky Mountain Power Electricity $418.37 $70.88 $24.45 $1,180.07 $4,947.64 $30.56 $6,671.97 23 Secure Instant Payments. Inc. Monthly Billing $19.99 $19.98 $19.98 $59.95 24 Sharlie Gallup Plants for park. Concerts in Park $369.84 $369.84 25 Sunrise Environmental Scientific Heaters 8l Zappers $235.41 $235.41 26 The Clean Spot Supplies for bathroom $322.03 $322.03 27 The Quirky Cookie Utah Apple Days $300.00 $300.00 28 Thomas Petroleum Fuel for City Vehicles $35.92 $35.94 $35.94 $35.94 $143.74 29 Xerox Corporation Monthly Billing $197.66 $197.66 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 146 Page ] SubTotals $18,094.31 $4,287.79 $1,167.99 $2,058.45 $1,581.02 $3,881.01 $15,938.22 $12,550.87 $59,559.66 Page 1 Total Amount t aid $59,559.66  I m m i3 ?i m 21 .3 P if I t IB » y o o B g X g g g g S S 1 RIVER HEIGHTS CITY PARK 5 » ^ ]■ z2 fig. 875 Stewart Hill Drive, River Heights fii m h i fe hi August 31,2021 Mayor Todd Rasmussen and River Heights City Council 520 South 500 East River Heights, UT 84321 Dear Mayor Rasmussen and Members ofthe River Heights City Council: My brother Ron and I are the trustees ofthe Mary Lorraine Demurs Revocable Trust. We are seeking to sell 5.58 acres ofland in the Riverdale area. Ron and 1 are aware that the six-month moratorium on development has been extended to allow more time for consideration of a planned-unit-development zoning ordinance. We are supportive of this, but we ask that you please work through this process expeditiously so that the moratorium can soon be lifted. Some ofthe heirs of my mother's trust are in great financial need. My sisters Linda and Debra have physical and mental disabilities that prevent them from living normal lives. They get by on small government stipends and help from the family, but there is only so much we can afford to do for them. I know that the money they would receive from the property sale would make a big difference in the quality of their lives. Also,there are multiple family members in need of medical or dental procedures that they simply can't afford unless and until we are able to sell the property. As trustees, we are mindful of our responsibilities to the heirs ofthe trust, and we would certainiy be grateful for a timely lifting ofthe moratorium. Respectfully, Howard G. Demars 801-641-2334 howarddemars@comcast.net  CITY OF RIVER HEIGHTS REQUESTS FOR PROPOSALS River Heights City ("City")is now accepting proposals at the City OfBce Building until 2:30 p.m. on July 29,2021 for removal and development, renovation and/or rehabilitation ofa former church building structure that would include either a transfer or lease ofthe building and real property to the successful applicant. The subject property is approximately 1.2 acres and includes a 1930's era church building and parking. The building may be raised or renovated/rehabilitated in whole or part. Proposed uses would not include industrial use. Single family housing will be considered. Successful proposals may include the City selling the property to the successful respondent subject to certain renovation conditions. The City Recorder shall have possession of all proposals at the designated time. Any proposal in route, either in the mail or at other locations in the city, will not be considered timely and may at the city's sole discretion be returned unopened. RFP's can be submitted by email to Sheila Lind at oftlce@riverheights.org. mailed or delivered to the city office at 520 South 500 East River Heights, Utah 84321 between the hours of 9:30 a.m. to 2:30 p.m., Monday-Thursday. Questions regarding the RFP should be directed to Mayor Todd Rasmussen, at toddrasmussen@riverheights.org. Interested applicants can obtain a copv ofthe RFP Application bv emailing office@riverheights.org or picking up a copv at the City offices. River Heights City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals; or to accept or reject the whole or any part ofthe proposal; or to waive any informality or technicality in the interest of River Heights City. Dated this 3rd day of July 2021  r' I. INTRODUCTION River Heights City is a growing municipality located in Cache County. River Heights is soliciting written proposals from qualified individuals or developers to provide a plan for renovation and continuing use of a historical church structure and approximately 1.2 acres, or removal of part or all ofthe existing structures along with the development ofthe remaining parcel. Property description of LOTS 1,2,19,20 BLK 2 RIVER HEIGHTS TOWN SURVEY SIT NE/4 SEC 3 T11NR1E The successful proposal would result in the property being transferred from the city to the applicant or a lease option. The potential proposed uses for the structure could include single family residential or community service use. By July 29,2021, an evaluation committee will evaluate all submitted proposals. The evaluation committee may select one or more finalists for interview by the evaluation committee or may select one proposal to be forwarded to the River Heights City Council for approval and final negotiations. Upon completion ofthe evaluation process by the evaluation committee,the City Treasurer will advise the applicants ofthe selection and negotiation ofa final agreement based upon the submitted proposals and interviews, if held. The River Heights City Council shall make the final decision and approve any contracts. II. SCOPE OF PROPOSAL River Heights City seeks to enter into a contract for the sale or lease of the historic building and real property that would include conditions for the proposed party to renovate the building into a feasible use that may include single-family residential use or community services. Conditions may also include the removal of the building in part or in frill and development ofthe remaining property. The applicant shall submit renderings along with a detailed description oftheir proposal that would list what use or uses the applicant would make ofthe building, how the applicant would configure the building along with any ancillary structures, site and landscaping improvements, and what amount the applicant would propose to pay to River Heights City for the property and structure. III. MINIMUM EXPERIENCE AND QUALIFICATIONS Each applicant must meet the following minimum qualifications. 1. Possess relevant commercial or residential experience in building renovation / rehabilitation or real estate development. 2. Be familiar with state and local building codes. 3. Be familiar with and capable of submitting a qualified and complete application for rezone of the property. 4. Be available to meet with River Heights City in person to discuss and negotiate terms and conditions for the renovation and title transfer ofthe property or leasing the building. 5. Possess enough net worth or creditworthiness to finance renovation of the property. IV. FORMAT AND CONTENT OF PROPOSALS. Proposals shall provide a straightforward, concise description of the applicant's capabilities and concepts to meet and cany out the requirements of this RFP. Emphasis should be on completeness and clarity ofthe proposal and qualifications of the applicant along with anticipated purchase price for the property and an estimate ofthe cost ofrenovation, if applicable. All proposals shall be valid and binding for ninety(90)days following the proposal due date and may become part of the contract that is negotiated with the City. The information requested below is a requirement for submitting a complete proposal. At the sole option ofthe City, incomplete or improperly submitted proposal may not be considered. The City reserves the right to seek additional or clarifying information from the applicants. The deadline for submitting proposals is July 29,2021, at 2:30 PM.Proposals must be formatted, addressed, and delivered as follows: • Format:PDF or printed format • Delivery: By email or mail as addressed below • Address: To: officefgdverheights.org 520 South 500 East River Heights, Utah 84321 Subject: RFP for Renovation of Historic Church in River Heights, Utah The anticipated RFP schedule is as follows: • Request for Proposals Issued: July 3,2021 • Deadline for Questions Regarding RFP: By July 15, 2021 at 2:00 p.m. • Submissions Accepted: Before July 29,2021 at 2:30 PM •Possible Interviews of Selected Applicants: Between August 16, 2021 and September 3, 2021 • Selection of Candidate and City Council Approval: October 5,2021 • Anticipated Effective Date of Contract: October 15, 2021 The City reserves the right to require other evidence oftechnical, managerial, financial, or other abilities prior to selection. Further, the City reserves the right to waive formalities in the proposal process; to accept or reject any or all proposals received as a result ofthis request; to request additional information concerning any proposal; to accept or negotiate modifications to any proposal; to request final and best offers; to negotiate with qualified attorneys; to interview any proposer; to cancel, in part or in its entirety, this Request for Proposal; or to waive any inegularities in any proposal following the proposal submission deadline date; in order to serve the best interests of the City. The City also reserves the right to negotiate separately with any proposer whatsoever, in any manner necessary to serve the best interests ofthe City. This Request for Proposals does not commit the City to pay any costs incurred in the preparation of a proposal, nor will any such costs be paid by the City. All applicable city codes, ordinances, and fees will apply.  Okane, Inc. Troy Wakefield 473 East 500 South, River Heights, UT 84321 loganutahreaiestate@gmaM.cofT> 435.770.0331 July 29, 2021 River Heights City 520 S 500 E River Heights, UT 84321 RE: RFP for Old Church in River Heights, Utah PROPERTY: Lots 2,2,19,20 BLK 2 RIVER HEIGHTS TOWN SURVEY SIT NE/4 SEC 3 T UN R IE 1.2 acres 1930's era church building and parking. PROPOSAL To remove the existing 1930 former church building and parking. Propose to build 4 new charming and aesthetically pleasing twin homes with 8 units for ages 55+ community. 1. Propose the city raze the church and parking with deconstructlon of building. Purchase of property by Okane, Inc, Troy Wakefield, with salvage rights for possible reuse in construction. The purchase price is TWO HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLIARS ($200,000.00). OR 2. Deed the property to Okane, Inc, Troy Wakefield, and Okane, Inc will raze the 1930's church and parking lot. 4 TWIN HOMES-8 UNITS PUD • 2 units -1300 square feet upstairs, 1000 square feet basement. Total 2300 square feet. • 2 units -1400 square feet upstairs, 1000 square feet basement. Total 2400 square feet. • Open Space • Possible name - Apple Cove QUAUFICATIONS Troy Wakefield is a licensed real estate agent and real estate investor. He has remodeled over 20+ homes and has purchased, revitalized, and subdivided properties and built a half a dozen new homes in both Clarkston and Smithfield, Utah. Troy has also over 20 years of real estate loan experience as a mortgage loan officer and mobile notary. Troy is motivated to see this project through as the Old Church is right next door to his permanent home residence and he has a vested interest in the development of the property. Troy possesses the necessary net worth or creditworthiness to finance the PUD.  40O SOUTH 1 I / to t- X cdw - ^ ' 5 1300 SF \ ^77771 ;• 1400 SF V'V-:'vv *T I ^ roM- •i ' *r 500 SOUTH CONCEPTA SG*IE;f'V QRAPHfCSCMLe l*< Vt  ,1V 400 SOUTH DES PARC! TOTAJ, CUARl SETB* FROr SiOE- CORN REAP MAMV ».ft32 TOTAi 1S276 laor 1300 SF 140t:i SF «r* SOOOHJTH GRAfv-tc scAie i"« 2cr  GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF Planning & Budget COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program Guidance BACKGROUND The COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program,established by HB 1004, GOVID-19 Grant Program Amendments(M. Schultz, K. Cullimore), seeks to leverage American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA)funds by using both state and local monies on projects which will have high return on invest ment for residents. Utah has a long history of effectively managing govemment finances and maximizing the impact of taxpayer funds. Through this grant program, we will continue our legacy of fiscal responsibility and collaboration to ensure federal monies are spent on projects that will make the most difference for our communities. A five member selection committee, along with experts in ARPA eligibility areas, will review and rank each application using the guidance in this document before making final selections. election Committee 1. Sen. Kirk Cullimore, Utah State Senate 2. Rep. Carl Aibrecht, Utah House of Representatives 3. Sophia DiCaro, Executive Director, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget 4. Cameron Diehl, Executive Director, Utah League of Cities and Towns 5. Brandy Grace, CEO, Utah Association of Counties SCORING Points will be awarded to projects in a general category(75 points), and in project-specific scoring categories(25 points). In the case that more than one category applies to a project, the top scoring category will be used. The maximum number of points which can be awarded to any project is 100. Applications that select an "Other" category will be eligible for up to 25 points based on comparison to other projects. ARPA TREASURY ELIGIBILITY Please note that no application will be considered which does not meet ARPA elioibilitv Guidance as established by the U.S. Treasury. APPLICATION PROCESS COVID-19 Local Assistance Matching Grant Program application can be accessed at aopb.utah.aov/ localmatch. The maximum upload size for supporting documents is 10 megabytes. Any documents larger than that may be added as a link. The portal will close on September 15, 2021. After that date, late applications will not be accepted. With any questions, please contact Sarah Wright at smwriaht(a>utah.aov or 801-538-1418. 1 1 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND BUDGET 1 STATE OF UTAH SCORING MATRIX Geneml ITie project is innovative !e'v4-^.- ^e:project Ha^ soimd plan and;b^ Theproj^^to^^|xreate,a:iimding!dcpOT^^y4'SS The project is a cdUaborative effort multiple entities Project-Specific Category: Housing The project, iflocated with in an MPO boun(^ area; is'ih prbximity to.&msit'cpfridpre*' The project serves individuals andTamilies'whbse'ihcome is 50% ofbelowtAfea'Mediah Income,(AMIjJ The project has a gross rent no^greater than 30% of Householji income -' The project has a deed restriction to maintain affordability, *Ifnot located within an MPO boundary area, the applicant will receive an automatic 10points Project-Specific Category: Water & Sewer TOeprojccl siippoi's comniunit /. lated to'watef, The project provides a substantive wa^ qiiality benefit The project conserves or expandspfeent water storage capacity ^ The project,integrates land use and water.i^^^^rn' •'V>,"!■'•. ^ i II 2.5 j The project atoesses an existogpr impending water supply nee' 2.5 s 1 d . 25 2 I GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND BUDGET STATE OF UTAH  Project-Specific Category - Broadband The project targets imserved or undeirserved areas The project is located in an economically distressed area ofthe state The project targets last-mile gaps in network connection 2.5 The project is unlikely to be funded by the private sector j The project addresses digital equity 2.5 25 Project-Specific Category:Public Health Impact I The project mitigates C0VID-I9 cases, hospitalizations, or deaths, or increases vaccination rates The project ad^^sses(a)'physical of behavioral issue(sjexwefbated by the C6!\^-19 p^demic The project addresses a need related to the COVID-19 pandemic not fuhded elsewhere The project t^gets(a)populatipngfoup(s) at higher risk ofbeing impactedby Ihe C6VID-19 pandemic 25 Project-Specific Category:Economic Opportunities and Recovery \ The project has a firm timeline to reach full impact The project increases economic stabilization The project t^ets ^eas oflowest recdyery and highest,geographical impact The project increases capacity to recruit or retain employees 2.5 2.5 25 GOVERNOR'S OFFICE OF PLANNING AND BUDGET I STATE OF UTAH