City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 1
NORTH OGDEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 1
2
October 11, 2011 3
4
The North Ogden City Council convened in regular session on October 11, 2011 at 5:33 pm in the North Ogden 5 City Council Chambers at 505 East 2600 North. Notice of time, place and agenda of the meeting was delivered to 6 each member of the City Council, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office and posted to the Utah State 7 Website on October 7, 2011. Notice of the annual meeting schedule was published in the Standard-Examiner on 8 January 1, 2011. 9
10
11
PRESENT: Richard G. Harris Mayor 12
Wade Bigler Council Member 13
Ron Flamm Council Member (by telephone) 14
Martha Harris Council Member 15
Brent Taylor Council Member 16
Carl Turner Council Member 17
18
19
STAFF PRESENT: Annette Spendlove City Recorder/HR Director 20
Edward O. Dickie III City Manager 21
Dave Carlson City Attorney/Economic Development Dir. 22
Debbie Cardenas Finance Director 23
Dave Nordquist Community Services Director 24
Julia LaSeure Deputy City Recorder 25
Craig Barker Community Development Director 26
27
28
VISITORS: Bev Gibson Dave Hulme 29
Josie Hulme Jim Suhr 30
Margaret Suhr Joan Brown 31
Jim Mackley Kerry Gibson 32
Margaret Beus Roger Howell 33
Stacey Giatras Justin Fawson 34
Farley Merkley Marilyn Harris 35
Kent Bailey Ryan Wilcox 36
Donald Mathewson Jennie Taylor 37
Slade Opheikens Gary Rands 38
Chris O‟Neill Harrison Spendlove 39
Cole Spicker Gary Attebery 40
Rachel Trotter Sherry Gould 41
Aaron Farr Seth Miller 42
Shanna Miller 43
44
45
WELCOME 46
47
Mayor Harris welcomed everyone in attendance. Council Member Turner offered the invocation and led the 48 audience in the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Harris stated that Council Member Flamm is unable to be present 49 tonight but has asked to be allowed to participate electronically. 50
51
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 2
Council Member Taylor moved to allow Council Member Flamm to participate by phone. Council 52 Member Turner seconded the motion. 53
54
Voting on the motion: 55
56
Council Member Harris yes 57
Council Member Bigler yes 58
Council Member Taylor yes 59
Council Member Turner yes 60
61
The motion passed unanimously. 62
63
64
CONSENT AGENDA 65
66
Council Member Harris moved to approve consent agenda items 1, 2, and 3. Council Member Turner 67 seconded the motion. 68
69
Council Member Bigler asked how much a public hearing costs the City. Mayor Harris said we have to advertise 70 it and that is the only cost we incur. Council Member Bigler asked Annette Spendlove, City Recorder, how much 71 it costs to advertise that. Annette Spendlove, City Recorder, replied that for this type of notice it typically runs 72 about $200 to $300. Council Member Bigler suggested we wait on that particular item. Annette Spendlove said 73 the procedure is to pull this item from the consent agenda, vote on the others and consider this item separately. 74
75
Council Member Bigler moved to amend the motion by removing #3 of the consent agenda and considering 76 it separately. Council Member Taylor seconded the amended motion. 77
78
Voting on the amended motion: 79
80
Council Member Bigler yes 81
Council Member Taylor yes 82
Council Member Turner yes 83
Council Member Harris yes 84
Council Member Flamm yes 85
86
The amended motion passed unanimously. 87
88
Annette Spendlove, City Recorder, explained that State law requires us to hold a public hearing when we raise 89 utility rates and it typically costs between $200 and $300. She said that is the normal notification cost but it could 90 be more it could be less depending on what the law requires us to put into the notice. 91
92
Council Member Bigler said we don‟t know how much we need to raise the rates so it seems premature to him at 93 this point. Mayor Harris said there are two points. One is the cost of the bond should we be able to go ahead with 94 construction. The other is to raise utility rates to bolster our reserves to cover maintenance in the future. He 95 thinks we can have a public hearing on either or both on November 22, 2011. Council Member Bigler said we 96 don‟t need to know how much we need to raise the rates. Mayor Harris said yes, we do and we will at that time. 97 Council Member Bigler said it seems premature. Council Member Bigler asked if we could have this on the 98 agenda to be explained to the City Council before the public hearing. Mayor Harris said the City Council 99 generally tries to have this sort of thing on prior to the public hearing but a lot of times it is heard that night but 100 not voted on until the next meeting. He thinks there would be ample opportunity for the City Council to consider 101 it. Council Member Bigler asked what LYRB (Lewis, Young, Robertson and Burningham) does. Mayor Harris 102
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 3
said they are financial advisors. Council Member Bigler said they have done this totally separate of the bond. He 103 thinks we may end up having to have a second public hearing and this would be a waste of money. Mayor Harris 104 said we could always cancel a public hearing later. Council Member Taylor said it seems like the bond is very 105 likely to be tied up for some time but the other matter needs to be taken care of now. That public hearing needs to 106 be held regardless as long as it‟s going to be structured that the vote would be at the following meeting. Mayor 107 Harris said it typically is but there could be a vote on that night. Council Member Bigler asked why we couldn‟t 108 just wait on the public hearing if there would be no vote anyway. He said he knows we have to do it but he would 109 like to have information first. Mayor Harris said it is up to the Council. Council Member Bigler suggested 110 getting the information first and then holding the public hearing and vote. 111
112
Council Member Harris said she anticipates staff will get the information to the Council as soon as possible. She 113 reminded the Council that there won‟t be another meeting until November 22, 2011 so she is fine with scheduling 114 the public hearing in order to get the calendar squared away. She said if things change between now and then it 115 can be pulled. 116
117
Council Member Harris moved to set the public hearing on utility rates for November 22, 2011. Council 118 Member Turner seconded the motion. 119
120
Voting on the motion: 121
122
Council Member Taylor yes 123
Council Member Turner yes 124
Council Member Harris yes 125
Council Member Bigler no 126
Council Member Flamm yes 127
128
The motion passed 4 to 1. 129
130
Council Member Bigler asked if the Council could get the information before the Friday night prior to the 131 meeting. Mayor Harris said they will get it as soon as possible. Council Member Bigler said he wants to have 132 time to study it. Edward O. Dickie III said this information is the same that the Council has had for the last two 133 years. Those numbers have not changed. Council Member Bigler said he would like those numbers tomorrow. 134
135
Mayor Harris said there has been a lot of controversy in the City over this Public Works Complex and that is just 136 the way it is. He wants to make it clear and a matter of public record that the City has acted honorably and has 137 not lied or been subversive or kept information from the public. In fact we have gone overboard in sharing 138 information with the public in regard to this particular item. He wants to let everyone know that he has nothing 139 but the highest respect for those folks who serve the City, especially the staff. Edward O. Dickie III has a 140 Master‟s Degree in Public Administration, Debbie Cardenas has an MBA, Dave Carlson is a Juris Doctor, Dave 141 Nordquist has a Bachelor‟s Degree and is in the Utah State High School Coaches Hall of Fame, Mel Blanchard 142 has many years of experience and his staff is competent as well, our water technicians are certified at the highest 143 level, Polo Afuvai has been, more than once, named by the State Police Chief‟s Association, the outstanding 144 Chief in the State, Annette Spendlove has earned the equivalent of a Master‟s Degree and has her Master 145 Municipal Clerk (MMC) designation from the International Institute of Municipal Clerks, she would never do 146 anything that would do dishonor to the City, Craig Barker worked many years for the County we are fortunate to 147 have him here. Our City is very well managed and very frugal. Our bond rating has been increased to a AA rating 148 which very few cities have. Mayor Harris indicated that his property tax he pays to North Ogden City is $131.69 149 and that does not speak to situations that are untoward in our city. He said we have done a utility rate study. He 150 reminded everyone that those utilities include culinary water, sanitary sewer, storm water and garbage. North 151 Ogden City is not out of line in any way, shape or form with other cities in the area including Farr West, 152 Harrisville, Hooper, Pleasant View, Riverdale, Roy, South Ogden, Uintah and Washington Terrace. The 2011 153
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 4
Utah Taxpayers Association‟s Cost of Government Report states that North Ogden City is ranked 8th out of 49 154 cities with a population between 5,000 and 20,000 for the lowest cost per capita. He wants people to understand 155 that North Ogden City is very well managed. We do our very best and have the very best people. We are very 156 proud and appreciative of the people who work here for North Ogden City. 157
158
159
PUBLIC COMMENTS 160
161
Jim Mackley, 2803 N Hwy 89, Pleasant View, read from a document which is included as Attachment A. 162
163
164
165
DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION TO APPROVE A TEMPORARY CITY COUNCIL MEMBER 166
167
Mayor Harris explained that Council Member Taylor is being deployed to Afghanistan for 9-12 months. This past 168 year the legislature passed a law that allowed for a temporary City Council member and we have gone through the 169 process prescribed by law for this situation. We received a number of applications and interviewed six applicants 170 at the last meeting. By law we are going to hold an open vote in an open meeting on who would hold this seat. In 171 deference to Council Member Taylor‟s position he will be invited to make the first motion. 172
173
Council Member Taylor said we have our State Representative, Ryan Wilcox here tonight. Mr. Wilcox is 174 involved in a lot of things in the City and a part of the law the Mayor referred to. Council Member Taylor 175 thanked all of those who applied and were willing to serve the City. 176
177
Council Member Taylor moved to approve Dave Hulme as the temporary City Council member. Council 178 Member Turner seconded the motion. 179
180
Council Member Bigler said he is fine with that choice but he does not agree with the statement in an email that a 181 certain City Council member would be putting forth a motion. He said no outgoing City Council member gets to 182 choose his replacement and he disagrees with how this was done. He said there should not have been an email. 183
184
Council Member Taylor withdrew his motion and yielded to Council Member Bigler to make a motion so it 185 doesn‟t become as issue of controversy as nothing was done in hiding. 186
187
Council Member Harris moved to approve Dave Hulme as the temporary City Council member replacing 188 Council Member Brent Taylor. Council Member Turner seconded the motion. 189
190
Council Member Harris said when she first came on the Council it was by appointment and she served that way 191 for one year. The person she replaced gave up all rights to that seat because they resigned. Whoever replaced 192 Council Member Taylor is a temporary replacement and in her mind there is a difference between and interim seat 193 and a replacement. 194
195
Council Member Bigler said that‟s a fine opinion but the law does not state that it just says it should be done 196 openly. He said it‟s neither here nor there he just wanted to be on public record as disagreeing with that process 197 because the process has already been, in his mind, tainted now. 198
199
Council Member Flamm said he feels like Dave Hulme has done a great job on the Planning Commission and he 200 would like to see him stay there so he will be voting no. 201
202
203
204
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 5
Voting on the motion: 205
206
Council Member Flamm no 207
Council Member Harris yes 208
Council Member Bigler yes 209
Council Member Taylor yes 210
Council Member Turner yes 211
212
The motion passed 4 to 1. 213
214
Mayor Harris stated Council Member Taylor will hold his seat until October 18, 2011 and Dave Hulme will be 215 sworn in at the next City Council meeting. 216
217
Mayor Harris recognized Kerry Gibson, our County Commissioner, and Ryan Wilcox, our State Representative, 218 in the audience. 219
220
221
DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION TO APPROVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR ONE LOT IN 222
THE COVE PRUD FOR THE PARADE OF HOMES 223
224
Dave Carlson, City Attorney, said there is a new owner of The Cove PRUD and the City has been working with 225 that developer to do a master development agreement. We wanted to make sure there was a clear understanding 226 of the requirements. It is getting close; there are some ongoing negotiations with the new owner and current 227 home owners in The Cove. We are hopeful that when it comes to the City Council it will be supported by all the 228 parties. In the meantime an opportunity has arisen for the City to have a home built in The Cove that would be in 229 next year‟s Parade of Homes. That is kind of a big deal; there is a lot of traffic generated by the Parade of Homes 230 as each home typically has 3,000 people visit. We are trying to breathe some life back into that project. He 231 explained the intent of this development agreement is that it only applies to this lot. We are not issuing building 232 permits in The Cove but through this agreement we would issue a permit for this one home on this particular lot. 233 We have drafted it in such a way that we feel the City is shielded from any liability in allowing this person to 234 build without all the improvements. We feel this is a special situation. 235
236
Council Member Bigler said that‟s terrific but he has a couple questions. He said this will not allow any other lots 237 to be built until they come to an agreement with the current lot owners. Dave Carlson said that is correct. 238
239
Council Member Bigler said it states this is a private lot owner but the County records don‟t show him as the 240 owner. Dave Carlson said he could be waiting to close until this agreement is in effect because if he can‟t get this 241 permit he will build in Harrisville. Dave Carlson said his name is the only one on the agreement so it‟s doesn‟t 242 work for anyone else. 243
244
Council Member Bigler referred to page two which says the owner shall construct a home on lot 147 and apply 245 for entry in the 2012 Parade of Homes. He asked if there is any penalty if he does not put it in the Parade of 246 Homes; he said he thinks there should be. Dave Carlson said there is nothing in there; we have no reason to 247 believe that they are giving the City false information. Council Member Bigler said there should be and it should 248 be a big penalty; we need some leverage. Dave Carlson said staff didn‟t feel it was necessary; he doesn‟t see the 249 big risk. If he doesn‟t put it in the Parade of Homes what does the City suffer? Dave Carlson said he thinks the 250 City is in a better position with this particular home than we were with any others. 251
252
Edward O. Dickie III said there are two homes that have been built up there and eight lots total have been sold. 253 Council Member Bigler said this is a good thing but if we are doing a legal contract we shouldn‟t go on trust, it 254 should be added to the contract that this is required. 255
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 6
Council Member Turner said years ago he built some homes for the Parade of Homes and he knows they had to 256 submit a set of house plans to go through a process of selection. You can‟t enter unless you have a set of 257 drawings and meet their timeframe. It does take some planning on the part of the builder and owner to get a home 258 in the Parade of Homes. They could have already submitted the plans if they are done. Dave Carlson said the 259 City has already approved the house plans. 260
261
Council Member Bigler said this is an opportunity for the City to give the current lot owners some protection. 262 Dave Carlson said his opinion is that this didn‟t need to come to the Council for approval. It could have been 263 done by staff but the Mayor wanted it to come to the Council. He said it may come as a surprise but we actually 264 trust people; we have worked a lot with this builder and he is the preferred builder for The Cove. If he were to 265 double cross the City on something it would damage his reputation beyond anything the City could do to him. 266
267
Council Member Harris moved to approve a development agreement for one lot in The Cove PRUD for the 268
Parade of Homes. Council Member Turner seconded the motion. 269
270
Council Member Taylor said if there were some damages the City could pursue them if they did not comply. 271 Dave Carlson answered that is possible. Council Member Bigler makes a good point, if the builder double crosses 272 us we couldn‟t make him be in the Parade of Homes. We can ask him for verification that he has made his entry 273 and we can issue a stop work order if necessary. 274
275
Voting on the motion: 276
277
Council Member Harris yes 278
Council Member Bigler yes 279
Council Member Taylor yes 280
Council Member Turner yes 281
Council Member Flamm yes 282
283
The motion passed unanimously. 284
285
286
DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 287
CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE AMENDING THE FEES FOR THE COMMUNITY SERVICES 288
DEPARTMENT 289
290
Dave Nordquist, Community Services Director, said he has given the City Council some information on his 291 proposal this evening. He indicated that they are using a new website rather than Xpress Bill Pay and reviewed a 292 document which is included as Attachment B. He said 91% of all transactions were online credit card 293 transactions and this issue isn‟t going to go away. 294
295
Council Member Harris said there were City Council concerns about Community Services revenues and being 296 revenue neutral. She said she really appreciates this information and would be in favor of supporting these 297 changes. 298
299
Mayor Harris said he is not sure folks understand the magnitude of what this department does. Dave Nordquist 300 said they are maxed out on swimming lessons. It was a tough spring at the pool but the overall take is actually up 301 $700 total. He will have a full summary of the pool at the budget retreat. He can now report on any data that the 302 Council wants to see as he can generate 400 reports on the new website. 303
304
Council Member Taylor said he likes this approach; including these at the higher price knowing that part of that is 305 going to the taxes and fees. Inflation is going up and up. He said this satisfies the intent of his original proposal 306
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 7
in the credit card fees. He asked, regarding going from the night and day rentals to a single rental whether there 307 were a lot of people who only wanted a part of the day. Dave Nordquist said not really, people wanted hours that 308 we could not accommodate so this will be a benefit. 309
310
Council Member Harris moved to approve Resolution 18-2011 amending the consolidated fee schedule 311 amending the fees for the Community Services Department. Council Member Taylor seconded the motion. 312
313
Voting on the motion: 314
315
Council Member Bigler yes 316
Council Member Taylor yes 317
Council Member Turner yes 318
Council Member Flamm yes 319
Council Member Harris yes 320
321
Voting was unanimous in favor of the motion. 322
323
324
DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE TO ANNEX PROPERTY 325
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 175 E. 2550 N. CONTAINING 40.61 ACRES 326
327
The Applicant requested that this item be postponed until a later date. 328
329
330
DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11-22-8-1- 331
C OF THE CITY’S ZONING ORDINANCE TO ADD VERTICAL BANNERS AS A PROHIBITED USE 332
333
Craig Barker, Community Development Director, stated this has been worked on for quite some time now. 334 Whenever you change an ordinance you have to hold a public hearing. The Planning Commission did that and 335 brought their recommendation to the City Council. He talked with a number of other cities and found that this 336 type of sign is widely prohibited. The Economic Development Committee (EDC) and Planning Commission 337 talked diligently about these banners and recommended that they not be allowed in North Ogden City. There 338 were no public comments at the public hearing. 339
340
Council Member Bigler asked whether they are allowed now. Craig Barker replied that when something is not 341 expressly permitted it is prohibited but the Planning Commission wanted the ordinance to call them out as 342 prohibited. 343
344
Council Member Taylor said he read the Planning Commission minutes and the discussion of the EDC and this 345 was discussed. He said personally he is not opposed to these signs in the commercial district and he has not seen 346 them in bad condition. His concern is how close they typically are to the park strip or sidewalk. He would like to 347 see them permitted with restrictions that are then enforced. Mayor Harris said that would require a change to this 348 proposed ordinance if the Council were to vote that way. 349
350
Council Member Harris asked if these signs were included in the list in section C item 1 then they would fall into 351 a paragraph with other banners that gives them a time limit. Craig Barker said that is correct. He said we have not 352 taken issue with banners being left out because this ordinance has not been completely reviewed but we will be 353 notifying all the business owners of the way the City views these types of banners. Council Member Harris asked 354 if a business has a berm are they limited to three of these banners or could they have three dozen? Craig Barker 355 said in the proposed ordinance they are allowed three banners per hundred feet of frontage. Craig reminded the 356 Council that the Planning Commission‟s recommendation is for them to be prohibited so the Council did not 357
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 8
receive that proposal but if they were allowed they could have multiple vertical banners. He suggested that if this 358 not passed the Council take time at a work session to create an ordinance that addresses these more specifically. 359
360
Council Member Bigler said he would be agreeable to holding a work session. He said when he read through the 361 minutes he thought if you are going to restrict these he would like the number to be restricted rather than the 362 timeframe because ordinances need to be enforceable. Craig Barker said it is enforceable but the question is 363 whether the City wants to pay to enforce it. Council Member Bigler said his preference is to limit the number of 364 these banners. 365
366
Council Member Harris moved to approve Ordinance 2011-16 an ordinance amending section 11-22-8-1-C 367 of the City’s Zoning Ordinance to add vertical banners as a prohibited use. Council Member Turner 368 seconded the motion. 369
370
Council Member Taylor said he will be voting no because he would like to go back to what came out of the EDC 371 and come up with a way to enforce it. He said if we are going to have more commercial businesses we need to 372 give them latitude to function. 373
374
Mayor Harris said there have been a lot of ordinance changes that have come from the EDC through the Planning 375 Commission and we have relaxed our signage regulations considerably. 376
377
Voting on the motion: 378
379
Council Member Taylor no 380
Council Member Turner yes 381
Council Member Flamm yes 382
Council Member Harris yes 383
Council Member Bigler no 384
385
The motion passed 3 to 2. 386
387
DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 11-22-8 OF 388
THE CITY’S ZONING ORDINANCE TO CLARIFY PERMITTED TEMPORARY SIGNS IN 389
RESIDENTIAL ZONES 390
391
Craig Barker stated this came up because of a homeowner‟s association that wanted to put up signs for their 392 homeowners notifying them of an upcoming event. The City doesn‟t allow that so the Planning Commission 393 came up with this proposal. Our present ordinance is a little confusing; it talks about residential and non-394 residential uses and talks about business as well. We are attempting to clarify that and the Planning Commission 395 recommended that we specifically call these out. 396
397
Council Member Bigler asked about the Barker Fish Farm and whether that is in the City or County. Craig 398 Barker said the line meanders through and around that area so he is not sure. Mayor Harris stated he thinks it is 399 the City. Council Member Bigler said when he read this he was thinking about them. They have a corn maze 400 every October and this says the sign has to be on the property. Craig Barker said it would not be allowed because 401 that would be an off-premise sign and we don‟t allow that. If it is not on the property or the owner‟s property that 402 is attached to it a sign would not be allowed. 403
404
Council Member Taylor moved to approve Ordinance 2011-17 an ordinance amending Section 11-22-8 of 405
the City’s Zoning Ordinance to clarify permitted temporary signs in residential zones. Council Member 406
Turner seconded the motion. 407
408
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 9
Voting on the motion: 409
410
Council Member Turner yes 411
Council Member Flamm yes 412
Council Member Harris yes 413
Council Member Bigler yes 414
Council Member Taylor yes 415
416
The motion passed unanimously. 417
418
Mayor Harris called for a short break at 7:14pm. The meeting reconvened at 7:20pm. 419
420
DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 7-3-5 OF 421
THE CITY CODE PROHIBITING PARKING ANY TRAILER UNATTACHED TO A REGISTERED 422
VEHICLE ON ANY ROAD OR HIGHWAY WITHIN THE CITY OR ON PRIVATE PROPERTY 423
WITHOUT THE PROPERTY OWNER’S CONSENT 424
425
Dave Carlson said the purpose of the ordinance is to make it illegal to park a trailer on a city street if it is not 426 attached to a vehicle. He said streets are not meant to be used for storage. This is an almost universal regulation 427 that cities have. He could not find another city in Weber County that allows this. Mayor Harris said he thinks 428 there is an issue of safety as well. 429
430
Council Member Bigler asked whether this went through the Planning Commission. Dave Carlson responded that 431 it did not because it is not in the Zoning Ordinance. Council Member Bigler said he would like to spend more 432 time looking at this because this wouldn‟t prevent people from leaving a trailer attached to a vehicle in the street. 433 Dave Carlson said this is not aimed at one person; the reason for this ordinance is that unattached trailers should 434 not be left on a public street. Council Member Bigler said it refers to parking a trailer on a person‟s property 435 without the owner‟s permission. Do we need a law for that? Dave Carlson said we are mostly talking about 436 parking lots. We can‟t enforce this in a private parking lot but if the property owner calls us then we can issue a 437 citation. 438
439
Council Member Taylor moved to approve Ordinance 2011-18 an ordinance amending Section 7-3-5 of 440
the City Code prohibiting parking any trailer unattached to a registered vehicle on any road or Highway 441
within the City or on private property without the property owner’s consent. Council Member Turner 442
seconded the motion. 443
444
Council Member Bigler said it just says trailer, any kind of trailer at all, but what if a resident is just parking it to 445 load up with wood or something. Are they going to get ticketed for that? Dave Carlson said most cities do allow 446 for loading and unloading if a person is actively involved in loading or unloading. As a practical matter this isn‟t 447 going to be a high priority for the police, typically these come to the City by way of a complaint. 448
449
Council Member Bigler said he would like to put a 24 hour period on this. Dave Carlson said the City Council 450 could do that by interlineation or he can draft it and bring it back to City Council later. 451
452
Council Member Taylor amended the motion by inserting ‘for more than 24 hours’ in Section 7-3-5, 453 paragraph one, line two after the word ‘highway’. Council Member Turner seconded the amended motion. 454
455
456
457
458
459
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 10
Voting on the motion: 460
461
Council Member Flamm yes 462
Council Member Harris yes 463
Council Member Bigler yes 464
Council Member Taylor yes 465
Council Member Turner yes 466
467
The amended motion passed unanimously. 468
469
DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION TO CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 9-1-2 OF 470
THE CITY CODE TO REQUIRE AN OWNER OF PROPERTY TO BE CURRENT ON EVERY DEBT 471
OWED TO THE CITY TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR CITY SERVICES 472
473
Dave Carlson said the effect of this ordinance would be, for example, if someone refused to pay for their business 474 license it would give the City the option to shut the water off or cancel garbage service. It gives the City a little 475 leverage if a person owes the city a fee or fine, the City would have the option to threaten the shut off of water. 476 Sometimes the City is in a situation when it is difficult to collect these little debts. This is about the only efficient 477 remedy the City has but we only collect on a small percentage of the accounts that are sent to collections and the 478 City only gets back about 50 cents on the dollar. These people don‟t think the City can do anything about it and 479 in some cases that‟s true. The problem then is if you decide to leave those people alone it becomes an increased 480 cost for the people who do pay their debts. This is just an idea that the Council can use; just the fact that people 481 are aware that this can happen will motivate them to come in and pay what they owe. Sometimes we have a 482 situation where the person is on the City‟s sewer system but not the water system. You can‟t disconnect the sewer 483 system but you can shut off their water. In those situations it becomes problematic and we do have those 484 situations. 485
486
Council Member Bigler asked if we fine a lot of people. Dave Carlson said the civil fine system is fairly new but 487 those fines will become more common. It used to be that we enforced these things criminally which has the best 488 collections system ever because they can throw somebody in jail if they don‟t pay. We can‟t do that now in the 489 civil system. Council Member Bigler asked if it is going to cost us more to have employees going out turning 490 water on and turning water off. He said for the utility bills he would like to extend it to 90 days before we shut 491 off the water and he would rather have it only for City bills not fines. 492
493
Annette Spendlove said in reality our residents do have 90 days because we bill in arrears. Dave Carlson said it 494 would only be on the fines. The City has other options through the administration hearing system. Council 495 Member Bigler asked if this would include if we tell somebody their car is parked too close to the front of the 496 house. Dave Carlson replied that it could be but we are talking about the people that we have worn ourselves out 497 trying to work with. These are people who have had every chance to pay and just refuse to do it. 498
499
Council Member Taylor said this does seem extreme to him as well but in the old method when these things were 500 criminalized the worst case scenario was jail time. To him it is rather harsh that you could lose another city 501 service but he sees Dave‟s point too. He is concerned about the lack of provision for something that is being 502 disputed. Dave Carlson said we do have provisions with our utilities and our administrative code for people to 503 challenge things. He said he is presenting this as what the City Council can do and added that it is a policy 504 decision what the Council does decide. Dave Carlson said the prospect of having water turned off is sometimes 505 incentive enough to get the debt paid. Council Member Taylor asked about fines for a dog off a leash and 506 whether they have something added every month to the fine. Dave Carlson said there is a provision that those 507 fines can increase also. Council Member Taylor said he is comfortable with 60 days for utilities but asked that we 508 consider a longer time for a fine if that would be more comfortable. 509
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 11
Council Member Harris said she is fine with some of the changes proposed but still feels that while it says 60 days 510 it is actually 90 days as Annette Spendlove mentioned. If you use the services you have to pay for them; people 511 need to pay their bills. It is appalling when she hears the comment „what are they going to do?‟ With this in 512 place it would give the City a vehicle as a response to that comment though she doesn‟t think it would be used 513 often. She said she would like to see it redrafted. 514
515
Council Member Bigler moved to redraft the ordinance. Council Member Taylor seconded the motion. 516
517
Annette Spendlove explained that when we send a courtesy note out which states the past due amount is due 518 immediately and they have until the end of the month to pay the rest. They can call us up until the day before shut 519 off day to make payment arrangements. We also have special things that come up and we try to help them out in 520 those cases as well; we make those arrangements when we can. We work with all our citizens. It‟s those that call 521 on the morning of shut off day and ask to make arrangements. It tends to be the same individuals and we tells 522 them they know the process. She said she treats everyone fairly. There are a lot of residents that we don‟t shut 523 off because it‟s just not worth it; there are people who just don‟t have the money and can‟t pay it. 524
525
Voting on the motion: 526
527
Council Member Bigler yes 528
Council Member Taylor yes 529
Council Member Turner yes 530
Council Member Flamm yes 531
Council Member Harris yes 532
533
The motion passed unanimously. 534
535
DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION ADOPTING ELECTION JUDGES 536
FOR THE GENERAL ELECTION 537
538
Annette Spendlove explained that State election law requires that the City Council approve the election judges 539
and their compensation. 540
541
Council Member Taylor moved to approve Resolution 19-2011 appointing election judges for the General 542 Election. Council Member Turner seconded the motion. 543
544
Council Member Bigler asked if we can make sure in the future that these judges come from each district. 545 Annette Spendlove said she does and added that we are very thorough in what we do. 546
547
Voting on the motion: 548
549
Council Member Taylor yes 550
Council Member Turner yes 551
Council Member Flamm yes 552
Council Member Harris yes 553
Council Member Bigler yes 554
555
The motion passed unanimously. 556
557
DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION RECERTIFYING THE JUSTICE 558
COURT 559
560
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 12
Dave Carlson said every four years the City is required to recertify the Justice Court. The Court Administrator 561 receives an application and provides some information. He indicated he is required to go through and verify that 562 the Justice Court meets all the statutory requirements and complies with all the regulations. It is his opinion that 563 our Justice Court is in compliance in all respects. The purpose of the resolution is to request that our Justice 564 Court be recertified. 565
566
Council Member Taylor moved to approve Resolution 20-2011 recertifying the Justice Court. Council 567
Member Bigler seconded the motion. 568
569
Voting on the motion: 570
571
Council Member Taylor yes 572
Council Member Turner yes 573
Council Member Flamm yes 574
Council Member Harris yes 575
Council Member Bigler yes 576
577
The motion passed unanimously. 578
579
BUDGET UPDATE OF THE PUBLIC WORKS COMPLEX 580
581
Debbie Cardenas explained that at the last City Council meeting it was requested that an update of the Public 582 Works Complex expenses be presented. She referred to a document that was before the Council tonight. Ms. 583 Cardenas stated that beginning in fiscal year 2005-2006 we have budgeted $100,000 a year towards a Public 584 Works Complex. We have saved $600,000 through June 30, 2011. We had preliminary expenses prior to March 585 2011; from July 2009 those expenses include the following: Blalock and Partners, Jones and Associates, Lewis, 586 Young, Robertson and Burningham, Ogden Publishing and Oldcastle Precast. The total of those were 587 $124,755.18. In March the Project Manager asked for a budget or a balance of those funds; at that time we had 588 $475,245.00. Since then we had the following expenses: some miscellaneous expenses, expenses to Upper Case 589 Printing for the fliers, also some from Freedom Mailing Services for the fliers, Ogden Publishing for the Bond 590 notice, and expenses to Lee‟s Marketplace for the open houses and the all-day interviews. We have also entered 591 into some contracts obligations and also some budgets that the Project Manager needed to set aside. One was to 592 VCBO Architecture; the contract was for $342,000, we have an outstanding bill of $43,000 and we have also 593 spent $10,260. We have also contracted for the CM/GC (Construction Manager/General Contractor), the proposed 594 budget was $35,000, and we have an outstanding invoice of $4,800. We contracted with the Real Estate 595 Professional and to date we have spent $19,200. We have also had expenses with the Engineers, Jones and 596 Associates, for site selection and meetings. We have also have a budget for geotech, materials testing and soils 597 testing and for a commissioning agent. The cost for all of those that we have actually spent funds on is $98,865. 598 So our current balance right now is 376,379. We do have the remaining contract balances for the architecture of 599 $288,740, for the CM/GC we‟ve got $30,200, for the Real Estate Professional we‟ve got $5,800, for the 600 Commissioning Agent we‟ve got $10,000, for Jones and Associates it‟s at 5% of the architectural fee which is 601 $17,100, for the geotech it‟s $3,200 and materials testing we still have $8,000. So what remain on the contract 602 balances is $363,040. If we do all of these expenses we would have a projected balance of $13,340. She asked if 603 there were any questions. 604
605
That document is attached as Attachment C. 606
607
Council Member Taylor asked if Annette Spendlove had this document electronically to put on the screen. 608 Annette Spendlove replied that she did not. Council Member Bigler asked whether it would be in the minutes. 609 Annette Spendlove replied of course. 610
611
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 13
Council Member Bigler asked, where it says remaining contract balances, that is only if we proceed to spend. 612 Debbie Cardenas said she believes that is the understanding but she did not enter into the contracts so she doesn‟t 613 know what they are specifically. Council Member Bigler said as of right now where it says current balance 614 $376,379.04, if there is no more spending that‟s how much money we have in there. Ms. Cardenas said this is 615 what she knows based on the outstanding invoices. If they have been doing some work those haven‟t even been 616 invoiced yet. Council Member Bigler asked how far back. Ms. Cardenas said she doesn‟t know exactly but she 617 would assume probably in the last month. Council Member Bigler said $376,000 minus some work they‟ve done 618 in the last month. Ms. Cardenas said that is correct. Mayor Harris said work has been ongoing so there will be 619 some charges that come forward from the last month. 620
621
Council Member Bigler asked the Mayor if he has a ballpark figure of what that might be. Mayor Harris said he 622 does not. 623
624
Mayor Harris asked if there were any more questions for Debbie. Council Member Bigler said he doesn‟t have a 625 question but he wanted to say something. He said in as much as the petition is in and we‟re not quite sure what‟s 626 going to happen with the facility at this point he would like to put forth a motion that we stop spending the saving 627 for the Public Works facility at this point until we know more of what‟s happening with that. He said he thinks at 628 this point, in his opinion; he thinks it is irresponsible for the City to continue to spend residents‟ money that we 629 saved for this when we don‟t even know how we‟re going to proceed with it at this point. Mayor Harris said there 630 is no action item on this so that motion is out of order. Council Member Bigler asked that be put on the next 631 agenda. Mayor Harris replied yes. 632
633
Edward O. Dickie III, City Manager, said he thinks if the petition comes back and is valid; all spending probably 634 will be ceased. Council Member Bigler said that is only for the bond it doesn‟t include the money that we saved. 635 Mayor Harris said they are aware of the situation and in fact a design meeting scheduled for today was cancelled 636 so we are essentially ratcheting that down until we find out exactly what is going to happen. Council Member 637 Bigler said without there being an action item on the agenda there can‟t be any motion made. Mayor Harris 638 answered no. 639
640
Council Member Taylor said he would like to share his thoughts on this as well. He said he has sent to the 641 Council and wants to share publicly because he obviously won‟t be here at the next meeting that he would like us 642 to try and get some resolution for the project as well. The concern he expressed was if the petition is voted on in 643 November and it will be a yes or no vote on the bond that was passed by the City Council. If it is no then the 644 bond ceases to exist, the project is halted, and all or most of the current Council candidates have said they would 645 not support a bond that is not voted on. So that would be putting us into 2013 for the next municipal election or 646 unless the City called as special election next year before a bond could even be voted on how to proceed and at 647 what amount the residents would support. He said to him that is not a good situation and he would like to see if 648 there is a way to put something else on this election of another question. It wouldn‟t need to be connected 649 specifically to the petition to see what the residents would support of how to move forward with this facility. He 650 said he knows it‟s not an action item and he can‟t make a motion to that effect tonight but he would like the City 651 Council to consider this to try to get some input from the residents on the vote of how they would like to proceed 652 with this project if the vote is no for that bond. He said otherwise we are really setting the project back until the 653 next election could be held. 654
655
Debbie Cardenas said we are waiting now to hear from the County to see if we‟ve got all the valid signatures. At 656 that point we can decide what the City will do as far as moving forward on the bond election. Until we get that 657 verification, right now, we are moving forward as if the project is a go. 658
Mayor Harris said we would look at all options. The question now is what the petition is going to do. 659
660
661
662
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 14
PETITION CLARIFICATION AND EXPLANATION 663
664
Council Member Bigler said he would like to forgo this tonight because it‟s been a long night and suggested that 665
we can perhaps do it another night. 666
667
He indicated that an email was sent from Edward O. Dickie III which referred to a conference call in which it was 668 stated that there is no way for the petition to go on the November ballot. Shortly after that email went out it was 669 stated that it could be done this November. He asked that the law be clarified and the City Council be informed of 670 what the process is. Mayor Harris explained the process and said if there are enough certified signatures it will go 671 on a ballot and if possible the City would hope to put it on the November ballot. He said he thinks there are still 672 some questions based on different opinions from different agencies; the State, the County, the City as to what that 673 process will be. Council Member Bigler said the State and the County told him the same thing. He asked if there 674 is a law that will prohibit it. As far as residents, they just wanted an opportunity to have a voice in it and it‟s 675 wonderful he thinks that they get to do that. He said that question is what the law states in regard to this 676 November. Yes? No? Can we or can‟t we legally? 677
678
Dave Carlson said the instructions to him all along have been that the City wanted, if at all possible, to get it on 679 the ballot this fall. Because that seems to be the expectation of the people who signed the petition; they wanted a 680 chance to vote on it. The timeframes are really tight. There are a lot of time frames that are discussed in the law 681 but our view is that most if not all of those are the maximums. That if we took the maximum time they allow for 682 all the steps there would be no way to get it on the ballot in November but the City has always been willing to try 683 to expedite things and the County has been willing to expedite things. 684
685
Council Member Bigler asked what maximum means. Dave Carlson said for example the law gives us from the 686 date the application is made to do the referendum the City has 15 days to prepare packets and get them out. We 687 didn‟t take 15 days we took maybe two or three days to get those out. The law gives the City 15 days after the 688 petition is certified to provide a ballot title to the sponsors. The ballot title is the language that would actually go 689 on the ballot and we are prepared to do that immediately so we don‟t use those 15 days. We have tried to be 690 prepared ahead of time so we don‟t need to use all the time the law allows in order to get it on the ballot. There 691 has been one sticking point and that is that there is a provision in state law that relates to the issue of the ballot 692 titles that states it has to be in 60 days ahead of the election and we can‟t do that. Council Member Bigler said so 693 it can‟t be on the November ballot. Dave Carlson said that is where there is a little bit of a disagreement. That is 694 the Statute the State brought to our attention but we have a different view on that and whether it is binding on us 695 or not. That particular law says “unless it is specifically provided elsewhere” that law applies. There is a specific 696 provision in the local referendum statute that deals with bond initiatives; there is a separate ballot title provision 697 there and it doesn‟t discuss the 60 day rule so our feeling is that there is a good argument to say that the 60 day 698 timeframe is not binding on us. Basically what the State officials have said is that they are going to leave it up to 699 the City to decide that. Council Member Bigler asked who told Dave Carlson that because they told him 700 something completely different, in fact he called Council Member Bigler and said there are multiple laws they 701 would be breaking. Dave Carlson said he is not going to get into an argument here about who said what. Dave 702 Carlson said he will tell him later in private but not in a public meeting. Council Member Bigler asked Dave 703 Carlson if State officials told him they would leave it up to the City. Dave Carlson replied that what the State 704 officials said is that they will not interfere if the City decides to go forward. He said from the City‟s standpoint, 705 the only thing that could trip it up is if the sponsors try to pull the plug on it. He said he thinks from the City‟s 706 point of view, our plan all along has been to do it in November. We don‟t know what the sponsors‟ intent is or if 707 they are going to object or try to postpone it. Council Member Bigler asked what Dave Carlson means by the 708 sponsors. Dave Carlson replied that the sponsors are the five people who applied to do the referendum. Annette 709 Spendlove said there are eight. 710
711
Annette Spendlove said she thinks as a city our goal should be to get it on the ballot as soon as we can. The 712 people want it on the ballot so we should try to comply. Council Member Bigler said no one agrees more with 713
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 15
that. Dave Carlson said he won‟t quote people that aren‟t here to speak for themselves but that it is his opinion 714 that we can do it. Mayor Harris said the City wants to know if the petition has standing or not as quickly as 715 possible. The County is going to give us their certification in the next couple days. Dave Carlson said they 716 promised to expedite it. Mayor Harris said if there are enough certified signatures and it is a valid petition we will 717 stop all work on the project until the election is held. 718
719
Council Member Bigler asked if those names come in will the Council honor that and the voice of the people 720 rather than just going and doing another resolution to make that petition void. He said there was an email from a 721 Council Member that said we can do a new resolution for $1 less than before. Dave Carlson said he can‟t quote it 722 right now but he thinks there is a provision in state law that would create some difficulty with that. Council 723 Member Bigler asked the Council if even if it isn‟t in state law would they do that. He asked that the Council 724 respect the voice of the people. They have worked hard on two petitions. The first one was rendered void when 725 the new bond parameters were set. He said he thinks if that were to happen again it would be playing games and 726 it would not be a good thing. The people have spoken and we need to respect that. He said residents have 727 mentioned that the City may just pass another resolution for a slightly lower amount. He said that would be 728 shame and he hopes that‟s not in the cards because that just circumvents the residents‟ voice. Dave Carlson said 729 the first petition was blatantly illegal and even if the new resolution had not been adopted the City would have 730 had no recourse but to reject that petition because it didn‟t follow the requirements of state law. Council Member 731 Bigler maintains that it was done legally and there was not a judge who said otherwise. That needs to be made 732 perfectly clear. Before it was able to go to a judge the bond parameters were voted on and changed and that 733 rendered the first petition void. He said that is why the lawsuit against the residents was dropped, because it was 734 void and there is an email from a Council Member that says tomorrow night let‟s go ahead and change the bond 735 parameters and then it will void the petition. That was sent on August 22nd, so what Dave Carlson says is his legal 736 opinion but we also have some legal opinions that said you have a very strong case and just for the record that 737 was not, even though it‟s been reported several times and continues to be said, that was not a decision made by 738 the court, that it was done illegally. Dave Carlson said what Council Member Bigler said is partially true but 739 there is a lot of inaccuracy also. The sponsors had the remedy to take the petition straight to the Utah Supreme 740 Court if they felt in any way, shape or form that the City‟s action in rejecting that petition was illegal and they did 741 not take that remedy. He cited 12 areas of State law that the petition flagrantly violated. In his opinion the first 742 petition was not at all close with complying with State law and the sponsors had the option to take it straight to 743 the Utah Supreme Court. 744
745
Council Member Taylor asked is this a court of law? Is the City Attorney on trial here? 746
747
Council Member Bigler said he wanted on the record that it was not decided in a court of law. He said if the 748 petitioners had the option to sue the City they didn‟t have an opportunity to do that because the bond resolution 749 amount was changed and it voided the petition. The options then were to take it all the way up and let the 750 Supreme Court make a decision or file another petition. They decided to file a new petition rather than fight a 751 long legal battle. That‟s why it wasn‟t carried forth. If the City hadn‟t changed the amount it would still be 752 ongoing. Dave Carlson said the reason the City dropped it had nothing to do with the merits of the case at all. 753
754
Council Member Taylor said he said he doesn‟t think there was any maliciousness in why the bond parameter was 755 changed from $10 million. That was just a parameter and that can change. The Council did not purposefully do 756 that to invalidate the petition. The lawsuit was not a personal action against the gentlemen it was filed against. 757 The individuals that filed a legal action against the City had to have a human being tied to it. You can‟t sue a 758 document; it has to be a person. He was one of the councilmen that asked that the lawsuit be dropped. There is 759 no malintent. We are not trying to twist things and sabotage the people and the petition. 760
761
Council Member Bigler said this has been a very tough ongoing issue for all of us. When we say there is no 762 malintent and then he gets an email as a City Council Member; the current bond parameter is $7 million and a 763 Council member sends an email to all the Council and to the Mayor that says lets change the bond parameter to 764
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 16
$6,999,999 to void the petition. That is bothersome and that is malintent and it‟s totally disrespecting residents. 765 There wasn‟t an email response that says no. There was nobody that said that‟s wrong, don‟t do that. That is 766 playing games and it‟s wrong, it is troublesome. Council Member Taylor said he doesn‟t remember the email in 767 question but asked if the person was asking whether that is legal. Council Member Bigler said let‟s say it was. 768 Why would they ask the question? Council Member Taylor asked if they were actually suggesting it. Council 769 Member Bigler replied, let‟s say it was. He said that is why he is concerned; that kind of email and then we 770 pretend we want to do what the residents want. Mayor Harris said we aren‟t pretending anything. We understand 771 that people were concerned about the $10 million parameter and lowered it 30% to $7 million to build a facility 772 that is sorely needed. There are all kinds of stories and sides to this and we need to move on. 773
774
PUBLIC/COUNCIL COMMENTS 775
776
Justin Fawson, 2539 N 1600 E, said as a sponsor of both petitions he can tell you that they do want it on the 777 ballot. The people of the city want the building they just don‟t want the extravagant price tag. He also disagrees 778 with Dave Carlson. 779
780
Gary Attebery, 3030 N 425 E, referred to a print out of the minutes of July 12, 2011 which is included as 781 Attachment D. Council Member Bigler asked why we don‟t let the people vote on it. Council Member Flamm 782 asked when we could do that. Annette Spendlove said it‟s too late for this election. Council Member Flamm said 783 he is opposed to waiting a year. Council Member Bigler asked why it‟s too late. Annette Spendlove said for 784 bonding to go on the ballot it had to be prepared in June. Annette Spendlove said there is new information in the 785 law and she would not be comfortable giving it today. 786
787
Annette Spendlove said these are two different laws; one is for the petitioners to create a law and the other is for 788 the petitioners to remove a law. 789
790
Gary Attebery asked what the 60 days are for. He thinks those 60 days are for him to go out and put signs out 791 and tell everybody what he thinks about it. He demands to have his right to advertise whether he is for or against 792 the resolution. Mr. Attebery said Dave Carlson said the City‟s plan all along was to do it in November. Mr. 793 Attebery said if that was the City‟s plan why didn‟t we use the first petition? He had people ask him if they 794 would get sued if they signed this petition. Mayor Harris asked him to sum up. Mr. Attebery said the sponsors 795 had the right to take it to the Supreme Court unfortunately they don‟t have an attorney on payroll so they have to 796 fly by the seat of their pants. 797
798
Aaron Farr, 820 E 1850 N, said he thinks the method used to select the temporary City Council member is really a 799 mess and is not fair at all. These folks finally get a chance to serve and the Mayor gives Council Member Taylor 800 the first choice. He said that is not fair. 801
802
Slade Opheikens, 1268 E 2650 N, said he would push for the November ballot because he has an interest in the 803 project. It is necessary and he feels sorry for Mel Blanchard and his crew. He asked if it is a better option to 804 show residents what they can get for $3, $4, or $5 a month rather than just a yes or no. He has looked at this from 805 both sides, as a contractor and as a resident because he has lived here for over 30 years. He would like to figure 806 out how to help residents make an informed decision. He asked that the City Council revisit stopping all spending 807 on this project. Mr. Opheikens submitted his notes as Attachment E. 808
809
Shana Miller, 2903 N 1050 E, said this is not just a $3, $4, or $5 thing. For some people it could be a lot more 810 money if they have bigger families or if they have three garbage cans. If you bathe your kids every other day you 811 use more water. She said she did take a petition around and had people ask if they could be sued. There is a lot 812 of discord between the Council members. There is a difference of opinion but that has clouded what the residents 813 want. She understands a lot of work has been done but she doesn‟t feel like she knew about it for a long time. 814
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 17
She expects the City Council to be her voice and asked them to put their differences aside and do what is best for 815 the community. 816
817
Harrison Spendlove, 830 E 3550 N, said he is registered voter in North Ogden City and he never got approached 818 to sign the petition. He said, in respect to his mother, this has caused a lot of controversy in the City and his 819 opinion has been stated that the facility is needed. He has worked in the current facility. There has been a lot of 820 mudslinging the past few months among staff and residents and he finds it disappointing. He has lost respect for a 821 lot of people. The minute he hears attacks on his mother he can‟t take it and it has been personal. She is an 822 honest, upright woman and she does everything for the City. She puts in 60 hours a week and does not get paid 823 overtime. She comes home exhausted but happy because she loves the City. He said she doesn‟t deserve that. 824
825
Council Member Bigler said regarding Mary‟s restaurant, which used to be Winger‟s, the word was that they lost 826 the Winger‟s franchise but that‟s not what happened. The owners are Korean and they wanted to add some 827 Korean food to the menu but Winger‟s said no. They are losing about $8,000 a month and we would love them to 828 be successful here in North Ogden. The historical museum had their open house and that is a great facility. He 829 said we talked about this several months ago and he would still like to see a link to their website on our website. 830 He said he would also like a link to email all the Council Members at once so people don‟t have to click on them 831 individually. 832
833
Council Member Taylor said regarding the procedure for the selection of the temporary City Council member. 834 Mayor Harris‟ email states that by law the vote must be open; the City Council member will make a motion to fill 835 the seat with a given candidate. Since Brent‟s seat is being filled and as a courtesy to him I will ask that he make 836 the first motion. The motion has to be seconded. There will be discussion on the motion and then the vote. As 837 usual only Council Members will vote. The Mayor will only vote to break a tie. The process will continue until 838 one of the candidates receives three or more yes votes be it the first or the last. If in the off chance that none of 839 the six candidates receives the minimum three yes votes the process will continue. He said he would like that 840 entire email included as part of the minutes so people can see that the Mayor said absolutely nothing illegal. The 841 email is included as Attachment F. No discussion of candidates was included. He said for him it was not a big 842 deal whether he made the first motion or not that is why he was happy to let someone else do it. The sad thing is 843 that the use of insinuations like that when there was nothing illegal in that email is really unfortunate. Those 844 insinuations become generally accepted and that is unfortunate. He said he thinks Mr. Farr‟s assessment that it 845 was sour grapes is just that. Mr. Hulme has been coming to almost every single City Council meeting since as 846 long as Council Member Taylor has been here he serves on the Planning Commission and the EDC. Council 847 Member Taylor said he respects that. He has paid the price to be on the Council. That‟s why he felt comfortable 848 putting his name forward. There was nothing illegal or unethical and insinuations like that don‟t help anyone. He 849 said he was reading in the newspaper the other day about the City falsifying documents, the claims by Council 850 Member Bigler and former Council Member Steve Huntsman. He is tired of these insinuations about people‟s 851 character. Once you throw that out there about someone‟s character you can never go back and collect all those 852 feathers in the wind. Something like that is very serious, that would put a City Recorder in jail if they falsified a 853 document or changed a resolution after the fact as Council Member Bigler has alleged in an affidavit. He said he 854 wants to be on the record that he completely rejects that and he knows Annette Spendlove, she is a person of 855 integrity and that is not true. He thinks our City staff are great people and please don‟t read into their intent that 856 they are trying to do things that are deceitful. Debbie Cardenas is still in her office late at night. Edward O. 857 Dickie III, the City Manager, is a great employee. Dave Carlson, the City Attorney, is fantastic as well though he 858 said he hasn‟t always agreed with everything he said either. Things can get controversial and that‟s fine but he 859 wants to say he believes our city staff is honest and they are good people. He gives his support as he is leaving 860 and hopes that a good solution can be worked out. 861
862
Council Member Turner welcomed Dave Hulme aboard and wished Council Member Taylor the best of luck. We 863 will miss him. He hopes he comes back well and healthy and things go well. He echoed Council Member 864 Taylor‟s sentiments on the City‟s staff and employees. 865
City Council Oct. 11, 2011 Page 18
866
Mayor Harris thanked Council Member Taylor for his service and said we will see him in nine to 12 months. 867
868
ADJOURNMENT 869
870
Council Member Harris moved to adjourn. Council Member Turner seconded the motion. 871
872
Voting on the motion: 873
874
Council Member Taylor yes 875
Council Member Turner yes 876
Council Member Flamm yes 877
Council Member Harris yes 878
Council Member Bigler yes 879
880
The motion passed unanimously. 881
882
The meeting adjourned at 9:08pm. 883
884
885
____________________________________ 886
Richard G. Harris, Mayor 887
888
889
____________________________________ 890
S. Annette Spendlove, MMC 891
City Recorder 892
893
894
____________________________________ 895
Date approved 896

BUDGET RETREAT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MARCH 25, 2011 – 8AM & MARCH 26, 2011 (IF NEEDED) 8AM
505 EAST 2600 NORTH
NORTH OGDEN CITY, UTAH

Welcome, Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance:  Council Member Wade Bigler

ACTIVE AGENDA
1.          Public comments.
2.          Budget Overview, Revenues, Fund Balance and Council’s Goals.
    Presenters:  Edward O. Dickie III and Debbie Cardenas, Finance Director
3.    Jones & Associates (5-year Capital Plan).
    Presenter:  Kent Jones
4.    Lewis, Young, Robertson, & Burningham (utility rate study and the bond issuance process).
    Presenter:  Matt Millis and Mark Edminster
5.    Department Budget Presentations:
    Building & Grounds and Inspections.
    Presenter:  Gary Kerr, Building Official
6.    Community Development, Planning.
    Presenter:  Craig Barker, Community Development Director
7.    Community Services, Parks, Recreation, Aquatic Center.
    Presenter:  Dave Nordquist, Community Services Director
8.    Administration, Non-Departmental, Legislative, Elections, HR.
    Presenter:  S. Annette Spendlove, City Recorder/HR Director
9.    Finance & RDA.
    Presenter:  Debbie Cardenas, Finance Director
10.    Police, Judicial, Motor Pool.
Presenter:  Polo Afuvai, Chief of Police
11.    Public Works, Streets, Motor Pool, Class “C”, Enterprise Funds (Solid Waste, Storm Water, Sanitary
             Sewer, Culinary Water).
Discussion and/or action to consider a Resolution adopting Policies and Procedures for the Green  Waste Facility.
12.    Discussion and/or action to consider an Ordinance amending Resolution 16-2010 vacating the Quail Ponds Phase 1, Quail Ponds Phase 2, Quail Ponds Phase 2 Partial amended and Quail Ponds Phase 3 Subdivision Plants.
13.    Finish or continue tomorrow.
14.    Public/Council comments.
15.    Adjournment.

*There will be periodic breaks in the agenda.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDASEPTEMBER 28, 2010 – 5:30 PM REGULAR MEETING505 EAST 2600 NORTHNORTH OGDEN CITY, UTAHWelcome, Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance: Council Member BiglerCONSENT AGENDA1. Consideration to approve minutes of the September 7, 2010 meeting.2. Consideration to approve business licenses.ACTIVE AGENDA3. Public Comments.4. Presentation regarding signs.Presenter: Mike Ostermiller, Northern Utah Realtor’s Association5. Public Hearing to receive comments on business license fees including disproportionate fees, rentals and the Good Landlord Program.Presenter: Debbie Cardenas, Finance Director6. Discussion and/or action regarding business license fees including disproportionate fees, rentals and the Good Landlord Program.Presenter: Debbie Cardenas, Finance Director7. Discussion and/or action to approve a Home Occupation for a commercial kitchen to be located at 2780 North 400 East.Presenter: Gary Kerr, Building Official8. Set October 12, 2010 as the date to hold a public hearing on an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance regarding outdoor displays.Presenter: Craig Barker, Community Development Director9. Discussion and/or action regarding Final Acceptance of the Country Boy Subdivision Phase II.Presenter: Gary Kerr, Building Official10. Possible closed meeting to discuss the purchase, exchange or lease of real property to be held in accordance with the provisions of Utah Code 52-4-204-5.Presenter: Richard G. Harris, Mayor11. Discussion and/or action regarding the purchase, exchange or lease of real property to be held in accordance with the provisions of Utah Code 52-4-204-5.Presenter: Richard G. Harris, Mayor12. Discussion and/or action to appoint the Administrative Law Judge.Presenter: Richard G. Harris, Mayor13. Council/Public comments.14. Adjournment.NORTH OGDEN CITY CORP. 505 East 2600 North 782-7211 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Letters, Calls, and E-mails - The Council Members and Mayor continue to welcome your input and attendance at council meetings. Meetings are held on the 2nd and 4th Tuesdays of each month at 5:30 p.m. Mayor Richard Harris 940-1882 Council Member Wade Bigler 782-9056 Council Member Ronald Flamm 782-3411 Council Member Martha Harris 782-3068 Council Member Brent Taylor 735-3973 Council Member Carl Turner 737-0398

NORTH OGDEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES August 5, 2009
The North Ogden City Council convened in an emergency session on August 5, 2009 at 5:30
p.m. at the City Offices. Notice of time, place and agenda of the meeting was delivered to each
member of the City Council, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office and posted to
the Utah State Website on August 4, 2009. Notice of the annual meeting schedule was published
in the Standard-Examiner on December 28, 2008.
PRESENT: Gary A. Harrop Mayor
Martha Harris Council Member
Richard Harris Council Member
Carl Turner Council Member
Ronald Flamm Council Member
Jed Musgrave Council Member
STAFF PRESENT: Edward O. Dickie City Administrator
Annette Spendlove City Recorder
Debbie Cardenas Finance Director
VISITORS: Robert Napoli Dave Hulme
Brent Taylor Wade Bigler
Julie Anderson Dale Anderson
Bill Bernard Polo Afuvai
Gary Kerr Mel Blanchard
Joan Brown Rachel Trotter
Nick McIntosh
WELCOME
Mayor Harrop welcomed those in attendance. Annette Spendlove gave the invocation and led
the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
AGENDA
1. Work Session to discuss 2009-2010 Budget.
Mayor Harrop reviewed why this special meeting was called. He stated that there is a shortfall
of revenue.
Annette Spendlove, City Recorder certified that Council Members, Richard Harris, Ronald
Flamm and Jed Musgrave (majority of the quorum) called the emergency meeting. Mrs.
Spendlove stated this meeting was called in accordance with all laws concerning the open
meeting act.
City Council Meeting 05August 09 Page 2
Ed Dickie, City Administrator, reviewed with the Council his and staff’s concerns. Since
adopting the tentative budget the city is facing a $93,363.00 shortfall. Staff recommended
looking at Cherry Days.
Council Member Martha Harris stated that North Ogden historically has tried, as much as
possible, to pay as you go. When the report came out in the newspaper that we had a surplus, it
was not entirely correct. We had a surplus, but the City had encumbered money for some
expenses that we already had. We look closely at whether things are nice to have or essential to
have.
Council Member Richard Harris asked Debbie Cardenas to explain the City’s current financial
situation.
Debbie Cardenas, Finance Director, reviewed the options with the Council. She started with the
last paragraph on the bottom of the handout. She said that the staff spent Wednesday morning
finding the $93,363 in their budgets. $897,993 has already been cut from the budgets which is
13% of the total budget. That does not include the $93,363 that needs to be cut now. Option A
includes the recommendation that the city does not budget $71,363 for the 2010 Cherry Days
celebration. The remaining $22,000 to be cut includes the following: $10,000 from street lighting
where we anticipate eliminating our contract with Rocky Mountain Power, $5,000 from
elections, $3,000 from the Christmas party and $4,000 from building maintenance for the new
Community Services building. We are hoping that this works to balance the budget but this is
just tentative.
Council Member Musgrave likes the idea of cutting a little from a lot of budgets. He stated that
he has thought that the budgets for the queen pageant and fireworks have gotten excessive. He
suggested doing away with those or having them totally funded outside the city. He prefers
option C and some line item cuts from the Cherry Days budget. He thinks doing away with
Cherry Days entirely would be a mistake.
Council Member Richard Harris wants to make sure we go through all the options before making
any decisions. We need to discuss whether we will have Cherry Days at all in the future. The
private sector is in a lot of trouble which has caused us a lot of trouble. Do we want to continue
to have Cherry Days? He thinks we need to look at cutting some things because we can’t count
on the private sector to fund Cherry Days.
Debbie Cardenas stated that the staff was able to get $20,000 this year for the Cherry Days
events. We hope to be able to do that again. Ed Dickie stated that the City will continue to try to
get sponsors.
Debbie Cardenas reviewed option B. This option includes cutting $2,000 from the Halloween
event, and $5,363 from the Strike Force account. She explained that we have an officer in the
Strike Force now and are not required to make the annual donation but that officer may be
coming out this year. The hope is that the Strike Force will not require us to make the full
payment this year because the officer was kept in for another year. She went on to explain that
the two league meetings that the council attends cost about $12,000. The thought is that the
City Council Meeting 05August 09 Page 3
council should decide whether to continue going to both or cut one of them to bring that budget
down to $6,000. That leaves $13,363 to add to the $22,000 from option A and get the remaining
$58,000 from the Reserve. This will leave us at approximately 8.6%, we are required to have
5%; however, we know that the Council likes to have 10%.
Option C is to leave the Cherry Days budget in there, leave the Reserve alone and have the staff
come up with more cuts. The cuts would include $45,000 from the general plan, $900 from
Planning travel and training, $900 from the Making Life Better campaign, we are hoping to
maintain the $3,000 lower phone bill, $1,000 from CERT, $1,000 from Police Department
supplies, $2,000 from the Youth Council, and $1,000 from health insurance for the Cobra
expense. This totals $93,363 to balance.
Option D includes $10,900 from a one day mandatory furlough for all employees and various
other cuts totaling $82,463 to balance the budget.
Council Member Richard Harris stated that we, as a City, have mid and long range plans. We
can delay those plans without canceling them. He thinks that the general plan is one thing that
can be delayed for a year. It is time to update it but we can delay for one year. He agrees with
Council Member Musgrave that we need to keep Cherry Days going. In the past we have come
close to cutting the queen pageant due to too few contestants. He can see perhaps not cutting but
delaying the pageants for a year. He is worried about the fireworks as they are not connected
directly with Cherry Days. He suggests delaying the general plan update, the queen and little
miss pageants and fireworks.
Ed Dickie stated that Miss Cherry Days is tied in with the float. The float is about $10,000 total
for all the parades. Do we also want to look at doing away with the float?
Council Member Richard Harris thinks we could have the float without the queens.
Council Member Flamm likes option C. As far as cutting Cherry Days goes, if we look at option
C we have some time to determine what could be cut and/or added back in. To get us by right
now he feels good about option C with the counsel that the administration come back with
specific suggestions to reduce the cost of Cherry Days.
Council Member Martha Harris is not in favor of a 4-10 work schedule. She stated that the
Halloween event has evolved over time and it originally was not a city project. She thinks it
needs to be self sustaining or privately funded. She agrees that the Community Services activity
guide is one of those things that is nice to have. Their events are posted in the city newsletter
and they have a very nice website. The redundancy with having the special newsletter is
something we could do without. She likes the idea of the $4,000 set aside for Christmas
decorations going to the Parks department for a 4-wheeler to be used for clearing sidewalks. She
questions what it costs to run Movies in the Park and the Battle of the Bands. The movies are
donated but there are other costs involved such as staffing. She would like to see Cherry Days
stay in some format but it has definitely gotten out of hand.
City Council Meeting 05August 09 Page 4
Council Member Flamm stated that a 4-wheeler with a winch cannot be purchased for $4,000.
He offered to let the city use his for a bit to see if it really would work for clearing the sidewalks.
These ATVs don’t push the snow as well as you might think.
Ed Dickie recommended option C with the thought that when February comes around we can see
where we’re at and look at parts of Cherry Days that could be sponsored out or cut.
Debbie Cardenas stated that although, the 4-10 work schedule is not very popular it needs to be
considered with the ongoing savings. She doesn’t see the economy bouncing back in the next
year.
Council Member Flamm stated that we have two new businesses coming into town within the
next few months. He asked if that will affect any income to the city. Debbie Cardenas said yes,
sales tax, but not much.
Council Member Musgrave asked if we have obligated ourselves to pay the fee for the fee study.
Debbie Cardenas stated that we have. She added that most of the study is complete. She went
on to explain that the cuts in option C are not guarantees, they are what we are hoping to be able
to save. If the officer comes back from the Strike Force we are hoping we can save that money.
Those are not guaranteed cuts.
Council Member Richard Harris asked how much do we owe to get the guarantee for fireworks
for next year. Ed Dickie stated that we have until the end of this month to get the 20% increase
if we pay half up front.
Mayor Harrop stated that Pleasant View has their fireworks a week before North Ogden. He
suggested that perhaps we could combine them and share the show. Regarding the general plan
he would like to scale it back not eliminate it. He also recommended not getting rid of Cherry
Days but agreed that it could be scaled back.
Council Member Martha Harris noted that option C is getting some support from the Council.
She thinks that it is good to look at that. The Council is asking the employees to make drastic
changes. She likes the idea that the Council should also make some changes. The training
received at the league conferences is excellent. If they can choose one conference or the other or
scale down how it is funded she would like to do that for this year. The Council can tighten our
belts like we have asked the employees to do. She suggested having the city pay the registration
fees but funding their own rooms.
Ed Dickie explained to the visitors that the training being discussed is required for the Council.
He suggested going with option C and holding off until February to start messing around with
Cherry Days. The issue of fireworks needs to be decided now as it has to be paid in the next few
weeks. He needs direction today.
Council Member Musgrave wants to commit to the fireworks show but cut it back some. He
would hate to change that tradition.
City Council Meeting 05August 09 Page 5
Debbie Cardenas said that the point is that we have to make a commitment to them now and pay
half now.
Council Member Musgrave would like to budget $15,000 and try to get sponsors for anything
more.
There was general discussion regarding the fireworks and music as we have had in the past and
other options.
Council Member Turner stated that he did not realize when he ran for Council, that the Council
members got paid. He would not be opposed to not getting paid. He feels that if we could do the
fireworks like last year it would be great but if it were eliminated that would be ok too.
Council Member Richard Harris suggested option C, leaving enough room to make adjustments
to Cherry Days later on, budgeting $20,000 for fireworks and eliminating the Community
Services activity guide.
Council Member Musgrave agreed.
Council Member Martha Harris will support that as well. She feels that it is premature to dip
into the fund balance now and she would prefer not to do that. She would like to go with Option
C, eliminating the activity guide and begin working on the Halloween activity to ensure that it is
not a city subsidized event.
Ed Dickie asked whether they want music with the fireworks. The Council stated yes.
Debbie Cardenas asked if travel and training should be reduced to $6,000. The Council stated
yes.
Council Member Flamm does not have a problem cutting the Council pay.
Ed Dickie stated that the Council members will need to work that out with Annette and reminded
everyone that there will be a public hearing on Tuesday, August 11, 2009 to adopt the budget.
Council Member Flamm stated that normally there is time set aside for public comments. He
would like to add that to the agenda.
Council Member Richard Harris appreciates that staff and is grateful for the information.
Council Member Flamm appreciates everyone being here this evening on such short notice.
Julie Anderson, 940 E 2600 N, appreciates the City getting the information out so the public
could find out about the problem. She suggested approaching Lee’s now to ask about sponsoring
the fireworks for next year. She feels that the Queen pageant Director should be given a budget
and made to live within it. The recycle pit is a pet peeve; it used to be free but now residents
have to pay. She suggested that it be closed and people can just go to Weber County.
City Council Meeting 05August 09 Page 6
Bob Napoli, 816 E 2750 N, has spent a lot of time traveling to other communities. He feels that
we should start looking at hosting soccer or softball tournaments to bring money into the city.
The Cherry Days Queen pageant used to be about North Ogden and now is open to Pleasant
View and Harrisville. He is not sure there still needs to be $4,000 in the Mayor’s public relations
fund. He added that Building Permit revenue is low and he doesn’t think it will be worse this
year than it was last year.
Dale Anderson, 940 E 2600 N, stated that an event could be held at the arena and he feels that
Cherry Days could be self sufficient.
Dave Hulme, 513 E 1700 N, doesn’t understand why the budget cuts in the police department are
a good idea. He would rather see Battle of the Bands and Movies in the Park gone. He
appreciates that the community services guide will be cut.
Council Member Musgrave stated that the Battle for the Bands is paid for by America First
Credit Union and Movies in the Park is sponsored as well.
2. Adjournment
Council Member Musgrave moved to adjourn the Council Meeting. Council Member
Flamm seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion
Council Member Richard Harris yes
Council Member Martha Harris yes
Council Member Ron Flamm yes
Council Member Jed Musgrave yes
Council Member Carl Turner yes
Motion passed.
The meeting adjourned at 6:59 pm.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
MARCH 24, 2009 - 5:30PM   AMENDED
505 EAST 2600 NORTH
NORTH OGDEN CITY, UTAH
 
Welcome, Invocation & Pledge of Allegiance:  Council Member Carl Turner
 
CONSENT AGENDA
 
1. Action to approve the Council Meeting Minutes for March 10, 2009.
2. Action to approve business licenses.
3. Action to approve the conditional acceptance of the Hidden Willow Estates Subdivision.
4. Action to approve the final acceptance of the Ranchview Townhomes PRUD Phase I.
5. Action to set Public Hearing on April 28, 2009 to approve Tentative Budget FY2009-
2010.
 
AGENDA
6. Public comments.
7. Discussion and/or action on Deer Meadows Water concern.
 Presenter: Kent Jones, City Engineer
8. Discussion and/or action on Ordinance #2009-03, an ordinance amending Chapter 11-
9-6 of the North Ogden City Zoning Ordinance (Hillside Protection).
 Presenter:  Craig Barker, Community Development Director 
9. Discussion and/or action on the request by the Legacy North Home Owners’
Association (HOA) for the City to assume the ownership of their roads.
 Presenter:  Curtis Smout, Vice President of the Legacy North HOA
10. Interviews of applicants for the Planning Commission vacancy.
 Presenter:  Mayor Gary A. Harrop
11. Public/Council comments.
12. Adjournment. 

NORTH OGDEN CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES

January 28, 2009
The North Ogden Planning Commission convened in a special meeting on January 28,
2009 at 6pm in the North Ogden City Municipal Building, 505 East 2600 North, North
Ogden, Utah
COMMISSIONERS:
Brian Bott Chairman
Jon Bingham Commissioner
Joan Brown Commissioner
Bruce Catanzaro Commissioner
Mike Belnap Commissioner
Lee Crittenden Commissioner
EXCUSED:
Gary Kerr Building Official
STAFF:
Craig Barker Community Development Director
Kent Jones City Engineer
Julia LaSeure Community Development Secretary
VISITORS:
Rachel Trotter
Ivan Barker
SPECIAL MEETING
Chairman Bott called the meeting to order at 6:00 pm.
DISCUSSION REGARDING THE HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS
Craig Barker explained that some members of the Planning Commission expressed an
interest in looking at this more in depth. One thing that was obviously missing in the
ordinance is the slope information. Hillside Development is not a new thing; safety in the
hazardous areas has been considered for a long time. The kinds of slopes in urban
environments have been looked at a lot. A lot of the information was tied to soils found
on those slopes. Some soils are more stable than others. Regarding manufactured slope,
he stated that just before you hit the mouth of Ogden Canyon on the north side of Smith’s
there was a constant slope in the range of 25-30%. The Developers just went in and cut
benches in and put houses on them. That was pretty common practice. When they
started looking at manufactured slope they looked at the unintended consequences? This
2 Planning Commission has been going on for 30 years. There are a lot of different slope numbers that come out
in ordinances. Outside Utah there are some that state no development on slopes greater
than 15%. Weber County was one of the first to develop guidelines in the mountainous
areas. They adopted a slope ordinance that was a subject of scrutiny from many other
areas. He described the slope requirements in more detail for the Commissioners. The
North Ogden City North Hillside Development Study recommends no development on
slopes greater than 20%. Because it was in the study we tended to want to use that as the
rule; no development on slopes greater than 20% natural slope. The Commission has to
make some decisions. If we say 20% slope is the maximum development on a lot we
have to look at grading on that kind of slope. Will we allow cutting roads across slopes
that exceed that to get to areas to develop? Some Communities say you cannot cut across
because of the cuts and fills. Once the Commission makes some decisions staff will draft
an ordinance amendment. There was general discussion regarding the consequences of going with the stricter 20%
maximum slope. Kent Jones stated that if it is not in the HP ordinance now it needs to be added.
Commissioner Bingham thinks they should go with no development over 20% realizing
that it doesn’t really affect much of the city and doesn’t place a lot of restrictions on
people developing their land. Kent Jones stated that the White Rock Subdivision looks okay but there are some areas
on some lots that are over the 20%. They are manufacturing a slope so those lots will be
in compliance. He asked if manufactured slope is acceptable or is anything over 20%
non-developable? Commissioner Bingham is more comfortable saying that they can’t
manufacture the slope. If there are lots with portions over 20% slope those portions need
to be restricted for no disturbance. Kent Jones asked whether those areas can be part of
the lot. Commissioner Bingham stated yes as they did that for Randy Marriott.
Kent Jones stated that there is no problem with restrictions on the lots. Commissioner
Bingham suggested that if the zone requires a minimum 10,000 sq ft lot we should
require that 10,000 sq ft to be under the 20% maximum. The ordinance needs to state
that the minimum lot size must be under 20%. There was general discussion regarding the location of the HP-3 zone limits.
Kent Jones stated that on some developments the City has required a detailed grading
plan and site plan approved by the City prior to issuance of the building permit. That is
something that could be required in these areas as well. Kent Jones stated that in Pebble Beach and others there is an overall grading plan where
the grading plan is manufactured as a whole to make it easier for the individual lots to
line up. With an overall grading plan you take everything within the boundaries and
show how the whole thing is going to work. They have seen more success in the pre3
Planning Commission 012809 graded situation. Chairman Bott asked if the plan would indicate the grades on the lots.
Kent Jones stated that it will create a building pad for each lot.
Ivan Barker stated that Mason Cove is an example of what California is doing on every
subdivision. They will all be like that before too long. They are just naked lots right now
but once the landscaping goes in it will look different. Kent Jones stated that it works
better that way. Ivan Barker gave a presentation on cuts and fills to give the Commissioners a visual of
how it all works. He stated that he does not feel 20% is restrictive enough.
Kent Jones stated that the ordinance doesn’t have enough verbiage to explain what we
want the developer to do. It needs to be clearer; we need to require an overall grading
plan with a detailed grading plan for each lot including the driveway and any other
structures. Commissioner Bingham agreed and added that it lets the developer know up front that
they can’t leave big cuts and fills and the expense isn’t left to the homeowners to put in
the retaining walls. Kent Jones explained that the front setback is currently 30’. He suggested that it could be
reduced to 20’. A lot of other cities are doing that to minimize the grading. Craig stated
that some communities are narrowing the roads or allowing split roads also.
Kent Jones stated that we need to get the verbiage in about the slope for sure. He
suggested verbiage that if there are good reasons they can come to the Planning
Commission for a variance. He can foresee areas that would need that as an option in
order to make a better subdivision. It would all fall into the overall grading concept. He
will work with Craig Barker on verbiage. Commissioner Catanzaro asked if 20% is the magic number.
Commissioner Belnap stated that there are areas that are trying to mitigate the dangers.
He asked whether slope of less than 20% will mitigate the landslide hazard. Craig stated
no. Commissioner Bingham stated that there is more than just slope; there are soils and water
as well. There was more discussion regarding the mitigation of some of these hazards. Kent
Jones stated that a lot of the stories in the newspapers are due to poor construction or
design. These days there are geotechnical studies available and we know what the soil
conditions are. 4 Planning Commission 012809
Craig thinks that on the next agenda we should have an ordinance amendment that just
talks about maximum slope to get that going. He suggested moving on to discuss some of
the other topics. Craig briefly explained that Geomorphology is basically looking at the terrain to
determine what types there are in an area. Those terrain types are listed in the HP study.
When a developer comes in we can look at the maps and tell them what they need to look
at for a certain area. Kent Jones stated that the HP Study is a guidance document. It just tells us that a detailed
study needs to be done on certain criteria.
There was general discussion regarding landslide and avalanche hazards and mitigation
as well as the development guidelines stated in the HP study.
Commissioner Bingham would like to see these development guidelines put in the
ordinance. Craig stated that staff will do that.
Commissioner Bingham would like to make it clear what the hazards and development
guidelines are. Craig moved on to Geology and explained what has been done to mitigate that hazard in
the past. The potential hazard is debris flows. He reviewed the development guidelines
for debris flows. Kent Jones stated that if a proposed development is in the constraint areas the developer
will need to do a study and mitigate the hazards that exist.
Chairman Bott thanked Ivan Barker, Craig Barker and Kent Jones for their input.
The meeting adjourned at 8:05 pm.

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 2, 2008 - 5:30PM
505 EAST 2600 NORTH
NORTH OGDEN CITY, UTAH
 
Welcome, Invocation & Pledge of Allegiance:  Council Member Ron Flamm
 
CONSENT AGENDA
 
  1. Action to approve business licenses.
  2.  Action to approve minutes for the August 12, 2008 Council meeting.
  3. Action to set September 23, 2008 as a Public Hearing to receive comments on the
proposal to rezone 2175 N. to 2225 N. between 450 E. and 250 E. for highly profitable
properties.
  4.  Action to approve conditional acceptance of the Valley View Estates Subdivision.
  5. Action to approve North Ogden City��s Seasonal Activity Guide.
 
AGENDA
  6.  Public comments.
  7.  Introduction of new employees, Breanne Carter and Mary Kay Robb.  
  Presenter: Department Heads
  8.  Discussion on the Country Boy PRUD Site Plan.
  Presenter: Craig Barker, Community Services Director
  9.  Discussion and/or action on design standards for commercial development.
  Presenter: Craig Barker, Community Development Director
 10. Discussion and/or action on the land donation by the partners of Ranch View
 Development.  
  Presenter: Edward Dickie, City Administrator
 11. Discussion and/or action to set September 23, 2008 as the date for the Public Hearing
 to receive comments on the amended annexation application of property located south
 of 2700 North and west of Washington Boulevard.
 Presenter: Annette Spendlove, City Recorder
 12. Discussion and/or action to approve the Wastewater Treatment Contract Agreement
 with the Central Weber Sewer District.
 Presenter: Bruce Evans, City Attorney  
 13. Public/Council comments.
 14. Adjournment.

  City Council Minutes 2 September 08 1
NORTH OGDEN CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
September 2, 2008
The North Ogden City Council convened in regular session on September 2, 2008 at 5:30
p.m. at the City Offices. Notice of time, place and agenda of the meeting were delivered
to each member of the City Council, posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office
and mailed to the Standard-Examiner August 29, 2008. Notice of the annual meeting
schedule was published in the Standard-Examiner on February 17, 2008.
PRESENT: Gary A. Harrop Mayor
Ronald Flamm Council Member
Martha Harris Council Member
Richard Harris Council Member
Carl Turner Council Member
EXCUSED: Jed Musgrave Council Member
STAFF PRESENT: Edward O. Dickie City Administrator
Annette Spendlove City Recorder
Bruce Evans City Attorney
Sue Richey Deputy Recorder
Craig Barker Community Development Director
Gary Kerr City Building Official
Laura Barker Court Clerk
VISITORS: Dave Hulme Susan Schmehe
Norm Schmehe Mary Kay Robb
Breanne Carter Brenda Nelson
Cindy Quescie Jeff Grunon
Reed Hepler Paul Bryner
Ben Kunz Robert Meyer
WELCOME
Mayor Harrop welcomed those in attendance. City Administrator Ed Dickie gave the
invocation and led the audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.
CONSENT AGENDA
1. Action to approve business licenses: True Living Taxidermy, Carlie’s Pet Portraits,
C&K Specialties, Philomena Soap Works and Sensory Technology Consultants;
Commercial – Sports and Orthopedic Physical Therapy of Kaysville.
2. Action to approve the minutes of August 12, 2008 City Council meeting.
3. Action to set September 23, 2008 as a Public Hearing to receive comments on the
proposal to rezone 2175 N. to 2225 N. between 450 E. and 250 E. for highly
profitable properties.
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 2
4. Action to approve conditional acceptance of the Valley View Estates Subdivision.
5. Action to approve North Ogden City’s Seasonal Activity Guide.
Council Member Martha Harris moved to approve the consent agenda as presented.
Council Member Rich Harris seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
All Council Members voted aye.
Motion passed.
AGENDA
6. Public comments.
No comments.
7. Introduction of new employees, Breanne Carter and Mary Kay Robb.
Laura Barker, North Ogden Justice Court Clerk, introduced Mary Kay Robb, the new
Deputy Court Clerk and Sue Richey, Deputy City Recorder, introduced Breanne Carter
an assistant in the front office to the Council and the Mayor.
8. Discussion on the Country Boy PRUD Site Plan.
Craig Barker reviewed this item for the Council. Aaron Mueller and Bruce Hazen have
proposed changing the zoning in the area of 1700 N. and 100 W. from Residential R-1-8
to Residential R-4. They requested this change because the zoning for the property on
the east side of this area was changed to Commercial C-2 at the request of the Hancock
brothers. The developers of the area of 1700 N. and 100 W. felt that because this area
would now be adjacent to a potentially large commercial development, it would be less
desirable for single family homes. The zoning change to an R-4 would provide a buffer
for the single family homes to the west of this area. Residential R-4 would allow for a
multifamily project developed as a Planned Residential Unit Development (PRUD).
Mr. Barker told the Council that in the City’s General Plan for this area it allows median
density close to Washington Blvd. then lower density as you move west. He told the
Council the area rezoned as Commercial C-2 is one of the last remaining areas in the City
that could attract commercial development. The City is hoping for a large development
in this area.

Mr. Barker told the Council that Mr. Mueller and Mr. Hazen had met with the Planning
Commission and the City Council to discuss their concept plan. The proposed plan
changed and evolved as the discussion progressed. The developers met with the Planning
Commission and submitted a plan calling for a zoning change to Residential R-4. They
felt this change would best meet their objectives. The homeowners adjacent to the
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 3
property under discussion were notified of the proposed zoning change. A Public
Hearing was held to receive comments on the change. During the Hearing, neighboring
homeowners provided information to the Planning Commission that they were not aware
of and as a result the Commission rejected the developer’s rezoning proposal.

The developers asked to be placed on the Council agenda so they could discuss this with

the City Council. Council Member Turner said he was concerned about the density of
housing permitted in a Residential R-4 zone. Mr. Barker said the developer has reduced
the proposed density to 143 units with 4 single family building lots. He told the Council
the commercial zoning change had impacted Mr. Mueller and Mr. Hazen’s development
plans. They didn’t feel that a Residential R-1-8 development would be viable in this area
because it will be bordered by this very large commercial development.
Council Member Martha Harris said she had the same question she has had every time a
PRUD is brought before the Council in the last year. What is the advantage to North
Ogden City in allowing this particular PRUD? What does it do to enhance North Ogden
City? She would like any developer who comes before the Council to have a very good
answer to this question and the answer isn’t that it makes the land more marketable for
them.

Mayor Harrop expressed his feelings that he did not like the concept plan when it was

first presented to him and he doesn’t like it now. He also said he felt the proposed culde-
sac would be very hard to plow. He doesn’t like the high density being proposed.
Erin Mueller, 3650 Taylor Ave., told the Council that since the last meeting with the
Planning Commission, they had reduced the proposed number of units to 143 with 4
building lots for single family homes. He said he felt the Residential R-4 would provide
a buffer between the proposed commercial area and the existing single family dwellings
to the west of his development. There would be a buffer with the wetlands and canal
between the Residential R-4 development and the high-end homes to the west in
Harrisville. He told the Council the Planning Commission had indicated they felt good
about going forward with the current plan. It conforms to the R-4 zoning requirements
with 5.3 units per acre. Mr. Mueller said he felt this plan would provide lots of open
space. He said he couldn’t imagine having a Residential R-1-8 development in this area
with the commercial development next door to the east.
9. Discussion and/or action on design standards for commercial development.
Mr. Barker reviewed this item for the Council. The purpose and intent of the design
standards and regulations are to preserve property values, enhance the economic viability
and aesthetic value of commercial properties, and to provide a quality environment for
both citizens and visitors. The scope of the standards would apply to all developmental
proposals in Commercial or Manufacturing zones. Mr. Barker told the Council these
standards are being presented in ordinance form. If this proposal is approved it will
become part of the City’s Zoning Ordinance and commercial developers will be required
to conform to these standards. Council Member Turner said he complimented Mr.
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 4
Barker on this document. He asked Mr. Barker how it could be amended when new
building materials become available. Mr. Barker told Mr. Turner the document had been
developed by a committee composed of City staff and volunteer residents with expertise
in building standards and landscape architecture. There are avenues to amend the
standards with Planning Commission and City Council approval. Mr. Barker said the
attempt of the committee wasn’t to be so tight that there is no lee way. There is some lee
way in this document. Staff has been in contact with some potential developers and has
given each copies of this. Mr. Barker explained that if the City and developers can meet
in discussion early enough in the process, the developers are usually very cooperative
concerning design standards. However, sometimes a development such as a Target store
comes to the City with a full blown plan, having invested a great deal of money in the
designs. It is then that they become resistant to these types of standards. Mayor Harrop
expressed concern about this type of situation, which could happen in the case of a
Smith’s expansion. Mr. Barker told the Council that Smith’s has been given a copy of
these standards.
Council Member Rich Harris thanked the committee and told Mr. Barker he also was
very impressed with the work done to create these standards and regulations governing
commercial development in the City, but he didn’t see a Development Theme for the City
stated in this document. He would like a development theme that would apply
throughout the City. He would also like to see more visuals and samples of the standards
so the developer understands what City requirements are in the area of commercial
development.
Mayor Harrop said he likes berms, for example the one in front of Smith’s, is a good
place to throw your blanket to watch the 4th of July parade, but it also a good place to put
trees. He would also like trees planted in the parking lots. It would be a nice visual
variation. Mr. Barker told the Mayor City Ordinance already requires a certain amount of
interior landscaping in commercial developments. He would have to review that before
he could say how much. The committee is also looking at redoing the berm standard. If
you look around the City, the height of berms is not consistent.
Council Member Flamm said he would like the City to require more trees in business
parking lots, not just around the sides, but also have green areas with small plots of grass
and have trees intersperse throughout the lots. This would give the owners more space to
put snow in the winter as they plow their lots. Mr. Barker told Council Member Flamm
that this had been discussed by the committee.
Council Member Rich Harris asked Mr. Barker if the committee was using standards
from the Envision Utah publication. Council Member Rich Harris said he agrees with
some of the ideas in publication but North Ogden doesn’t lend itself to any of its
proposals because the City is so spread out. Bruce Evans, City Attorney, in response to
Council Member Rich Harris’ request for a theme, said a paragraph could be inserted
describing an overarching theme for the design standards with examples and illustrations
in the back of the document. He also mentioned that while realizing there is a vision the
Council, Planning Commission and staff are trying to capture for North Ogden, there are
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 5
other concerns that will have to be addressed. One is the potential economic costs these
standards would impose on commercial developers. Another is safety issues where
drivers may tend to go too fast because they are unhappy with the landscaping that didn’t
allow them easy access to a store. The other consideration is the Storm Water Phase II
permit that requires the City to maintain proper control of water run-off. Also, as a
municipality, the City has certain water conservation requirements it must comply with as
provided by the EPA and the State of Utah. Mr. Evans told the Council that if the City
imposes certain water intensive landscaping plans, it runs counter to the efforts of the
City and State to conserve water. This means there will have to be trade-offs.
Council Member Turner stated that he didn’t want to see this drawn out forever. He
would like these standards adopted as soon as possible. Then if developers come and the
standards are in place, if amendments need to be made those can be addressed. Council
Member Flamm suggested taking pictures over the next two weeks of developments that
have the look that the Council and staff like and add them to the document. He said he
felt that would provide a better understanding for developers of what the City wants. Mr.
Barker said staff will do that.
Council Member Turner asked what the next step is. Mr. Barker said he will take the
minutes of this meeting and what notes he has taken back to the committee. The
document will be refreshed with this information and then emailed it to the Council for
comments. Once this is completed, it will come back to the City Council for discussion.
The draft ordinance will have to go to the Planning Commission first for their
recommendation. The Planning Commission will hold a public hearing and then the
Council will hold one. Mr. Barker said the City does have some commercial developers
who have expressed an interest in North Ogden and staff will probably send these
standards out to them for their comments. Council Member Turner expressed approval of
that idea.
10. Discussion and/or action on the land donation by the partners of Ranch View
Development.
Mr. Dickie presented this item to the Council. He told the Council the City was under the
impression that the donation from the Ranch View development would be 2-acres.
However, he has learned the donation stands at 1-acre. Mr. Dickie told the Council it
was staff’s recommendation that the donation be declined because of its size. The City
would have to improve the land and maintain I,t but the area isn’t large enough to be
efficiently utilized.
Council Member Martha Harris moved to decline the land donation given to the
City by the partners of Ranch View Development. Council Member Rich Harris
seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
All Council Members voted aye.
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 6
Motion passed.
11. Discussion and/or action to set September 23, 2008 as the date for the Public Hearing
to receive comments on the amended annexation application of property located south
of 2600 North west of Washington Boulevard.
Annette Spendlove, City Recorder, told the Council the annexation application had been
amended because the original application had left an island of unincorporated land. The
City’s annexation declaration states that the City can’t leave an island. The landowner
Mr. Howells agreed to annex that section of his property into North Ogden. The required
notice has gone into the newspaper and includes the island as part of the annexation. The
This will be brought back at a future Council meeting in ordinance form for Council’s
consideration.
Council Member Rich Harris moved to approve September 23, 2008 as the date for
the Public Hearing to receive comments on the amended annexation application of
property located south of 2600 North west of Washington Boulevard. Council
Member Flamm seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
All Council Members voted aye.
Motion passed.
12. Discussion and/or action to approve the Wastewater Treatment Contract Agreement
with the Central Weber Sewer District.
Bruce Evan, City Attorney, reviewed the proposed agreement sent to the cities, the
Central Weber Sewer District serves, for their comments and approval. He told the
Council the Central Weber Sewer Improvement District is undertaking a major
construction expansion in its sewage treatment plant. Because they are receiving a
portion of their funding for the project from the State of Utah, Central Weber is being
required to have written contracts in place with its wholesale customers, which includes
North Ogden City. Mr. Evans told the Council he had reviewed the agreement and had
found no definitions that were legally unacceptable. As a publically-owned treatment
works (POTW) there are certain requirements they have that they must pass along to their
customers. Those have been included in the agreement. There is a 50-year term on the
agreement. The agreement doesn’t create a special district. It just solidifies North
Ogden’s agreement with Central Weber to maintain the City’s sanitary sewer lines and to
carry out proper monitoring and reporting of the discharges. The City also agrees to
abide by the rules and regulations imposed on the Sewer District by the State of Utah.
There is also a payment formula contained in the agreement that is not objectionable.
Mr. Evans said he didn’t believe the terms of the agreement would change any of the
procedures the City currently employs in dealing with its sanitary sewer system. It also
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 7
allows the district to refuse service if the City doesn’t follow the required regulations.
There is also a mutual termination clause in the contract.
Council Member Rich Harris asked about the reference on page 7 to a CMOM program.
This requires the City do a self-audit on an annual basis. Will this put an unmanageable
work load on the Sanitary Sewer Division of the City? Mr. Evans said there is already
such a requirement and that he was confident that the City was in compliance. It has
been a requirement for North Ogden for some time and Mrs. Spendlove explained that
staff has been doing it each year. Council Member Rich Harris had some other questions
on the verbiage of the agreement. Mr. Evans explained that the Council could approve
the agreement tonight and then pass the resolution at a future meeting. Council Member
Rich Harris also pointed out that the agreement refers to the City Manager where North
Ogden has a City Administrator. Mr. Evans said that it is a boiler-plate agreement for all
affected cities so it is referring to City Manager/City Administrator.
Council Member Turner asked if the City had ever had an agreement like this with
Central Weber Sewer. Mr. Bruce stated that the City has had other agreements with them
and this is a replacement for the existing agreement. This new agreement was created to
fulfill bonding requirements from the State of Utah.
Council Member Martha Harris moved to approve the Wastewater Treatment
Contract Agreement with the Central Weber Sewer District with changes as
recommended. Council Member Carl Turner seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion:
All Council Members voted aye.
Motion passed.
13. Public/Council comments.
Jeff Granou,1588 W. 225 N. Harrisville, told the Council he had attended a Public
Hearing during the North Ogden Planning Commission meeting where comments were
heard on plans for Country Boy Estate Phase IV. He told Council he didn’t think that
meeting had been portrayed correctly. About 35 people attended the hearing, 16 spoke
and the petition that was presented to the Planning Commission had about 145 signatures.
The attendees were from North Ogden and Harrisville. There was emotion, but it was
also democracy at work. One of the concerns about Country Boy Estates Phase IV is that
when Phase II was approved, it was with the stipulation that they had to mitigate the
parcels of land along 4-Mile Creek. Mr. Granou told the Council there is a plan for
Country Boy Estates Phase III that has the entire length of 4-Mile Creek piped. One of
the stipulations agreed on by the City Council in January 2007 was that the creek
wouldn’t be piped. If the creek were piped, it would destroy hundreds of willow trees.
Many of the people attending the Public hearing were from Country Boy Estates Phases I
and II who had built upscale single family dwellings. They didn’t want a high density
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 8
development next door. Mr. Granou said residents in that area are also very concerned
about traffic flow in the area if this new development is approved. He told the Council
unless the road to the new development is extended through to 1700 North, all the traffic
from that area will have a tremendous impact on Harrisville residents. This is why
people are upset. Mr. Granou said if there is a theme in all this it is as Mayor Harrop
said, people move out to North Ogden for the single family ambiance and people were
very upset with what could be coming in behind them. Mayor Harrop said he would like
to take credit but it was Council Member Rich Harris who said that.
Council Member Turner announced his family will be welcoming a baby boy. The
Council congratulated him and his family.
Council Member Rich Harris asked if the next meeting will be canceled. Ms. Spendlove
said it would be.
Council Member Martha Harris commented on the wonderful appearance of Barker Park
and said she appreciates the efforts of the Parks department. She asked Mr. Dickie to
convey her compliments to the Park Department.
Ms. Spendlove told the Council there are two openings on the Board of Adjustment that
will need to be advertised. Candidates will be brought before the Council and Mayor for
review. A homeowner living in an unincorporated area of the County came into the City
Offices asking about being connected to the City’s water system. According to City
Ordinance he will need to come before the Council to obtain their approval before City
staff can start the connection process. The homeowner is also looking into having his
property annexed into the City. He would like to have his connection completed before
winter comes. Ms. Spendlove said she would have this on the agenda for the next
Council meeting. His address is 116 West and 2000 North. The property to the east of
his is already part of the City so this annexation would not create an island. On the other
side is Weber County and then further west is Harrisville.
Mayor Harrop thanked all those in attendance this evening. He said he understands that it
can be a challenge to balance the desires of the many against the wishes of the few. He
thanked the Council for their commitment to the City and its residents. The decisions
made in this room are not always easy. He said North Ogden will do its best to be a good
neighbor. During the next Council meeting on September 23 there will be more
information available on the status of the well drilling.
Robert Meyer, 3190 Holiday Drive, asked if he could make a few comments on the well
drilling on 450 East. He suggested the City drill along the fault line that runs through
North Ogden. When he had worked out at Thiokol, they had drilled a well along the fault
line. Thiokol was located on the site of Lampo Junction where a flowing well and a
ranch house were located in the 1800’s. Mr. Meyer told the Council he is certain that
given the artesian wells located in the City, if they drill along the fault line running from
the stump down by Lee’s Market Place and up through the Shupe property, they will find
City Council Minutes 2 September 08 9
water. He suggested having the City approach Mr. Shupe about leasing his property for a
drill site.
Council Member Richard Harris moved to recess and convene in a closed meeting
to discuss current litigation. Council Member Carl Turner seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion
All Council Members voted aye.
Motion passed.
The Meeting recessed at 7:12 pm and Council convened in a closed meeting. The
meeting reconvened at 7:16 pm.
14. Adjournment.
Council Member Martha Harris moved to adjourn the regular meeting. Council
Member Rich Harris seconded the motion.
Voting on the motion
Council Members all voted aye.
Motion passed.
Meeting adjourned at 7:19 pm