City Council Minutes 01-19-16 2016-11-01T09:54:51+00:00

TREMONTON CITY CORPORATION
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
January 19, 2016

Members Present:
Diana Doutre
Lyle Holmgren
Jeff Reese
Bret Rohde
Lyle Vance
Roger Fridal, Mayor
Shawn Warnke, City Manager
Darlene S. Hess, Recorder

CITY COUNCIL WORKSHOP

Mayor Fridal called the January 19, 2016 City Council Workshop to order at 6:00 p.m. The meeting was held in the City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Those in attendance were Mayor Fridal, Councilmembers Doutre, Holmgren, Reese, Rohde, and Vance, City Manager Shawn Warnke, and Recorder Darlene S. Hess. The following Department Heads were also present: Zoning Administrator Steve Bench, Public Works Director Paul Fulgham, Librarian Kim Griffiths, Police Chief David Nance, and Treasurer Sharri Oyler. Also in attendance was Finance Director Curtis Roberts.

The following items were discussed out of order.

Mayor Fridal welcomed the visitors which included; Brad Rasmussen with Aqua Engineering, Finance Director Curtis Roberts, Megan Weber with Zions Bank Public Finance, Kevin Christensen with Bear River Valley Health Department, and Wendy English from Small Business Development.

1. Review of agenda items on the 7:00 p.m. Council Meeting:

The Council reviewed the January 19, 2016 Agenda with the following items being discussed in more detail:

Capital Facilities and Impact Fee Facilities Plan. Brad Rasmussen from Aqua Engineering noted they have been working on what processes at the Wastewater Treatment Plant need to be upgraded. Once the information was compiled it was given to Zions Bank for the financial side. Mr. Rasmussen said that all the information being presented includes Garland being on the system. They will be included until they are officially off our system. Councilmember Rohde stated that it would be good to have a comparison showing the plan if Garland was officially off our system. Mr. Rasmussen noted that the plans are updated every five (5) years. It will probably take that long for Garland to build a facility, make plans, and get permits. In five (5) years, if Garland has their Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP), it would free up capacity (what Garland is currently using) and the plan would be re-evaluated. Manager Warnke stated there are regulatory requirements that will affect the Permit regardless of whether Garland uses Tremonton’s WWTP or not within the planning period used for the impact fee facility plan.

Mr. Rasmussen stated the City has a primary clarifier that was built in 1964 that still operates as part of the system. The original cost was $65K but would run $1M today. Some of the elements of the WWTP have a long life. In the Capital Facilities Plan there is some analysis of upgrades to the WWTP that are needed for growth by 2035 by upgrading to 2.5 MGD or to 2058 with a 4 MGD upgrade; the dates are based on historical data, but will not be exact.

Councilmember Holmgren asked how many ERUs would be available with the upgrades. Mr. Rasmussen informed the Council that the 1.9 MGD upgrade would have about 5,428 ERUs; 2.5 MGD – 7,143 ERUs; 3MGD – 8,574 ERUs; and 4 MGD – 11,429 ERUs. Director Fulgham commented that right now about 50% plus in solids handling comes from industry or loading. Mr. Rasmussen noted that loading and flow are not in the estimates. In 2020 phosphorus removal will be required and it is projected that in 2025 nitrogen removal will be a requirement of Tremonton City’s WWTP operating permit regulated by the State of Utah.

Councilmember Reese expressed concern that the proposed impact fee is a big jump in cost. Councilmember Holmgren stated it is a balancing act and takes time to get appraisals and get things ready for building. It would have a serious impact on developers and builders. The economy cannot absorb that kind of an increase all at once. It might be better to do it in increments. Director Fulgham stated that if there is growth and no impact fees, then costs to fund WWTP upgrades will have to come from user fees.

Mr. Rasmussen said the State defines affordability as 1.4% of the median gross income of an area. If user rates go over that amount, the State starts contributing by discounted costs on loans or grant money. Older WWTP facilities are starting to get close to that amount. Sewer rates and fees are starting to go up to the States definition of affordability. To put in a septic tank and drain field costs around $10K. Mr. Rasmussen and Ms. Weber noted that the Total impact fee per ERU is not out of line with others.

Ms. Weber stated that the information presented is the maximum allowable impact fee. If the Council discounts the rate, the difference would be pushed to the user rates and would remove the fair share of the facility. Those already in the City have already paid impact fees. If users pay any of the costs for the expansion, they would be subsidizing new growth.

Councilmember Holmgren wondered about industry paying for capacity. When new industry comes, the City often forgives some of the fees. Director Fulgham noted that the Council has that option to make those decisions. Sometimes the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) pays the impact fees as they collect tax increment. Manager Warnke explained that State Law allows exempting certain development activities from paying impact fees such as schools, affordable housing, and development with a broad public purpose; however, if a City exempts the development activity from paying impact fees the City must find an alternative source of payment except for the payment of impact fees except for the affordable housing.

Manager Warnke said that growth is coming north along the Wasatch Front and that an impact fee of $15K is not unusual compared to other communities along the Wasatch Front. Councilmember Vance stated that contractors can sway people to build in different communities based on impact fees.

Councilmember Vance asked if the plan includes the premium new upgrades. Mr. Rasmussen commented that the new technology is membrane facilities. The City will not be going to membrane but will continue using a lot of existing components of the WWTP. Finance Director Roberts explained that Logan City covers a big part of Cache Valley. The plant upgrade is around $110M. Councilmember Doutre noted that the price is so high for Logan because they didn’t do upgrades for a long time. Finance Director Robert knows of some communities down south that are looking at upgrades that will cost $30-40M. Payson City has been doing improvements and arbitrarily raised their sewer rates by $15 across the board for every user based on an estimate for an upgrade to their WWTP that did not qualify for impact fees. Other cities across the State are dealing with this same issue. Some cities are charging $50-60 a month for wastewater treatment fees.

Councilmember Reese would like to see a chart showing the higher rates other communities are paying. Finance Director stated that Nibley bumped their rates to around $60 and Logan is talking about raising rates to close to $70. Logan is raising user rates because there are no impact fees to cover the necessary upgrades. There are regulatory responsibilities that must be met. This is a big decision, but as some point funds will be needed to make the improvements. It is a balancing act and impact fees or sewer rates must be raised to cover the coming expenses. It will impact developments and might slow things down. Councilmember Holmgren explained that perspective homeowners will argue over amounts as small as $500. The Council needs to work through this issue but not all at once.

Manager Warnke noted there is a detailed schedule included in the ordinances for City Council. There will be a public hearing this evening before the Council can take action or table the item.

Resolution No. 16-04. Manager Warnke noted that in the past the Council has discussed raising the sewer rate over the next ten (10) years up to $30 a month. If the fee schedule is adopted, there would be an immediate $2.75 increase and another $2.75 in January of 2017 and January of 2018. Councilmember Reese remarked that the Council has been working on this issue for quite some time. The user rate increase is not a new issue.

2. Economic Development Discussion – Mayor Roger Fridal

a. Comments/Presentation from Wendy English, Business Expansion and Retention Small Business Development Center Business Analyst

Mayor Fridal turned some time over to Wendy English from the Small Business Development Center. Ms. English explained they are located at Utah State in Brigham City and have several resources available for small businesses. They can receive help with marketing plans and are taught how to utilize social media. Help is also provided with business plans, financials, and forecasting. It is an all around service for small business with no charge for the services.

To help Brigham City Main Street, Ms. English worked with a retailer on Main Street and put together “Brigham’s Christmas”. Ms. English is happy to help with revitalization on Tremonton’s Main Street as well. A historic group was setup in Brigham City and they will take over “Brigham’s Christmas”. Ms. English could help get community projects started in Tremonton or work on Main Street Revitalization.

Councilmember Doutre asked if the Small Business Development Center works with any clubs like Kiwanis or the Lions Club. Ms. English worked with clubs for the Brigham’s Christmas. The Center found discount rates for the lights and retailers worked together to put up the lights. It helped build relationships between retailers on Main Street. Councilmember Vance knows several individuals that have received help. Ms. English is fantastic at business development. It will be nice to see what can be done for downtown revitalization.

Ms. English noted that in January 2016, the Center brought in $200K of Capital infusion to Tremonton through grant money and other things. Ms. English sends information out in her emails about grants and incentives that are available. Mayor Fridal, Manager Warnke, and Councilmembers Vance and Holmgren receive Ms. English’s emails. If the other Councilmembers would like to be included they can be added to her list.

Councilmember Holmgren asked about farmers markets. Ms. English will be meeting with Brigham to put together a farmers market and would be happy to work with Tremonton as well. The first three (3) years when new ideas or businesses start take time to develop into something good. Ms. English tells clients not to expect to break even for at least three (3) years. A farmers market will take time to gain momentum and grow. Ms. English will get email addresses for each Councilmember from Recorder Hess and contact them personally.

Mayor Fridal gave the Council time to discuss what they would like to see happen in Tremonton in the next few years. Ms. English spoke with a developer who said all the venture capitalists are starting to look at Northern Utah. The Council should plan as if growth is coming. Councilmember Rohde noted that the Council is progressive and supports growth. This is a great community for internet storefronts. Items can be sold on-line but still need a storefront. Main Street would be ideal for internet storefronts. Councilmember Holmgren agreed that the community would be great for Councilmember Rohde’s idea. Tremonton has UTOPIA (Utah Telecommunication Open Infrastructure Agency) available in many locations which would be helpful for that type of store. Location is good in relation to the freeways. Councilmember Holmgren noted that the Council will need to work on utilities.

Councilmember Rohde heard that people come to Tremonton to purchase vehicles because the sales tax is low which saves them money. Main Street could use some renovations like nice sidewalks and new streetlights. Councilmember Reese noted that the renovations in old downtown Logan look nice. Ms. English remarked that a lot of money goes into the new facades in Logan. Councilmember Vance asked if Brigham City Main Street will be changing. Ms. English stated there has been talk about changing from four (4) lanes to two (2) and making bigger walk ways and open areas. It is in the consideration stage and Brigham will have to work with UDOT (Utah Department of Transportation). Sometimes UDOT sells a section of Main Street back to cities.

Brigham has good vibes on Main Street right now and retailers are working together. Tremonton also has good vibes and a dress shop girl with lots of energy that could be put to good use. Ms. English noted that the historical society has grant money available for some older buildings to assist with renovations. Manager Warnke said the City has started the process to become a CLG (Certified Local Government). The grants are usually $4K and the City must have a functioning CLG Board and take a few other steps to be an eligible CLG. Councilmember Vance spoke about the RDA and that money should be prioritized and put in the correct place to help more business come into Tremonton. Councilmember Doutre said the members of the Women’s Civic League would like to go to work and be involved anyway they can. Councilmember Rohde would like to see the City continue to develop things for residents like the new Trail.

Mayor Fridal asked that the Council discuss Economic Development again in the next City Council Work Session.

Item 3. was moved to City Council due to time restraints.

3. CLOSED SESSION:
a. Strategy session to discuss the purchase of real property when public discussion of the transaction would disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration or prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms
b. Session to discuss the mental health, character, and competence of an individual

The meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m. by consensus of the Council.

CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Mayor Fridal called the January 19, 2016 City Council Meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. The meeting was held in the Tremonton City Council Meeting Room at 102 South Tremont Street, Tremonton, Utah. Those in attendance were Mayor Fridal, Councilmembers Doutre, Holmgren, Reese, Rohde, and Vance, City Manager Shawn Warnke, and Recorder Darlene S. Hess. The following Department Heads were also present: Zoning Administrator Steve Bench, Public Works Director Paul Fulgham, Librarian Kim Griffiths, Police Chief David Nance, and Treasurer Sharri Oyler. Also in attendance was Finance Director Curtis Roberts.

1. Opening Ceremony:

Mayor Fridal informed the audience that he had received no written or oral request to participate in the Opening Ceremony. He asked anyone who may be offended by listening to a prayer to step out into the lobby for this portion of the meeting. The prayer was offered by Councilmember Doutre and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilmember Vance.

2. Introduction of guests:

Mayor Fridal welcomed Brad Rasmussen from Aqua Engineering, Finance Director Curtis Roberts, Megan Weber from Zions Bank, Kevin Christensen from the Bear River Valley Health Department, and assorted guests.

3. Approval of Agenda:

Mayor Fridal asked if there were any changes or corrections to the Agenda. No comments were made.

Motion by Councilmember Reese to approve the agenda of January 19, 2016. Motion seconded by Councilmember Doutre. Vote: Councilmember Doutre – aye, Councilmember Holmgren – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, and Councilmember Vance – aye. Motion approved.

4. Approval of minutes – January 5, 2016:

Mayor Fridal asked if there were any changes to the minutes. There were no comments.

Motion by Councilmember Holmgren to approve the minutes of January 5, 2016. Motion seconded by Councilmember Vance. Vote: Councilmember Doutre – aye, Councilmember Holmgren – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, and Councilmember Vance – aye. Motion approved.

5. Years of Service Award- Mayor Roger Fridal
a. Lyle Holmgren, 10 years of Service

Mayor Fridal thanked Lyle Holmgren for his 10 years of service to Tremonton City.

6. Public comments: Comments limited to three minutes:

There were no public comments.

7. Presentations on:

Item 7a. and 7 b. were discussed together.

a. Capital facilities plan and Impact Fee Facilities Plan for the Wastewater Treatment Plant- Brad Rasmussen, Aqua Engineering

b. Impact Fee Analysis- Representative from Zions Bank Public Finance

Ms. Weber from Zions Bank Public Finance stated that in May of 2001 there was a significant update to the Impact Fee Act. The level of service must be clearly defined and justified. The Impact Fee Act allows for a six to ten (6-10) year horizon for projects that are included. As in the past, no repair or replacement projects are included in the Impact Fee Analysis, only growth related projects. Historic costs are reviewed for the buy-in capacity for any existing assets that will serve new growth. No project improvements are included in the Impact Fee Analysis, only system wide improvements.

Mr. Rasmussen explained that in 2020 there will be a new phosphorus rule that will require a reduction in phosphorus in the effluent that is discharged from the WWTP. The WWTP (Wastewater Treatment Plant) has a little less than 1.9 MGD (Million Gallons per Day) capacity now. By putting in some dewatering equipment, the plant will provide the biological capacity to meet the flow capacity of 1.9 MGD. The planning horizon within the Impact Fee Facility Plan raises the 1.9 MGD capacity to 2.5 MGD. The 1.9 MGD capacity will put the plant in compliance up to 2021; however, the nutrient requirement will need to be done so the next project should start in 2018. If Garland leaves the system, the dates may be extended.

The expansion part of the project will produce more aeration by installing new aeration basins. There will be anaerobic basins and anoxic basin to address nutrient removal. The plan also calls for blowers, digester, additional UV modules, headworks capacity in the screen, and a final clarifier. The idea of an impact fee is to charge new users for the cost of expansion for new growth. Zions Bank Public Finance figured the maximum amount allowed for impact fees for new users.

Ms. Weber explained that the City has 538 ERUs (Equivalent Residential Units) available in the current system or 9.9% of the total capacity. There is $5.7M of qualifying assets in the existing system with $569,161 being included in the impact fee that could be charged to new growth as their share of the existing assets. An expense for the update to the Impact Fee Facilities Plan and the Impact Fee Analysis was also included at $27K for professional expenses. There is no outstanding sewer related debt in the City currently. The City is looking at issuing debt in 2018 for the upgrades to the WWTP. The par amount of that debt is $11.2M with 85.8% of the bond interest expense qualifying for impact fees. It would be a twenty (20) year bond.

The impact fee calculation divides the impact fee eligible costs by eligible capacity. Cost was divided by the 2,252 future ERUs the system will serve (538 ERUs in the existing WWTP and 1,714 ERUs from the new expansion project) with a resulting cost per ERU. The projects, buy-in to existing assets, credit for 2018 bond proceeds, debt service, and professional services are all used to calculate the maximum allowable fee under law for a total of $6,602 per ERU. The Council can assess a fee lower than $6,602 but not higher. A single family residential development is equivalent to 1 ERU; Mutli-Family developments are equivalent to 0.65 ERU and would cost $4,318 each. Non-residential development would be assessed $18.86 per gallon multiplied by the estimated winter month gallons per day. That amount would be determined by City building officials at time of building permit issuance. The City would also need to consider load in the calculation.

Mr. Rasmussen explained that BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand) is a key contaminant that takes oxygen. Industries often have low flow but high load. Load can use up a lot of capacity and must be considered. Ms. Weber stated that once an impact fee is adopted there is a ninety (90) day period before the new impact fee comes into effect as required by State Law.

Councilmember Rohde asked how many new homes were projected a year. Mr. Rasmussen stated the numbers came from the Governor’s Office projection for about 2% per year. The information was taken from the previous Impact Fee growth model prepared by Jones and Associates. Manager Warnke explained that historical information was also used by Jones and Associates for growth projection. Mr. Rasmussen said that over time the Governor’s Office projections are usually pretty close. In general if growth is a little faster, the life is a little shorter and if growth is slower, the life is a little longer.

Councilmember Vance asserted that the decision to expand the WWTP hinges on whether Garland stays on the system or leaves. Garland currently accounts for 40% of total usage. Mr. Rasmussen told the Council that compliance for phosphorus is mandatory as of January 1, 2020. Director Fulgham stated that the 40% Garland uses is flow not load and will not make a big difference on load if Garland stays on the system or leaves. Right now the City is almost at capacity on load (solids handling). The Council does not know if Garland will be staying or not but that outcome could affect their decision.

The impact fees would go up $5,300 if approved. Councilmember Holmgren has seen people fight over $500 when looking to build in Tremonton. There is a need to make improvements to the WWTP. Director Fulgham explained that the City is at 10% of being at capacity and the Division of Water Quality will want to know where the City is planning for design and bid. Councilmember Vance noted it is a balancing act. Should the City invest money for future growth that may or may not come or should the City raise taxes?

Councilmember Rohde asked about the bond process and if it would go up for election. Manager Warnke said the bond would not go up for election. Ms. Weber explained it would be a sewer revenue bond. Finance Director Roberts stated there are two types of bonds that are typical. The first is the general obligation bond that has key phrasing, meaning you pledge the full faith taxing power of the City. The City is guaranteeing to raise property taxes to pay the bond. It is the most secure bond and has to have an election because it is pledging future property taxes up to 100% of property tax revenues. They are very common but not for utilities. They are used for things like building City Offices or a Fire Department that is funded off a property tax base.

The other bond is a revenue bond. The City would pledge the revenue stream. This type does not require an election but does require a public hearing. Information presented in the public hearing could include the term of the bond, proposed repayment, and the proposed stream. Many cities issue a sales tax. That is what Tremonton City pledged with the UTOPIA bonds. T Utility revenue bonds are a little different because the City pledges to raise utility rates sufficient to pay the debt and meet certain debt covenants. Most have an income/cash flow calculation. There is a ratio that must be met as far as how much revenue the rates generate relative to your debt service coverage.

The calculation is based on the amount being borrowed and current rates. The bank will then state where the rates need to be in order to issue the bond unless there is sufficient revenue within the system to pay the bond. It is called bonding capacity. Tremonton has some bonding capacity now because there is no debt in the Treatment Plant Fund. If the City bonded, the Treatment Plant Revenues would be dedicated to repayment of the bond. Councilmember Rohde asked how much the fees would need to increase to cover the bond. Finance Director Roberts noted there would need to be a debt service calculation but he estimated the rates would need to go up approximately $11 each month just to cover the bond. No bank will allow a City to pledge impact fees because impact fees are not a guaranteed stream.

Councilmember Reese is concerned with raising impact fees for new homes in Tremonton. The Council must look at what is best for future residents of Tremonton. Councilmember Holmgren noted the current impact fees for surrounding cities: Perry – $14,700, Brigham – $9,600, Tremonton is $8,200 but could raise to $13,500, Willard – $12,000, Bear River City – $21,000, Garland – $7,800, Elwood – $16,000, Plain City – $10,000, Smithfield – $6,700, and North Logan – $8,700. The surrounding area rates need to play a part in the decision. Mr. Rasmussen noted that Smithfield and North Logan are connected to Logan and the fees would come from Logan.

Councilmember Reese would like to see the other cities plans and fees on paper. It would be good for the City to stay in line with the competition. Director Fulgham can get the user fees. The Council would like to see the user fees and impact fees for other cities for comparison. Mr. Rasmussen told the Council to look at Tremonton City’s WWTP needs. The Council can increase impact fees which could slow growth or shift the burden of expense onto existing customers. It is a balancing and a hard decision for the Council to make.

Councilmember Doutre does not want to put the burden on user fees because there are a lot of users on a fixed income. Mayor Fridal said that someone will have to pay for it. Mr. Rasmussen noted the advantage to adopting the impact fees sooner rather than later would be the cash reserves going in the bank. The cash reserves would reduce the bond which would in turn decrease the amount the City is forced to raise user fees to cover the debt service.

Ms. Weber reminded the Council that if growth is coming and the City is collecting user fees, 85.8% of the bond expense is impact fee qualifying. If impact fees do not come in fast enough, the money can be borrowed from user rates and paid back with impact fees as they are collected. The Council and Mayor thanked Mr. Rasmussen and Ms. Weber for their work and time in explaining the information and for their patience. Manager Warnke told the Council that impact fees can be lowered at anytime without going through any public process other than posting the item on the City Council agenda. If the Council adopts the maximum amount allowed by law, that amount could be adjusted later if it affects growth.

8. Public Hearing:

Mayor Fridal called a Public Hearing to order at 7:50 p.m. to consider adopting Ordinance No. 16-01. There were 30 people in attendance.

a. Ordinance No. 16-01 adopting a capital facilities plan and Impact Fee Facilities Plan for the Wastewater Treatment Plant

Micah Capener calculated there are 2.62 people per ERU in Tremonton. By adding 2,252 new ERUs it would increase the population by 5,900 people. There was a plan Mr. Capener found on the City’s website from 2013 showing the future estimated population to nine thousand and some. Is the phosphorus removal going to be paid for by the new users and the old users? Garland’s number of ERUs on the 2013 plan was 800 ERUs. The plan in reference is the Capital Facilities Sewer Collection Plan for 2013. Manager Warnke noted that plan is for Collection not Wastewater but uses some of the same information. Mr. Capener asked Director Fulgham the difference between companies and individuals. Is it just the amount of water? Director Fulgham said the difference is not the flow but the loading or BOD (Biochemical Oxygen Demand). When a toilet is flushed, that is loading. Every person puts out .16 pounds of solids a day. West Liberty Foods brings BODs with fats, oils, greases, and meats. Post Consumer Brands also has BODs in the form of starches and sugars in the water. They are charged based on loading and flow. Mr. Capener said it seems coincidental that everywhere he goes putting things together and bringing development to the town, issues like this crop up prior to him arriving. Councilmember Holmgren hit it on the head, stated Mr. Capener; people are coming to Tremonton because of the prices. The City needs a sewer facility but it needs to be done carefully. Garland’s numbers have to be addressed.

Jay Stocking is a home builder in the area and is concerned. Mr. Stocking noted that Councilmember Holmgren is exactly right. When Mr. Stocking meets with home buyers, the concern is the price point. People come from Ogden and all over. People will haggle over a $30K lot in Tremonton because they only want to pay $25K. It happens over and over again. There was a study done with the National Homebuilders Association. For every $1,000 you increase the price of a home, it takes over 200,000 buyers out of the market. That is a national average. That is a big number and needs to have a real critical look at it to make sure it is something Tremonton can handle. Mr. Stocking asked Zoning Administrator Bench how many permits were issued last year. He was told there were thirty (30) homes last year. Mr. Stocking noted that is not a big number. It might be a big number for here but he builds in subdivisions across Utah where he builds thirty (30) homes in three (3) months. If you want to see people consider and be able to move here and your kids stay here, price is something that is going to have to be looked at. Mr. Stocking understands people are on a fixed income but that is the case everywhere. It also needs to be addressed. New homes cannot be the save all. Impact Fees can be increased to help but phosphorus is there now and is a problem for all of us. We all have to chip in to make the problem go away. Mr. Stocking said he and Mr. Capener have people say $5K can make or break it for them. It raises the price of the old homes. Raising the prices makes people not be able to afford housing and people look at apartments. The new rates would raise the building price by $4K for apartments and the difference would be made up in rent. Things would not be as affordable and people would stay away. It is quite concerning. Many people come to Tremonton based on price point.

Mark Allred said he builds and develops in the community. When Mr. Allred heard about the Impact Fee Enactment he questioned if it would slow the market down. The market seems to be getting better compared to last year. Mr. Allred was able to purchase a lot in Elwood for a customer for $28K six to eight (6-8) months ago. When going through the process with the building permit and impact fees, the total cost came to $40K which is the same as half acre lot in Tremonton for $40K. The City needs to see what is being setting up to figure how septic tanks will work. Annexation into Tremonton that costs $5-6K more per lot makes it look better for buyers to stay in the County with a septic tank. There are quite a few options available. If the Council adopts the fee and builders have ninety (90) days before the fee goes into effect, the appraisals need to go up. Subs are making a little more money and houses are moving forward. It has been a little busier but the appraisals are still a little tight on new construction. Appraisals took a hit with the lot values. There has been an increase, but Mr. Allred almost lost a sale over $500. The same buyer told Mr. Allred that plans need to get going because there will be a $5-6K increase to the contract. There are five (5) or six (6) lots a contractor is looking at in the County which are going septic. Those lots for $45-48K are a lot more impressive than what is available in Tremonton for $35-40K. Mr. Allred owns lots in Tremonton and would like to sell them. The Council brought up the proper questions regarding Garland. There needs to be an increase in sewer but maybe it should be in phases. Maybe both parties, the ones using the system now and the ones who will be using it, could take part of the brunt and not have $6K to new homebuilders. The increase is a pretty hard pill to swallow. Mr. Allred knows he will loose business in town because of the increase. He builds from Honeyville to Tremonton and asked what will be done with the impact for people on the half acre lots with a septic? Is that something that is going to be addressed? Elwood seemed pretty harsh how it was set up. Mr. Allred asked how that will affect his half acre and three quarter lots that are set up for septic. This is only a sewer impact that is set up for the sewer that is hooked to it. The home for the customer in Elwood had a septic tank and had sewer running right by. The price of the lot had to be lowered to get it to sell because of the sewer impact fees.

Mayor Fridal closed the Public Hearing at 8:02 p.m.

Mayor Fridal asked Manager Warnke to explain the differences in Ordinance No. 16-01 and Ordinance No. 16-02. Manager Warnke explained that one will adopt an Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP). The IFFP looks at all the projects the City intends to do within the next six to ten (6-10) years and what is needed to accommodate growth. The Impact Fee Enactment and Impact Fee Analysis, which is Ordinance No. 16-02, looks at the IFFP and calculates the maximum allowable impact fee that can be charged based upon the projects. They are related but the State Code breaks them into two (2) separate processes with two separate professionals. The engineer does the plan and the financial institution handles the analysis.

Mayor Fridal called a Public Hearing to order at 8:03 p.m. to consider adopting Ordinance No. 16-02. There were 30 people in attendance.

b. Ordinance No. 16-02 adopting Wastewater Treatment Plant Impact Fee Enactment, including but not limited to adopting an Impact Fee Analysis.

Paul Fulgham identified himself as a resident and member of the public and noted that he was not commenting as the Public Works Director. Mr. Fulgham stated that he has been a resident of Tremonton for twenty-four (24) years and in the area longer. New growth ought to pay for itself. If you ask any of the constituents, they probably will not want their sewer rate to go up because of new homes. Mr. Fulgham does not want his sewer rates to help cover new homes. He would like new people in town to keep the community vibrant, but they should pay their own way. When Mr. Fulgham bought a home in 1992, it was before impact fees. The impact fees were pushed through in 1997-1998 by developers. He chose to buy an older home built in 1911 because that was what he could afford. The user fees have been paid for that home since 1913 when the City had the first sewer system. Mr. Fulgham stated that as a homeowner, he would not like his sewer fees to go up just to build infrastructure for new people coming in. Existing residents have paid into the facility to keep it upgraded for our needs and to pay for the phosphorus removal. New growth should pay for itself. Mr. Fulgham would like growth in the City and would like there to be places for his children to live.

Mayor Fridal closed the Public Hearing at 8:06 p.m.

9. Appointments:

a. Appointment of a Library Board member – Librarian Kim Griffiths

Librarian Griffiths submitted the name of Laura Bloomfield to be on the Library Board.

Motion by Councilmember Holmgren to approve Laura Bloomfield as a member of the Library Board. Motion seconded by Councilmember Doutre. Vote: Councilmember Doutre – aye, Councilmember Holmgren – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, and Councilmember Vance – aye. Motion approved. Recorder Hess asked Librarian Griffiths about Diana Murphy-Owen. Librarian Griffiths remarked that Ms. Murphy-Owen told her she will not be able to serve on the Library Board. They will be looking for another Board member.

b. Appointment of a Planning Commission member- Councilmember Bret Rohde

This item was tabled.

10. New Council Business:

a. Discussion and consideration of approving Ordinance No. 16-01 adopting a capital facilities plan and Impact Fee Facilities Plan for the Wastewater Treatment Plant

Councilmember Rohde noted he is not ready to vote on this item. Councilmember Doutre appreciates the people who came tonight. The Council does not always hear both sides. She thanked the public for their input and Finance Director Roberts for coming. It was good to hear information from Manager Warnke and Director Fulgham. Councilmember Doutre would like to table Ordinance No. 16-01 to have time to study it more. Councilmember Doutre thanked Mr. Rasmussen and Ms. Weber were thanked for their time but remarked she is not ready to vote at this time.

Councilmember Vance asked how much it would set the City back to push this item back six (6) months. Ms. Weber and Mr. Rasmussen do not know what costs would change in six (6) months but noted that the City will be missing out on the money that could be coming in. Councilmember Holmgren remarked that even if fifteen (15) houses start in the next six (6) months it is not a deal breaker. No one on City Council disagrees that something needs to be done for the WWTP. The City always tries to help big industry but should also remember to watch out for the little people. This item needs to be studied a bit more.

Councilmember Doutre would like to give builders a little more notice before changes are made. It was suggested that Ordinance No. 16-01 be tabled for six (6) months. Councilmember Reese would like a little more time before making a decision. Councilmember Holmgren stated he would like to continue to watch how things will progress with Garland. The Council may have more information regarding Garland’s plans within the next six (6) months.

Motion by Councilmember Doutre to table Ordinance No. 16-01 for six (6) months. Motion seconded by Councilmember Holmgren. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Vance – aye, Councilmember Doutre – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, and Councilmember Holmgren – aye. Motion approved.

b. Discussion and consideration of approving Ordinance No. 16-02 adopting and enacting impact fees for the Wastewater Treatment Plant, including but not limited to adopting an Impact Fee Analysis

Motion by Councilmember Rohde to table Ordinance No. 16-02 for six (6) months as well and get a little more information and look for some out of the box ways to finance. Motion seconded by Councilmember Vance. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Vance – aye, Councilmember Doutre – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, and Councilmember Holmgren – aye. Motion approved.

c. Discussion and consideration of approving Ordinance No. 16-03 rezoning the area of 2650 West 450 North from Commercial Highway (CH) and Mixed Use (MU) to Residential Multi-Family (RM-16)

Zoning Administrator Bench explained that the area of 2650 West and 450 North has Multi-Family 4-plex units and some larger Multi-Family Developments. There have been some changes over the years that changed the zoning so one part of that area cannot do 4-plexes and another part can only do 4-plexes and no multi-level stacked like what already exist there. Ordinance No.16-03 will rezone the area to RM-16 which is Residential Multi-Family Zoning and sixteen (16) units an acre.

Councilmember Rohde asked how residents feel about the proposed changes. Zoning Administrator Bench replied that a notice went out to everyone within 300 feet and there were no replies. There are currently Multi-Family units there. This ordinance will make it possible for landowners to finish building.

Motion by Councilmember Reese to approve Ordinance No. 16-03. Motion seconded by Councilmember Holmgren. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Holmgren – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Doutre – aye, and Councilmember Vance – aye. Motion approved.

d. Discussion and consideration of adopting Ordinance No. 16-04 amending the Tremonton City Land Use Code, prohibiting the practice of tattooing and body art within all zoning districts of the Tremonton City Land Use Code and defining the term Tattooing and Body Art

Councilmember Rohde recalled that the Planning Commission talked about this item and wanted language included that discussed markings excluding lips, eyelids, and eyebrow. Zoning Administrator Bench confirmed that language has been included in Ordinance No. 16-04.

Micah Capener stated that a sexually oriented business (SOB) cannot be denied in the City. The same is true with tattooing, it should probably be allowed in the same area as a SOB. It is unlawful to say a certain business cannot do business in the City. Manager Warnke has discussed this item with the City Attorney but will ask him that specific question. That law is true for a SOB but Manager Warnke does not believe it applies to all land uses.

Motion by Councilmember Reese to adopt Ordinance No. 16-04. Motion seconded by Councilmember Doutre. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Vance – aye, Councilmember Doutre – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, and Councilmember Holmgren – aye. Motion approved.

e. Discussion and consideration of approving Resolution No. 16-04 reaffirming, amending and enacting new fees and fines in a schedule entitled Tremonton City Consolidated fees and fines schedule, including but not limited to a proposed increase to Wastewater Treatment Fees

Councilmember Reese stated this is what was set in motion last year by the Council. Manager Warnke noted it will set in motion future increases including a $2.75 increase that will take affect this year and for two additional years thereafter.

Motion by Councilmember Holmgren to approve Resolution No. 16-04 and reaffirm this amending and enacting new fees and fines. Motion seconded by Councilmember Rohde. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Holmgren – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Doutre – aye, and Councilmember Vance – aye. Motion approved.

f. Discussion and consideration of adopting Resolution No. 16-05 approving a Memorandum of Understanding between Tremonton City and the Box Elder School District and City for a School Resource Officer (SRO) and the joint participation in funding the SRO

Chief Nance said this item was discussed in a previous City Council. The contract has been submitted to Box Elder School District (BESD). This Resolution will ratify it. Councilmember Doutre asked which schools this would affect. Chief Nance noted it was for the two (2) elementary schools in town and Alice C. Harris Intermediate School. The officer will do approximately seven (7) hours a week with BESD agreeing to chip in on funding.

Motion by Councilmember Doutre to adopt Resolution No. 16-05 and approve this Memorandum of Understanding between the school district and the City. Motion seconded by Councilmember Reese. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Vance – aye, Councilmember Doutre – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, and Councilmember Holmgren – aye. Motion approved.

g. Discussion and consideration of adopting Resolution No. 16-06 accepting a Petition for Annexation of certain real property under the provisions of Section 10-2-403 and 10-2-405, Utah Code Annotated, 1953, as amended

Manager Warnke stated this is one of the first steps in annexation. The Council must adopt a resolution accepting the petition. Chris Sorenson and Jim Christensen from the BESD are in attendance tonight. There will be a meeting tomorrow with Mr. Sorenson about a future collector road that is planned in the Transportation Plan through this area proposed in the annexation. The annexation agreement will formalize the fact that there is a collector road that will go north to south through the area.

Recorder Hess noted that it was sent to the County and some corrections were made. If the Resolution is approved, there is a three (3) week public notice and m mailing that has to go out to all affected entities. It takes a little while to send it through.

Motion by Councilmember Reese to adopt Resolution No. 16-06. Motion seconded by Councilmember Rohde. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Holmgren – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Doutre – aye, and Councilmember Vance – aye. Motion approved.

h. Discussion and consideration of sending a letter to Garland City informing them of increases to Wastewater Treatment User Fees and Wastewater Treatment Plant Impact Fees

Councilmember Reese read the letter and saw no problems. Manager Warnke will make changes to the letter to reflect the action the Council took tonight. The Mayor will review the changes before Manager Warnke sends the letter to Garland.

Motion by Councilmember Holmgren to consider sending letter to Garland City informing them of the Wastewater Treatment Plant User Fees but no the Impact Fees at this point. Motion seconded by Councilmember Reese. Councilmember Holmgren changed his motion from consider sending to send. Changes seconded by Councilmember Reese. Vote: Councilmember Doutre – aye, Councilmember Holmgren – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, and Councilmember Vance – aye. Motion approved.

11. Comments:

a. Administration/City Manager Advice and Consent.

1) Continuation of any agenda item contained on workshop agenda

Manager Warnke noted that he requested the Council to go to Closed Session at the end of the Council Reports.

2) Solicitation of qualifications for concessionaire services at Jeanie Stevens Park and North Park

Manager Warnke said Parks & Recreation Director Christensen would like to explore the idea of having a concessionaire run the concession stands. The City would request the submission of qualifications to see if anyone is interested. Typically, cities take 10% of the gross sales as compensation for use of the facility under concessionaire agreements. Councilmember Reese stated it would not hurt to look around. It is a lot of work. Manager Warnke noted that Parks & Recreation Director Christensen spends a lot of time and makes several trips to Sam’s Club to purchase supplies. Some of the seasonal employees that have run the concession stands for years may not be returning. This would be a good time to look at making a change. The Mayor and Council gave consent for City staff to explore this option.

b. Council Reports:

Councilmember Holmgren showed the Council the new website at tremontoncity.org. It is ready to launch and Councilmember Holmgren is excited about it. There has been a lot of work that has gone into it. Everyone was invited to explore the new website. He asked if there were any suggestions. He asked the Council to look over the City Council list of responsibilities for accuracy. There is a Facebook link by each Councilmember’s name and job description. The home page has a nice welcome from the Mayor and a welcome to Councilmember Vance. There is also a link to the murals around town by Jason Nessen. Mayor Fridal asked when the website would become official. Councilmember Holmgren said there is not a vote necessary but if the Council likes the website it will become official. Councilmember Vance stated it is awesome. Zoning Administrator Bench noted the Code needs to be moved over from the old website. Councilmember Holmgren stated the website will be a work in progress. The old website will be accessible but will be coming down soon.

Councilmember Rohde noted that he thinks the City should accept credit cards for everything. Councilmember Reese asked how to make that happen. Manager Warnke stated it would need to be put on the agenda and said there are things to consider and steps that would need to be taken. Councilmember Rohde would like to look into it.

Councilmember Vance would like to meet with Manager Warnke and look at the financials.

Mayor Fridal noted that he and Manager Warnke have a handout regarding Economic Development. They have been involved with EDC Utah. He asked the Council to come with questions next City Council regarding Economic Development. It is hugely important to Tremonton City.

Motion by Councilmember Rohde to move into Closed Session. Motion seconded by Councilmember Doutre. Vote: Councilmember Doutre – aye, Councilmember Holmgren – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, Councilmember Vance – aye. Motion approved.

The Council moved into closed session at 8:37 p.m.

CLOSED SESSION:
a. Strategy session to discuss the purchase of real property when public discussion of the transaction would disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration or prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms

b. Session to discuss the mental health, character, and competence of an individual

Motion by Councilmember Rohde to move to open meeting. Motion seconded by Councilmember Doutre. Roll Call Vote: Councilmember Vance – aye, Councilmember Doutre – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, Councilmember Holmgren – aye. Motion approved.

The Council moved into open meeting at 9:18 p.m.

12. Adjournment.

Motion by Councilmember Holmgren to adjourn the meeting. Motion seconded by Councilmember Doutre. Vote: Councilmember Doutre – aye, Councilmember Holmgren – aye, Councilmember Reese – aye, Councilmember Rohde – aye, and Councilmember Vance – aye. Motion approved.

The meeting adjourned at 9:19 p.m.

The undersigned duly acting and appointed Recorder for Tremonton City Corporation hereby certifies that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of the minutes for the City Council Meeting held on the above referenced date. Minutes were prepared by Cynthia Nelson.

Dated this day of , 2016.
Darlene S. Hess, Recorder