Packet Materials

1. December 11, 2019 Town Council Agenda

Documents:

121119.TCA.COURTESY.REV.PDF

2. December 11, 2019 Packet Materials

Documents:

ITEM C1 - HISTORIC STRUCTURE PRELIM FINAL PLAT.PDF ITEM C2 - PU ZONE CHANGE MULTIPLE PROPERTIES.PDF ITEM C3 - PU ZONE CHANGE HISTORIC STRUCTURE.PDF ITEM D1 - LEE TRANSIENT LODGING CUP MODIFICATION_REDACTED.PDF ITEM D2 - R2019-14 UTAH COMMUNITY RENEWABLE ENERGY.REV.PDF ITEM D3 - R2019-12 BUDGET AMENDMENT NO.1 FY19-20.PDF ITEM D7 - FERBER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AMENDMENT.PDF ITEM D8 - PROPERTY DONATION_REDACTED.PDF ITEM D9 - R2019-13 FEE SCHEDULE REVISIONS.PDF ITEM D10 - 2020 PROPOSED MEETING DATES.REV.PDF

118 Lion Blvd PO Box 187 Springdale UT 84767 * 435-772-3434 fax 435-772-3952

TOWN COUNCIL NOTICE AND AGENDA THE SPRINGDALE TOWN COUNCIL WILL HOLD A MEETING ON WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 11, 2019 AT THE CANYON COMMUNITY CENTER, 126 LION BLVD., SPRINGDALE, UTAH MEETING STARTS AT 5:00PM. **Amended agenda adds item D4 and D5 below with correction to item D6

Pledge of Allegiance Approval of the regular meeting agenda A. Information/Discussion 1. General announcements 2. Zion National Park update – Superintendent Bradybaugh 3. Council department reports 4. Community questions and comments

B. Special Recognition 1. Acknowledgement of Mike Alltucker for his service as a Town Council member from 2014-2019

C. Legislative Action Items 1. Public Hearing – Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat: A subdivision, splitting parcel S-100-A-1-A into two lots, separating the Best Western Hotel from the historic structure in front of the hotel – Town of Springdale 2. Public Hearing – Zone Change: Changing the zoning of various properties to Public Use (PU). These are properties that have a public use, but are not currently in the Public Use (PU) zone. The properties are: S-101-F, S-101-B, S- 134, S-162-A-1-F, S-ANP-1-A (water tanks), S-160-A-4-1 (right-of-way), S-160-B (a portion of the Jolley-Gifford cemetery), S-68 (the historic pioneer cemetery) - Town of Springdale 3. Public Hearing – Zone Change: Changing the zone of the newly created portion of S-100-A-1-A (the historic structure in front of the Best Western hotel) from Central Commercial (CC) to Public Use (PU)

D. Administrative Action Items 1. Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit Modification: Request to increase the number of transient lodging units allowed by the zone for existing conditional use permits on parcels S-BIT-1 and S-BIT-2 (a net increase of one transient lodging unit) – Ryan Lee 2. Discussion and possible adoption of Resolution 2019-14 declaring Springdale’s intent to participate in the Utah Community Renewable Energy Act 3. Public Budget Hearing - Resolution 2019-12 to open and amend the FY 2019-20 budget 4. **Appointment of Tyler Young as Planning Commissioner for term expiring January 2021 5. **Appointment of Barbara Bruno as Planning Commission first alternate for term expiring September 2022 6. Appointment of Eric Rioux as Planning Commission second alternate for term expiring January 2022 7. Ratification of amendment to the Development Agreement between the Town of Springdale and Stewart Ferber 8. Consideration and possible acceptance of property donation: Transfer of Parcel S-161-A-1-C (located on Quail Ridge Road) from Curtis Oberhansly to the Town of Springdale 9. Resolution 2019-13, a Resolution revising the fee schedule for Town operations, including fees related to loss of water from private unmetered fire service connections, animal boarding, culinary water meters, irrigation connections, and events & temporary use permits, effective upon passage 10. Approval of the 2020 Town Council and Planning Commission meeting schedules

E. Consent Agenda 1. Review of monthly invoices 2. Minutes: November 13th

F. Administrative Non-Action Items 1. General Council discussion

G. Adjourn

This notice is provided as a courtesy to the community and is not the official notice for this meeting/hearing. This notice is not required by town ordinance or policy. Failure of the Town to provide this notice or failure of a property owner, resident, or other interested party to receive this notice does not constitute a violation of the Town’s noticing requirements or policies.

The Town of Springdale complies with the Americans with Disabilities Act by providing accommodations and auxiliary communicative aids and services for all those citizens in need of assistance. Persons requesting these accommodations for Town-sponsored public meetings, services, programs, or events should call Springdale Town Clerk Darci Carlson at 435-772-3434 at least 24 hours before the meeting.

Packet materials for agenda items will be available on the Town website by 5:00pm on December 6, 2019: http://www.springdaletown.com/AgendaCenter/Town-Council-4

Memorandum To: Town Council From: Thomas Dansie, Director of Community Development Date: December 6, 2019 Re: December 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plats: Best Western Property, 668 Zion Park Boulevard

Overview The Town of Springdale is requesting approval of a preliminary and final subdivision plat that will split the Best Western property at 668 Zion Park Boulevard into two parcels. One parcel will continue to house the Best Western hotel. The other parcel will house the historic structure. This parcel split is envisioned by and called for in a development agreement between the Town and the Best Western property owners. The subdivision will allow the historic structure parcel to be deeded to the Town of Springdale.

As allowed by Town Ordinance for minor subdivisions, both the preliminary and final plats are being presented together for review.

As contemplated in the development agreement, the subdivided historic structure parcel is intended to be placed in the Public Use (PU) zone. A zone change to the PU zone for this parcel is on the Council’s current agenda. This report analyzes the historic structure parcel based on the standards in the PU zone. If the historic structure parcel were to remain in the CC zone, then the parcel would fail to meet several land use standards. Thus, should the Council wish to approve the proposed subdivision, such approval must be contingent on subsequent approval of the zone change to the PU zone for the historic structure parcel.

The only new infrastructure proposed with this subdivision is a new water connection and a new vehicular access off SR9 to serve the historic structure parcel. All other infrastructure necessary to serve the two proposed lots is already in place. Thus, the main issue for the Council to consider is whether or not the proposed historic structure lot meets all the lot requirements in the PU zone, and the remaining Best Western lot continues to meet all the requirements for the CC zone.

Applicable Ordinances Staff recommends the Council review the following ordinances prior to the meeting: 1. Chapter 10-11A: Central Commercial Zone 2. Chapter 10-12: Public Use Zone 3. Chapter 10-14: Subdivisions

Staff Analysis Preliminary Plat The purpose of the preliminary plat is to make sure the subdivision meets all required zoning standards and to review the proposed infrastructure improvements. Staff’s analysis of the preliminary plat in relation to these two issues follows.

Lot Size The minimum lot size in the CC zone is 0.25 acres. The Best Western parcel in the CC zone will measure 3.77 acres. There is no minimum lot size in the PU zone. The historic structure parcel in the PU zone will measure 0.13 acres.

Lot Width Lots in the CC zone must have a minimum width of 50 feet. The Best Western parcel will have a lot width ranging between 76 and 300 feet. The PU zone requires a lot width of 80 feet. The historic structure parcel in the PU zone will have a lot width of 80 feet.

Lot Frontage Lots in the CC zone must have at least 50 feet of frontage on a public street, private street, or private lane. The Best Western parcel in the CC zone will have 76 feet of lot frontage on SR9. The PU zone requires 35 feet of lot frontage. The historic structure parcel in the PU zone will have just over 80 feet of frontage on SR9.

Setbacks The newly created lot line separating the two parcels will create new setback requirements for the existing development on each lot. However, the development agreement exempts the existing development (the historic structure, as well as the employee housing structure on the Best Western parcel) from the setback requirements from this new lot line. There are no other structures that would be impacted by setbacks from the new lot line.

Landscape The CC zone requires at least 40% of the property to remain in natural open space or landscape. The Best Western Parcel in the CC zone will have at least 44% of the property in landscape area. The PU zone requires at least 50% of the property to remain in natural open space or landscape. Currently, the historic structure parcel in the PU zone has approximately 70% of the property in landscape. The Development Agreement allows a reduction in the landscape area requirements on the historic structure parcel, if necessary, to develop a parking area. Compliance with landscape requirements associated with potential future development on the historic structure parcel will be analyzed as part of a future DDR process.

Infrastructure With the exception of culinary water to serve the historic structure parcel, all utilities are already connected to both lots. There will need to be a new connection for culinary water on the historic structure parcel. Should the Council wish to approve the subdivision, such approval should include a condition that requires public works department approval of the new culinary water connection.

The historic structure parcel does not currently have an access onto SR9. UDOT has given preliminary approval for a new access to serve the historic structure parcel. Final UDOT approval will be granted in conjunction with a future DDR for redevelopment and reuse of the historic structure parcel.

Final Plat The main issue for the Council to consider in reviewing the final plat is conformance with the preliminary plat. As both documents are being presented it is evident that the final plat conforms to the preliminary plat.

Public Comment The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this application in their November meeting. One member of the public spoke in opposition to the proposed subdivision. The resident expressed concerns about the process associated with the development agreement. The resident felt the Town was not being transparent, and was acting hypocritically by giving itself concessions from land use requirements for a project it wanted while at the same time vigorously opposing the DSU lodging project.

Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation The Planning Commission deliberated on this project in their November meeting. Several members of the Commission questioned whether or not the structure being transferred to the Town was really a historic structure and whether it was justified for the Town to acquire it. The Commission had concerns about the setbacks to the historic structure, as well as the future parking area and its ability to comply with parking and landscape standards. However, the Commission found the subdivision as presented met all the standards in the ordinance and therefore needed to be approved.

The Commission voted to recommend approval of the preliminary and final subdivision plats, with the following conditions:

1- Approval of the subdivision plats is contingent on the historic structure parcel being rezoned to the Pubic Use (PU) zone. If this parcel is not rezoned it will not meet land use standards for the current Central Commercial (CC) zone, and the subdivision cannot be approved. 2- The Public Works Department must review and approve the new culinary water connection to serve the historic structure parcel. A building permit for any new development or redevelopment on the historic structure parcel will not be issued until the Public Works Department has approved the new water connection. 3- The Utah Department of Transportation must give formal written approval for the new proposed access to serve the historic structure parcel. A building permit for any new development or redevelopment on the historic structure parcel will not be issued until UDOT has approved the new access.

This recommendation passed on a 4 to 1 vote, with Commissioner Pitti voting “no.”

DRAFT minutes of the Commission’s discussion on this item are included on the following page.

Draft Minutes of the November 20, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting

Public Hearing – Preliminary and Final Subdivision Plat: A subdivision, splitting parcel S-100-A-1-A into two lots, separating the Best Western Hotel from the historic structure in front of the hotel - Town of Springdale: The intent of this proposal was to separate the historic structure from the remainder of the hotel property. This action had been contemplated in the development agreement and would allow the transfer of the property from the current owner to the Town of Springdale. As an administrative item, if the standards in code had been met the Commission should recommend approval.

If a subdivision created three or fewer lots, Town code allowed a preliminary and final plat to be presented together. Mr. Dansie indicated staff analysis was based on the hotel property remaining in the Central Commercial zone and the historic structure parcel being rezoned to Public Use (PU), as would be considered in the subsequent agenda item.

Commission questions to staff: Mr. Marriott questioned vehicular access from SR-9 and the landscape requirement. • The new curb cut would be in the UDOT right-of-way and not add any non-landscaped area; however, based on staff and Town engineer conceptual drawings, the future driveway and parking spaces would reduce landscape area from 70% to 50% which was the minimum required by the Public Use zone. This analysis would be part of a subsequent Design/Development Review.

Mr. Pitti noted the property did not meet the required ten-foot (10’) side setback standard for the PU zone. • The setback on the southwest side of the existing building was already noncomplying. With a new lot line drawn between the historic structure parcel and employee housing parcel, neither would meet the required setback from the property line. The development agreement allowed flexibility from the setback requirements for both buildings, but any other development on the property would need to meet the PU setback standards.

Regarding parking standards, Mr. Pitti referenced code section 10-23-7K which specified all on-site parking should be located to the rear or side of buildings. • Mr. Dansie indicated this was a specific requirement in the CC zone but was a general planning goal for other zones. • Mr. Pitti said section 10-12-11 also seemed to conflict with front parking in the PU zone.

Mr. Marriott asked the required number of parking spaces. • The building required between 3-5 parking spaces depending on the configuration and use of the property.

Public questions to staff: None were asked.

Motion made by Joe Pitti to open public hearing. Seconded by Allan Staker. Staker: Aye Young: Aye Marriott: Aye Pitti: Aye Bruno: Aye

Motion passed unanimously.

Public comment: Mark Chambers read his prepared comments into the record (Attachment #1).

Motion made by Joe Pitti to close public hearing. Seconded by Allan Staker. Staker: Aye Young: Aye Marriott: Aye Pitti: Aye Bruno: Aye Motion passed unanimously.

Commission deliberation: In looking at the standards, Ms. Bruno said the proposal appeared to be compliant. The setback issue was addressed in the development agreement and the zone change would be discussed in the next agenda item. Mr. Young agreed. • Mr. Staker did not have any issues and said the proposal met parameters.

Mr. Marriott was unsure where the Town stood regarding the historic nature of the building and if modifications could help mitigate setback issues. • Based on minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission, Mr. Pitti said there was doubt about the historic integrity of the building. Due to its alterations the history was the story, not the structure. He objected this was being handled through the development agreement.

Motion made by Barbara Bruno that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the preliminary and final subdivision plats for the Best Western subdivision, located at 668 Zion Park Boulevard. This motion is based on the following findings: 1) As this is an administrative item, the request meets all the requirements to-date and the development agreement makes an exception for the setback. With the following recommended conditions of approval: 1) The parcel must be rezoned to Public Use; 2) Subject to the Public Works Department reviewing and approving the new culinary water connection and a building permit must not be issued until this is done; 3) The Utah Department of Transportation must give formal written approval for the proposed access to serve the historic structure parcel and no building permit shall be issued until this is done. Seconded by Tyler Young. Staker: Aye Young: Aye Marriott: Aye Pitti: No Bruno: Aye Motion passed.

From: Mark To: Springdale Town Subject: SHPC Best Western Plat and Zone Change Date: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 5:23:46 PM

November 20, 2019

Dear Planning Commission,

Recently Dixie State University (DSU) proposed to Zion Canyon Mesa (ZCM) a land swap. In exchange for buildings and support DSU would obtain the ZCM property and change the zoning outside the scope of Springdale Town. There was tremendous Town Council leadership and citizen outpouring of opposition to ZCM making a deal with DSU to obtain free buildings; and for DSU to change the land use and ignore Springdale Town ordinances. ZCM’s Board had the vision and integrity to unanimously vote to reject the proposal and are seen as heroes by many in Town.

The Town of Springdale unfortunately accepted the Best Western offer for a building and in exchange traded land use regulations to The Best Western Corporation. This has set the stage for developers to challenge the Town ordinances and zoning.

Tonight, the Town of Springdale is requesting what DSU wanted to do. That is change the zoning, so the Town does not have to follow its own ordinances. It would be very duplicitous and hypocritical for the Town to approve this plat and zone change as it strongly opposed the similar Dixie State University proposal.

Submitted by, Mark Chambers

Teach InfoWest Spam Trap if this mail is spam: Spam Not spam Forget previous vote

REMEMBER: Never give out your account information, password, or other personal information over e-mail.

Memorandum To: Town Council From: Thomas Dansie, Director of Community Development Date: December 6, 2019 Re: December 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Zone Change Proposal: PU Zone Change on Multiple Properties

Overview There are a number of properties in the Town that have a public use, and will likely never have any other use other than a public use, that are currently zoned Foothill Residential (FR). Many of these lots are substandard in lot size for the zone in which they are located, and are thus non-conforming lots. All have uses that are either non-conforming for the zone in which they are located, or are better fit for the PU zone.

These parcels are:

a. Parcel S-101-J (Town water tank) b. Parcel S-101-B (Town water tank) c. Parcel S-134 (Abandoned town water tank) d. Parcel S-162-A-1-F (Irrigation system tank) e. Parcel S-ANP-1-A (Town water tank) f. Parcel S-160-A-4-1 (Wash/right-of-way) g. Parcel S-160-B (Jolley-Gifford Cemetery) h. Parcel S-68 (Historic Pioneer Cemetery)

The following staff analysis identifies each specific property, and gives information specific to that property. All these properties are being presented together for efficiency sake. However, they all need to be analyzed independently for zone change approval. The Council can hold one public hearing to accept public comment on all properties together. This would be the most efficient. Alternatively, the Council is welcome to hold a separate public hearing on any individual parcel that may have unique concern.

Applicable Code Sections The Council may wish to review the following code sections prior to the meeting: 1. 10-3-2: Amendments 2. 10-12: Public Use Zone 3. General Plan

Staff Analysis According to section 10-3-2 of the Town Code, it is the policy of the Town not to make zone changes, except in three specific instances: 1) to promote more fully the objectives and purposes of the land use ordinance and general plan, 2) to correct manifest errors, or 3) to accommodate substantial changes in conditions. Thus, at least one of these three criteria must be met for the Council to approve the zone change.

Each parcel proposed to be changed to the PU zone is analyzed according to these criteria on the following pages.

Parcel Number S-101-J and S-101-J General Location On the hilltop south of Lion Blvd, in between Winderland Lane and Zion Park Blvd Property Size S-101-J: 4713 sf / S-101-B: 14,414 sf Current Zone FR FLUM Designation Transition Residential Current Use Water tank Comment These properties house the Town’s 500K gallon water tank. The properties are surrounded by a single FR property. There is no development potential for anything other than utility use on these properties. Zone Change 1) Promotes the general plan by bringing the zoning of the property into Criteria compliance with the property’s current use and development as a public utility (see Objective 3.5.1). 2) Corrects the manifest error of a parcel used exclusively for a public use being in the residential zone.

Parcel Number S-134 General Location Near the Balanced Rock Hill subdivision. On the landslide area above the Cliffrose Lodge. Property Size 21,466 square feet Current Zone FR FLUM Designation Conservation Current Use Abandoned and destroyed water tank Comment This property is not currently actively used for a utility or other municipal service. However, it is on the Balanced Rock Hill Landslide area. The Town has been acquiring lots in this area for use as open space. Zone Change 1) Promotes the general plan by ensuring that this property in a geologically Criteria hazardous and visually significant area will remain open (with no residential development).

Parcel Number S-162-A-1-F General Location In the foothills above the Town’s River Park Property Size 13,985 square feet Current Zone FR FLUM Designation Conservation Current Use Irrigation water tank Comment This property is a small island surrounded by property belonging to the Paiute Indian Tribe of Utah. The property is accessed by a steep, unimproved road. It is surrounded by steep slopes in excess of 30% grade. It has no potential for uses other than utility or other public uses. Zone Change 1) Promotes the general plan by bringing the zoning of the property into Criteria compliance with the property’s current use and development as a public utility (see Objective 3.5.1). 2) Corrects the manifest error of a parcel used exclusively for a public utility being in the residential zone.

Parcel Number S-ANP-1-A General Location On a hillside above the Anasazi Plateau subdivision Property Size 9,990 square feet Current Zone FR-PD FLUM Designation Conservation Current Use Water tank serving the Anasazi Plateau subdivision Comment This property is surrounded by the Anasazi Plateau conservation easement. It is accessed by a long dirt road connecting to Anasazi Way. Given the Anasazi Plateau conservation easement, there is no potential to use this parcel for anything other than a water tank. Zone Change 1) Promotes the general plan by bringing the zoning of the property into Criteria compliance with the property’s current use and development as a public utility (see Objective 3.5.1). 2) Corrects the manifest error of a parcel used exclusively for a public utility being in the residential zone.

Parcel Number S-160-A-4-1 General Location Adjacent to and including a potion of the Paradise Road right-of-way Property Size 38,635 square feet Current Zone FR FLUM Designation Transition Residential Current Use Natural wash Comment This property is in the Springdale wash. It is a mapped flood hazard area according to the Town’s adopted flood hazard area. The property was deeded to the Town in connection with the Moenave subdivision approval. This change in ownership can be a substantial change in conditions that, when combined with the undevelopable nature of this parcel, justifies a change to the PU zone. Zone Change 1) Promotes the general plan by ensuring a property in a natural wash and Criteria flood hazard area will not be developed with residential development in the future.

Parcel Number S-160-B General Location The eastern third of the Jolley-Gifford cemetery Property Size 45,126 square feet Current Zone FR Current Use Public cemetery FLUM Designation Civic Comment This property is a part of the Town’s Jolley-Gifford cemetery. It contains scores of gravesites, and is actively being used as a cemetery. It has no development potential for anything other than a cemetery. Zone Change 1) Promotes the general plan by bringing the zoning of the property into Criteria compliance with the property’s current use and development as a public cemetery (see Objective 3.5.1). 2) Corrects the manifest error of a parcel used exclusively for a public cemetery being in the residential zone.

Parcel Number S-68 General Location The hilltop above Paradise Road / Winderland Lane that contains the Pioneer cemetery Property Size 60,622 square feet Current Zone FR FLUM Designation Transition Residential Current Use Historic cemetery Comment This property contains a portion of the historic pioneer cemetery. The remainder is a flat area on top of a small hilltop overlooking the downtown area. The property has no access and little development potential. Zone Change 1) Promotes the general plan by preserving a historic resource, the pioneer Criteria cemetery, in accordance with General Plan Objective 6.1.2. 2) Corrects the manifest error of a parcel used exclusively for a historic cemetery being in the residential zone.

Public Comment There has not been any public comment on the proposed zone changes.

Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation The Commission deliberated on the proposed zone changes in their November meeting. The Commission generally thought the subject parcels were a better fit for the PU zone than the FR zone. There was some discussion about whether or not these subject parcels could ever be converted to a residential use (as allowed in the FR zone). However, the Commission ultimately found that current public use and non- conforming nature of these parcels justified changing the zone from FR to PU.

The Commission made a motion to recommend approval of the proposed zone change on the following properties:

This motion was based on the non-conforming nature of these properties to the zone in which they are located, and the fact that their use is a better fit for the PU zone than the FR zone.

The motion passed 5-0.

Minutes of the Planning Commission deliberation on this item are on the following pages.

9 Draft Minutes of the November 20, 2019

Public Hearing – Zone Change: Changing the zoning of various properties to Public Use (PU). These are properties that have a public use, but are not currently in the PU zone. The properties are: S-101-F, S- 101-B, S-134, S-162-A-1-F, S-ANP-1-A (water tanks), S-160-A-4-1 (right-of-way), S-160-B (a portion of the Jolley-Gifford cemetery), S-68 (the historic pioneer cemetery), and the newly created portion of S-100-A- 1-A (the historic structure in front of the Best Western hotel) - Town of Springdale: Mr. Dansie reminded the Commission that in order to recommend approval of a zone change, one of three conditions from section 10-3-2 must be met.

The properties submitted for zone change could be grouped into two categories. The first were properties historically used for public use such as water tanks, rights-of-way, and cemeteries, and would likely never be used for anything other than public use. The second category was the historic structure portion of the Best Western property which was contemplated to be subdivided and used for a history and visitor center pursuant to the development agreement.

Commission questions to staff: Since the historic structure parcel was different in nature from the other properties, the Commission agreed to conduct a separate public hearing.

The Commission proceeded with the public hearing on the following properties: ⋅ S-101-J (not F as noted on the agenda) and S-101-B, contained the small culinary water tank at the intersection of Lion Boulevard and Winderland Lane.

⋅ S-134, contained the abandoned water tank on the landslide area above the Cliffrose Lodge near the Balanced Rock subdivision. The Town had been acquiring property on this hill to preserve as open space.

⋅ S-162-A-1-F, housed an irrigation water tank in the foothills above the Town’s River Park. Access was via an unimproved road and the property was surrounded by steep slopes.

⋅ S-ANP-1-A, housed a water tank that served the Anasazi Plateau subdivision. It was surrounded by a conservation easement.

⋅ S-160-A-4-1, located adjacent to and including a portion of the Paradise Road right-of-way which was in a FEMA-mapped flood hazard area.

⋅ S-160-B, included about one-third of the actively-used Jolley-Gifford cemetery.

⋅ S-68, housed a portion of the historic pioneer cemetery.

Many of the parcels had access easements with restrictions making them difficult to develop.

Mr. Staker asked how residentially-zoned parcels came to have public use. • Mr. Dansie was unsure what decisions led to the establishment of these uses, but said the public uses were incongruous with the existing residential zoning. • If commercial usage was allowed to continue on a non-commercially zoned property, Mr. Staker questioned if the zone could then be changed.

10 • In addition to their current public use, Mr. Dansie said it was unlikely these parcels could be developed into anything viable.

Public questions to the staff: None were asked.

Motion made by Allan Staker to open public hearing. Seconded by Joe Pitti. Staker: Aye Young: Aye Marriott: Aye Pitti: Aye Bruno: Aye Motion passed unanimously.

Public comment: No comments were made.

Motion made by Joe Pitti to close public hearing. Seconded by Barbara Bruno. Staker: Aye Young: Aye Marriott: Aye Pitti: Aye Bruno: Aye Motion passed unanimously.

Commission deliberation: Ms. Bruno had no objection and felt the change was innocuous. This request corrected a manifest error and appeared to be well-documented.

Mr. Marriott asked the rationale that determined this was a manifest error. • Mr. Dansie said the use of the property was incongruous with the current zoning. Although he was unsure how the zoning designation came about, he said it was an error not to match this public use with the Public Use zone.

Mr. Young agreed it was a manifest error for the cemeteries but was unsure about the water tanks. • Mr. Marriott noted it was plausible to convert water tanks into housing.

Motion made by Joe Pitti that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the following zone changes on parcels S-101-J, S-101-B, S-134, S-162-A-1-F, S-ANP-1-A, S-160-A-4-1, S-160-B, S-68. The Commission has determined the parcels in question are either non-conforming for the zone in which they are located and better fitted for the PU zone, and that the subject parcels to Public Use zones meet the criteria for zone changes as established in section 10-3-2 of the Town code: A) The proposed zone change promotes the goals and objectives of the General Plan; B) The proposed zoning changes accommodate substantial changes in conditions; C) the proposed zone change will correct manifest errors; Seconded by Barbara Bruno. Staker: Aye Young: Aye Marriott: Aye Pitti: Aye Bruno: Aye Motion passed unanimously.

Memorandum To: Town Council From: Thomas Dansie, Director of Community Development Date: December 6, 2019 Re: December 11, 2019 Town Council Meeting Zone Change Proposal: Central Commercial (CC) to Public Use (PU) – Historic Structure Portion of the Best Western Property

Overview The Town is in the process of acquiring a parcel containing the historic structure in front of the Best Western Hotel. The Town has a development agreement with the owners of the Best Western Hotel to transfer this property to the Town. That development agreement envisions the historic structure parcel being changed from the Central Commercial (CC) to the Public Use (PU) zone.

The development agreement limits future use of the parcel to non-commercial public uses. Additionally, the parcel size does not meet the minimum lot size for the CC zone, but it does meet the minimum parcel size for the PU zone. For these reasons the development agreement directs that the parcel should be considered for a change from the CC to the PU zone.

Of course, zone changes are legislative decisions, and the development agreement does not bind the Council to approve the zone change. The Council should consider the merits of the proposed zone change the same as any other zone change proposal brought before the Council. Section 10-3-2 (referenced below) should be used as a guide for the Council’s decision making on the zone change proposal.

Applicable Code Sections The Council may wish to review the following code sections prior to the meeting: 1. 10-3-2: Amendments 2. 10-12: Public Use Zone 3. General Plan

The summary on the following page provides a basic overview of the subject property.

Parcel Number To be subdivided portion of S-100-A-1-A General Location In front of the Best Western Hotel at 668 Zion Park Boulevard Property Size 5,794 square feet Current Zone CC FLUM Designation Commercial Core Current Use Historic check-in building for Canyon Ranch, currently vacant Comment This property is the subject of a development agreement between the Town of Springdale and the Best Western property owners. The property is in the process of being transferred to the Town. Part of this transfer is a subdivision that will create the new parcel (on the Council’s current agenda). The development agreement limits the future use of the property to a history center, or other use that does not compete with the transient lodging business operations on the Best Western property. If the Town transfers the property to another entity, it must be to a non- profit entity that operates the property as a history center. Thus, the property must be owned by either the Town or a non-profit history centered organization. These restrictions on ownership will foreclose the opportunity to develop commercial uses as allowed by the CC zone.

Zone Change Accommodates substantial changes in conditions. The transfer of the property to Criteria the Town, development agreement between the Town and the Best Western, and change in use from hotel check-in building to history / visitors center, could constitute a substantial change in conditions which the change to PU zoning would accommodate.

2 Public Comment The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this zone change in their November meeting. One member of the public spoke in opposition to the zone change. The resident expressed concerns that the Town was not following its own ordinances in pursuing this zone change. The resident stressed that, unlike other zone changes to the PU zone currently being contemplated, this zone change was contemplating the future change in the use of a building, and not responding to the historic public use of the parcel. This was an active live zone change request. The resident urged the Town to deny the proposed zone change.

Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation The Commission deliberated on this zone change in their November meeting. The Commission expressed concern about the non-conforming nature of the historic structure on the parcel (in terms of setbacks). The Commission was also concerned about the future development of the parcel with a parking lot to support a history center and visitors center. The Commission expressed concern about the ability to comply with landscape and parking requirements with future development of the parcel 1. One Commissioner posited that a private landowner who sought a similar zone change (e.g. a zone change on a parcel with several non-conforming aspects) would be summarily denied.

The Commission had a lengthy discussion about the feasibility and desirability of moving the entire historic structure such that it met all required setbacks. Commissioners thought that it was important to send a message to the Town and the Community that the Planning Commission cares about the standards in the Code. Including a condition that the historic structure must meet all land use requirements, including setbacks, would send that message.

The Commission made a motion to recommend approval of the change from CC to PU, based on the finding that there has been a substantial change in conditions (the development agreement between the Town and the Best Western hotel owners). The Commission included a condition of approval that the structure on the parcel come into full compliance with zoning standards, particularly setback requirements.

This motion passed on a 4 to 1 vote, with Commissioner Staker voting “no2.” Commissioner Pitti added a statement to his vote, clarifying his feelings about the project (see meeting minutes).

DRAFT minutes of the Commission’s discussion on this item are included on the following page.

1 The Development Agreement between the Town and the Best Western Hotel owners exempts the structure from setbacks and (if necessary) landscape requirements. 2 Immediately prior to this motion being made, Commissioner Staker expressed desire to approve the proposed zone change without any conditions attached. That idea did not gain any support from fellow Commissioners. Therefore, staff assumes Commissioner Staker’s “no” vote was based on the inclusion of conditions with the approval, and not on an objection to the zone change itself. However, because Commissioner Staker did not clarify his vote this is purely assumption on staff’s part.

3 Draft Minutes of the November 20, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting

Public Hearing – Zone Change: Changing the zoning of the newly created portion of S-100-A-1-A (the historic structure in front of the Best Western hotel) to Public Use:

Commission questions to staff: Given the development agreement, Mr. Young asked if this was a discretionary decision on the part of the Commission. • All zone changes were discretionary actions. In this case, the development agreement would allow development of the eight (8) units on the Best Western property whether the zone change was granted or not. • Mr. Dansie clarified. The effect of recommending approval would be the culmination of the development agreement as contemplated. With a recommendation for denial, the subdivision would not be approved halting the transfer of the property to the Town. Under this scenario, the Best Western would still be able to develop the eight (8) additional units.

Mr. Young asked if the Commission could condition a recommendation for approval. • Mr. Dansie indicated the Commission could attach conditions to the zone change as long as they were not arbitrary or capricious and were in furtherance of a Town goal.

Public questions to staff: None were asked.

Motion made by Barbara Bruno to enter public hearing. Seconded by Allan Staker. Staker: Aye Young: Aye Marriott: Aye Pitti: Aye Bruno: Aye Motion passed unanimously.

Public comments: Unlike the other Public Use zone changes contemplated by the Commission, Mr. Chambers said this was an active live zone change. Besides his comments expressed in the plat public hearing about the Town’s hypocrisy, in order to achieve this swap, the project had to move into the PU zone which had the most lenient requirements. Those violations that could not be met by the zone change were put into a development agreement. Mr. Chambers asked the zone change be denied.

Motion made by Joe Pitti to close public hearing. Seconded by Tyler Young. Staker: Aye Young: Aye Marriott: Aye Pitti: Aye Bruno: Aye Motion passed unanimously.

Commission deliberation: Due to the historic nature of Springdale, Mr. Staker said there were properties that could not meet the proper setback and should be grandfathered in. If a setback change to the building was requested, it could not be used as intended. • Mr. Pitti said the Town was creating a non-conforming lot not grandfathering.

Mr. Young questioned the feasibility of shifting the setback ten feet (10’) to comply with the PU standard.

4 • In reference to the diagram in the staff report, neither the employee housing or the historic structure would meet the ten-foot (10’) setback from the lot line. • Mr. Stone said if a historic structure was eligible to be listed and moved, it would become ineligible. Although it may be feasible to move a structure, the context of the building to the land was part of what made it historic.

Under the results of the Reconnaissance Level Survey, this property was considered ‘eligible contributing’. The Town did not intend to seek a nomination to the National Register of Historic Places since it did not meet the criteria. • Mr. Staker said a historic designation was not necessary for the projected use of the building.

If the building was moved, Mr. Marriott said the site would come more fully into compliance with the PU zone. • Mr. Young raised concerns about creating a non-conforming lot.

Mr. Pitti said there was an emotional connection to make this happen and felt it was being forced. If another applicant made this request, compliance would be required. • If a condition was added requiring the setback be moved, Mr. Marriott said the Commission would present a project in full conformance.

Including a condition with the recommendation would project a strong message the Commission took their responsibilities serious relative to the standards in, and enforcement of, Town code. • Based on a thorough analysis during the development agreement process, Mr. Dansie said the setback issue stood out as the only non-conforming standard for the Public Use zone.

Mr. Staker offered to make a motion recommending approval of the zone change as presented however there was not a second to support it.

Motion made by Tyler Young that the Planning Commission recommends approval of a zone change for the newly subdivided portion of parcel S-100-A-1-A which includes the historic structure in front of the Best Western hotel from Central Commercial to Public Use zone based on the finding that there has been a substantial change in conditions on this parcel. With the condition that the structure on this newly created portion of parcel S-100-A-1-A be brought into full conformance with the requirements of the Public Use zone particularly with it being brought into conformance with a ten-foot (10’) setback requirement for the structure. Seconded by Barbara Bruno. Staker: No Tyler: Aye Marriott: Aye Pitti: Aye Mr. Pitti qualified his vote with a prepared statement: “It has been no secret that I have been outspoken in my opposition to the original proposal of an exchange between the Town of Springdale and the Best Western Hotel for increased density on an already fully developed property in exchange for a run- down building on the corner of its property. I have read the minutes of the Historic Preservation Commission. The National Register Coordinator in the Utah State Historic Preservation Office expressed doubts about the historic integrity of the building in question due to its alterations over time, confirming my concerns from the onset. The history is in the story. I was also told by the Chair of the HPC that they are considering demolishing the building and starting over. My opposition to this proposal has not been without consequences. Some friendships have been damaged, members of the Historic Preservation Commission leadership told other members not to talk with me, and that I believe the vote to have me continue in my position as Chair of the Planning Commission was intercepted because of my opposition to

5 this deal. I am opposed to this exchange because I believe increasing hotel rooms beyond the allowable buildout is counter to the Town Code, General Plan and the community at large. I fully understand that we have non-conforming lots along SR9 because of their history. I feel that dividing the property into a .13 area lot and creating a new lot of this size is incompatible with the goals we are currently discussing along SR9. I am also disturbed by the fact that this PU designation gives the Town of Springdale the opportunity to develop the property in a way that is incompatible with the parking, setbacks and design standards that the rest of the community are required to uphold.” Mr. Pitti said he was fully expecting to vote ‘no’ however he appreciated the Commissioners discussion which encouraged him to vote ‘yes’.

Bruno: Aye Motion passed.

6 From: Mark To: Springdale Town Subject: SHPC Best Western Plat and Zone Change Date: Wednesday, November 20, 2019 5:23:46 PM

November 20, 2019

Dear Planning Commission,

Submitted by, Mark Chambers

Teach InfoWest Spam Trap if this mail is spam: Spam Not spam Forget previous vote

REMEMBER: Never give out your account information, password, or other personal information over e-mail.

Memorandum To: Town Council From: Thomas Dansie, Director of Community Development Date: December 6, 2019 Re: December 11, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting Revised Conditional Use Permit: Transient Lodging Facility – 1214 and 1216 Zion Park Boulevard, Ryan Lee

Overview Ryan Lee has requested approval of a revised conditional use permit for a transient lodging facility at 1214 and 1216 Zion Park Boulevard.

Both of these lots have been issued conditional use permits for transient lodging in the past. The CUP for 1214 ZPB does not contain a limit on the number of transient lodging units. The CUP for 1216 ZPB limits the total number of transient lodging units to eight. This restriction was placed on the CUP due to concerns over available parking on the site.

The applicant is proposing to combine the two lots, and develop the property as a single lot with 18 transient lodging units (the maximum allowed by the Village Commercial zone for the combined lot size). Because the CUP for 1216 limits the property to eight lodging units, developing the combined property with 18 units would not be consistent with the current CUP approval. The applicant is requesting a revision of the CUP to remove the limitation of eight lodging units.

The Town has already approved 16 transient lodging units on the two sperate properties (eight through a CUP and multiple DDR approvals on 1214, and eight through a CUP approval on 1216). The current CUP request will add two lodging units to the total number of units approved on the property.

Applicable Ordinances The Council should review the following code chapters or sections: 1. Chapter 10-11B: Village Commercial Zone 2. Chapter 10-3A: Conditional Uses

Staff Analysis The Town Code contains general and specific standards to evaluate all conditional use permit requests. If the proposal complies, or can be made to comply through the imposition of reasonable conditions, to the establish standards the town must approve the conditional use permit. If the request cannot comply with established standards the town must deny the conditional use permit.

The Council should determine if the proposed transient lodging facility will comply with the standards in the ordinance.

General Standards There are six general standards with which all conditional permit requests must comply (see section 10- 3A-4). Staff’s analysis of the applicant’s request with respect to these standards follows:

A. The proposed use shall comply with all applicable land use standards contained in this title. The applicant has submitted plans and drawings showing how the combined property can be developed with 18 transient lodging units in compliance with all applicable land use standards.

The VC zone allows one transient lodging unit per 4,000 square feet of lot area. The total property area is 74,156 square feet. 74,156 sf divided by 4,000 sf per unit yields 18 lodging units allowed on the property.

The parking ordinance require one parking space for each unit, plus two spaces for employees. Therefore, the applicant’s proposal requires 20 parking spaces. The proposed site plan shows a total of 30 spaces.

The Planning Commission reviewed a design/development review for the project in their December 4 meeting. The Commission found the proposed development meets all land use standards.

B. The proposed use shall not unreasonably interfere with the lawful use of surrounding properties. The subject property is in an area of Town already heavily developed with transient lodging. The proposed use is adjacent to commercial uses on one side, and undeveloped (and undevelopable) hillsides on the other. Based on these findings, staff does not feel the additional transient lodging units will unreasonably interfere with the lawful use of the surrounding properties.

C. The proposed use shall not create a need for essential municipal services which cannot be reasonably met within three (3) months and the party seeking the conditional use is willing and able to contribute to the cost of said services. The proposed use will not create a need for municipal services that cannot be currently handled.

D. The proposed use shall not emit excessive noise, or noxious odors, and shall not otherwise adversely impact the quality of air or water. 1. If located either in or less than one hundred feet (100') from a residential zone, the proposed use shall not create loud noise that is sustained for more than one minute and is perceptible on a residentially zoned property after the hour of eleven o'clock (11:00) P.M. or before the hour of seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. The property is adjacent to residentially zoned property on the south and west. The Council may wish to impose a condition of approval that requires the transient lodging facility to avoid making loud noises between the hours of 11:00 PM and 7:00 AM.

E. If located immediately adjacent to a residential zone, the proposed use shall provide a screening fence or wall at least six feet (6') in height along the common boundary between the proposed use and the residential zone. The property is adjacent to residentially zoned property on the south and west. As noted earlier, this property is currently undeveloped. The portion of the residential property closest to the proposed use will likely never be developed because it is steep hillside. There will likely never be a residential use on this portion of the adjacent property that would benefit from a screen fence. Previous CUP approvals did not require a screen fence on this property.

F. If the proposed use is projected to generate more than ten (10) vehicular trips per day, the use must be located on a dedicated public street. The proposed transient lodging facility is located on Zion Park Boulevard, a dedicated public street.

(2)

Specific Standards There are three specific standards with which all transient lodging facilities must comply (see section 10- 3A-5(E)(15)). Staff’s analysis of the applicant’s request with respect to these standards follows:

A. Access and entrances to guest rooms (including rear patios and balconies) must be placed and oriented to have as minimal an impact on surrounding properties as possible. Given the nature of the surrounding properties (steep hillsides on two sides, existing transient lodging on the others) and the proposed design of the transient lodging facilities, staff does not feel the surrounding properties will be impacted at all by the entrances to the guest rooms in the development.

B. Outdoor gathering areas (pools, patios, courtyards, etc.) must be located such that they will not cause unreasonable increases in noise, lighting or other impacts on surrounding residentially zoned property. There is a pool and outdoor gathering area proposed at the rear of the property. As discussed above, given the topography of the adjacent residentially zoned property, it is unlikely that any residential structures will ever be developed in close enough proximity to the pool area that the pool would create unreasonable impacts of noise, lighting, or other impacts.

C. Outdoor lighting must be designed such that no light source is visible beyond the property boundaries. All exterior lights must use full cut off fixtures. The applicant has submitted a lighting plan and proposed outdoor light fixtures. Parking lot lighting will use the existing lights in the paid parking area. All lighting associated with the proposed use meets this standard.

Public Comment Staff has not received any public comment on this proposal. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on this proposal in their November meeting. No members of the public addressed the Commission.

Planning Commission Findings and Recommendation The Commission deliberated on this proposal in the November meeting. The Commission found the proposal meets all applicable standards and requirements of the VC zone. The Commission felt combining the two lots into a unified development made a more appealing project.

The Commission made a motion to recommend approval of the revised conditional use permit for the combined parcels S-BIT-1 and S-BIT-2, with the condition that the two lots must be combined. The motion passed unanimously.

DRAFT minutes of the November Planning Commission meeting are attached.

(3) DRAFT Meeting Minutes – November 20, 2019 Planning Commission Meeting

Public Hearing – Conditional Use Permit Modification: Request to increase the number of transient lodging units allowed by the zone for existing conditional use permits on parcels S-BIT-1 and S-BIT-2 (a net increase of one transient lodging unit) - Ryan Lee: Currently both lots had a CUP allowing transient lodging. The CUP for lot 1 had a limitation of eight (8) units. The CUP for lot 2 did not specify a limit on the number of units, but the underlying zone allowed nine (9) on each lot or a combined total of eighteen (18). Mr. Dansie explained the applicant intended to combine both lots into one and amend the CUP to develop a total of eighteen units (18) as allowed by the underlying zone. The net impact of this request was to increase the total number of lodging units by one.

Commission questions to staff: By allowing one more transient lodging unit Mr. Young felt the use was changing thereby making the action legislative in nature. • Mr. Dansie explained the number of units was determined by the Village Commercial zone which allowed one transient lodging unit per 4,000 square feet. With this calculation, eighteen (18) units would be allowed if both lots were combined. Previously the Commission raised concern about the amount of parking but the applicant had reconfigured parking creating an excess. With this change parking was no longer the limiting factor on development.

Mr. Pitti asked about the landscape requirement. • The landscape component had not been fully analyzed since the DDR was postponed. At least 60% of the property had to be landscaped or left as natural open space. If the applicant could not comply with this standard, they would have to reduce the number of transient lodging units on the property.

Mr. Pitti asked if the swimming pool qualified as landscaping • A pool deck area could count up to 10% of the landscape requirement if it met criteria in code.

Mr. Staker asked how many parking spaces were required for eighteen (18) units. • Mr. Dansie indicated twenty-one (21) would be required but the plan currently showed thirty (30) spaces.

Public questions to staff: None were asked.

Ryan Lee was in attendance to answer questions. He said the landscape percentage was 67%, not including the pool. He was confident they were in compliance with the landscape requirement. Mr. Lee clarified he was not requesting more transient lodging units than what the underlying code allowed.

Commission questions to the applicant: None were asked.

Public questions to the applicant: None were asked.

Motion made by Tyler Young to enter public hearing. Seconded by Barbara Bruno. Staker: Aye Young: Aye Marriott: Aye Pitti: Aye Bruno: Aye

(4) Motion passed unanimously.

Public comment: No comments were made.

Motion made by Joe Pitti to close public hearing. Seconded by Tyler Young. Staker: Aye Young: Aye Marriott: Aye Pitti: Aye Bruno: Aye Motion passed unanimously.

Commission deliberation: Mr. Marriott said this was a straightforward request and did not have concerns. It appeared to meet all the general and specific standards. • Mr. Staker echoed those comments and was in favor. Mr. Young and Ms. Bruno agreed the application met all the requirements. Mr. Pitti said the new plan was more cohesive.

Motion made by Barbara Bruno that the Planning Commission recommends approval of the Conditional Use Permit for a transient lodging facility at the combined property at 1214 and 1216 Zion Park Boulevard. Based on findings the project is in compliance with all requirements of the Village Commercial zone.

Motion amended by Joe Pitti to insert a condition that the Conditional Use Permit be approved upon the applicant submit proof of combining the properties.

Barbara Bruno accepted the amendment. The full motion as amended seconded by Allan Staker. Staker: Aye Young; Aye Marriott: Aye Pitti: Aye Bruno: Aye Motion passed unanimously.

(5)

DOC # 20110032454 1 1 Page of Plap (Conveying Property) Russell Shirts Washington County Recorder

10/25/2011 08:01:23 AM Fee $ 35.00

By WHALEN JANE

NAME: BIT AND SPUR SUBDIVISION

UNITS # 5 MAP # 3152

PARCEL NUMBER: S-89-B S-156 S-89-A-2 S-89-A-4

S-89-A-3

BIT AND SPUR ASSOCIATES, INC

BEAN, COTTING, MUNSON, L.L.C.

BOUNDARY DESCRIPTION

BEGINNING AT A POINT VHICH LIES SOUTH 0*24'00' VEST 406.86 FEET ALONG THE CENTER SECTION

LINE AND EAST 41 735.59 FEET FROM THE NORTH QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 32, T0VNSHIP SOUTH,

RANGE 10 VEST, SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN AND RUNNING THENCE SOUTH 56*00'00' EAST 444,83

FEET TO A POINT ON THE NORTHVESTERLY RIGHT OF VAY OF HIGHVAY SR-93 THENCE SOUTH 24'16'00'

WEST 501.85 FEET 160.31 FEET ALONG ALONG SAID RIGHT OF VAY) THENCE SOUTH 35'02'48" VEST

SAID RIGHT OF 16*41'05" VEST VAY3 THENCE NORTH 25'58'48' VEST 99.66 FEET) THENCE NORTH

60,98 THENCE VEST 81,01 FEET3 NORTH 61'55'29" VEST 96.44 FEET) THENCE NORTH 46*01'34'

THENCE NORTH THENCE FEET) 24'01'2E EAST 61.59 FEET) THENCE NORTH 39'05'01" EAST 81.88 FEET)

NORTH 82'13'12' EAST THENCE NORTH 46,03 FEET) THENCE SOUTH 54*42'57" EAST 112,62 FEET)

22*30'OO' EAST 124.66 FEET) THENCE NORTH 23'20'00' VEST 397.98 FEET) THENCE NORTH 32*45'50'

EAST 55,02 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGIN 3.903 ACRES. TYggTAINS

SITE DATA TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING SPACES: 30 (2 ADA) TOTAL PROPOSED OPEN SPACE: 0.58 ACRES (49,474 SQ FT) = 67% OF TOTAL BUILDINGS & HARDSCAPE AREA: 0.57 ACRES (24,682 SQ FT) = 33% OF TOTAL COMBINED PARCEL AREA: 1.70 ACRES (74,156 SQ FT)

3900 PL PL

3890

12'

18'

42' 67' 3900

18'

40' FFE: 3884 +/- POOL & DECK PROPOSED 2,958 SQ FT

LIMITS HILLSIDE

GRADING 4' SIDEWALK 4' 3880 RETAINING WALL S-BIT-1 PROPOSED S-BIT-2

26.7'

3880 EXISTING STRUCTURE FFE :3874.15 PL S-BIT-3-A

SWALE PL MATCH EX. 3890 DUMPSTER PROPOSED GRADES

DUMPSTER EXISTING 3873.85

POWER VAULT 3873.50

AND STREET 3873.50

RELOCATE 3874 20' EXISTING LIGHT

3873.58 3874

3880 3878 3873.24

79' 3873.59 3873.88 DUMPSTER EXISTING 3874

FFE: 3873.6 BUILDING EXISTING 3873.37 3874 FFE: 3874.0 BUILDING PROPOSED 2,333 SQ FT 3876 EXISTING BUILDING 3873.07 3872.13

PL 4' SIDEWALK 4' ACCESS ASPHALT

3872 S-BIT-3-A

PARKING EXISTING AREA 3873.09

3872.53 3873.39 3873.36

3874.20 ELM

STREET LIGHTS 3872 3873.25 4' CONCRETE WATERWAY CONCRETE 4' SWALE 3873.17

3873.39 3873.80 RELOCATE

4' SIDEWALK 4' 3873.25 EXISTING

36' S-BIT-1 16 FFE: 3874.20 BUILDING EXISTING GALLERY ELMS 14 21' 3871.96 26' 2% STEM WALL PL 3870 3870.14

STEM WALL FRUIT 3870.44 TREE 3872 BASINS RELOCATE MODIFY/ CATCH 4' SIDEWALK

73.1'

FFE = 3870.00 BUILDING PROPOSED 2,200 SQ FT SWALE

STEM WALL

3874

PL 3870 3870 3873.36

66.3' FFE: 3867.5 BUILDING PROPOSED 3873.04 2,500 SQ FT 3869.73 LATERAL & CLEANOUT

PROPOSED SEWER 3870

PARKING AREA PROPOSED PROPOSED 2" FIRE LINES (2) 3870.84 3868 (EAST BLDG& WEST BLDG) PINE SCULPTURE (EAST BLDG) RELOCATE

PROPOSED 1" CULINARY 3870 BASIN PROPOSED CATCH 3870 W

STEM WALL 22" ELM

WTL AND METER 62.4' 3869.23 (EAST BLDG)

30' 3868.21 PL 3869.51 3868 3868 ELM

JUNIPERS 3867.42

MONUMENT SIGN

BASIN OUTFALL EX DETENTION 3868.83 WV

3868 WV 3869.34 SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT WV 3866 3868.70

IN CONCRETE VAULT W PREVENTION DEVICE ENTRANCE 3866 3867.30 ASPHALT BLDG FOR WEST LATERAL 3868 USE EX SS C/O EXISTING RELOCATE USE EX METER AND CULINARY FOR EX DETENTION BASIN WEST BLDG WATERLINE/ 4" BACKFLOW

30'

WILLOW E WV WV

W 4" FDC 3864 PL

C/O

W 3867.01

3867.01

S STATE ROUTE 9 ROUTE STATE 352 East Riverside Drive, Suite A-2 Ph (435) 673-8586 Fx 673-8397 REVISIONS DATE DWG: CHECKED BY: DESIGNED BY: JOB NO.: DATE:

SITE AND GRADING PLAN St. George, Utah 84790 www.racivil.com OF SHEETS

SHEET FOR 1 PARCELS #S-BIT-1 & #S-BIT-2 SPRINGDALE, UTAH DATE: JOB NO.: DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY: DWG: DATE

PL FRUIT S-BIT-3-A TREE

ELM REVISIONS

EXISTING GALLERY BUILDING FFE: 3874.20 PL

JUNIPERS

22" ELM

S-BIT-3-A ASPHALT ACCESS PINE

ELMS

4' SIDEWALK PL

STATE ROUTE 9

ELM

EXISTING

BUILDING PROPOSED BUILDING S-BIT-2 FFE: 3873.6EXISTING BUILDING 2,200 SQ FT MONUMENT FFE = 3870.00 SIGN

PL 352 East Riverside Drive, Suite A-2 St. George, Utah 84790 Ph (435) 673-8586 Fx (435) 673-8397 4' SIDEWALK www.racivil.com EXISTING DUMPSTER

SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT PL 14 ASPHALT ENTRANCE PROPOSED DUMPSTER

S-BIT-1 EXISTING STRUCTURE FFE :3874.15

PROPOSED 16 PARKING AREA PL 4' SIDEWALK S-BIT-1 4' SIDEWALK

PROPOSED PROPOSED BUILDING POOL & DECK 2,333 SQ FT 2,958 SQ FT FFE: 3874.0 EXISTING

PARKING FFE: 3884 +/- 3880 AREA PROPOSED BUILDING 2,500 SQ FT FOR FFE: 3867.5 PL WILLOW

EXISTING SPRINGDALE, UTAH DUMPSTER PL

SWALE EX DETENTION BASIN DETENTION EX LANDSCAPING PLAN

PL PARCELS #S-BIT-1 & #S-BIT-2 LANDSCAPE LEGEND SWALE

PRIMARY TREES EX DETENTION BASIN OUTFALL

LANDSCAPE BOULDERS

SMALLER TREES AND LARGER BUSHES

LANDSCAPE AREA REPLACING HARDSCAPE

SITE DATA TOTAL COMBINED PARCEL AREA: 1.70 ACRES (74,156 SQ FT) TOTAL BUILDINGS & HARDSCAPE AREA: 0.57 ACRES (24,682 SQ FT) = 33% OF TOTAL TOTAL PROPOSED OPEN SPACE: 0.58 ACRES (49,474 SQ FT) = 67% OF TOTAL TOTAL PROPOSED PARKING SPACES: 30 (2 ADA) SHEET1

OF SHEETS DATE: JOB NO.: DESIGNED BY: CHECKED BY: DWG: DATE

PL FRUIT S-BIT-3-A TREE

ELM REVISIONS

EXISTING GALLERY BUILDING FFE: 3874.20 PL

JUNIPERS

22" ELM

S-BIT-3-A ASPHALT ACCESS PINE

ELMS

4' SIDEWALK

PL PROPOSED 8' LIGHT POST

STATE ROUTE 9

ELM

EXISTING

BUILDING PROPOSED BUILDING S-BIT-2 FFE: 3873.6EXISTING BUILDING 2,200 SQ FT MONUMENT FFE = 3870.00 SIGN

PROPOSED 8' LIGHT POST PL 352 East Riverside Drive, Suite A-2 PROPOSED 8' St. George, Utah 84790 LIGHT POST Ph (435) 673-8586 Fx (435) 673-8397 4' SIDEWALK www.racivil.com EXISTING DUMPSTER

SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT PL 14 ASPHALT ENTRANCE PROPOSED DUMPSTER

PROPOSED 8' LIGHT POST S-BIT-1 EXISTING STRUCTURE FFE :3874.15

PROPOSED 16 PARKING AREA PL PROPOSED 4' SIDEWALK S-BIT-1 4' SIDEWALK 8' LIGHT POST PROPOSED 8' LIGHT POST

PROPOSED PROPOSED BUILDING POOL & DECK 2,333 SQ FT 2,958 SQ FT FFE: 3874.0 EXISTING

PARKING FFE: 3884 +/- 3880 AREA PROPOSED BUILDING 2,500 SQ FT FOR FFE: 3867.5 PL WILLOW

EXISTING SPRINGDALE, UTAH DUMPSTER PL

SWALE LIGHTING PLAN EX DETENTION BASIN DETENTION EX

PL PARCELS #S-BIT-1 & #S-BIT-2 SWALE

EX DETENTION BASIN OUTFALL

SHEET1

OF SHEETS

Memorandum To: Mayor, Town Council From: Rick Wixom Date: December 9, 2019 Re: December 11, 2019 Town Council Meeting R2019-14 – Utah Community Renewable Energy Act

Last spring during the 2019 legislative session, the State Legislature adopted HB 411, which created the Utah Community Renewable Energy Act and established a path for cities/towns and counties in Utah to meet a goal of 100% renewable energy, if they desire to do so. The bill authorizes the Public Service Commission to establish rules for the program and eventually a specific electrical service tariff (or billing schedule) that would be used in areas participating in the program.

Staff was asked on Friday to look at the program and determine if we could/should add it to the agenda for deliberation.

HB 411 allows cities/towns and counties who are interested in achieving 100% net-renewable energy by 2030 to participate in the program. The starting point of participation is to adopt a resolution stating a goal to acquire renewable energy equal to or exceeding 100% of the community’s annual energy use by 2030. This resolution must be adopted by Dec. 31, 2019.

Once those communities who want to participate pass their resolution, the communities will collectively negotiate an agreement with Rocky Mountain Power to address their current and future power needs, required infrastructure, and costs necessary to realize the goal of 100% renewable energy. The communities will also assist in an application to the Public Service Commission (PSC) to formalize the program. At this point the PSC is in a process of rulemaking related to the program. The result of the application will be the terms and conditions of the program, participating tariffs (billing rates), that must be agreed to by the participating city/town or county.

At the end of the process is the adoption of a local ordinance that puts the community in the program. Once all steps are complete individual customers will have an option to “opt-out” of the program and will remain on the current rate tariff applicable to their property.

To date eleven municipalities and 3 counties have passed the required resolution to participate in the program. While there may be more before the end of the year, it’s clear that most communities will not be participating entities.

We added this to the agenda for discussion/action and have drafted a proposed resolution for the Council to consider. While it’s necessary to adopt a resolution to participate in the process, to “have a seat at the table” so to speak, the larger question at hand is whether the goal of 100% renewable energy is right for the community.

Springdale has previously expressed its commitment for environmental stewardship and sustainability. We have previously adopted resolutions related to air quality and renewable energy that appear to point us in the direction of this new goal. We have been an EPA Green Power Community since 2008, which lends weight to this new goal. And several sections of the General Plan support a move towards more renewable energy.

On the other hand, a significant part of this discussion should be about the costs of the program. While we don’t know at this point what the costs of the program will be to electrical customers, we are reasonably sure that costs will increase from what customers are currently paying. Costs will not be fully known until the communities and power company negotiate an agreement and the PSC establishes the rate tariff. However, we are not locked into participating until we formally adopt the ordinance putting the community into the program.

Unfortunately, we don’t have time for an extended debate on the subject. While that would have been preferable, the end of year deadline makes it necessary for the Council to quickly come to a decision on whether to move ahead. In talking to Utah Clean Energy and Rocky Mountain Power this appears to be, at least for now, as a one-time opportunity to participate. While we can’t rule out a future modification to allow additional communities into the program, no one is thinking that is a likely option.

RESOLUTION NO. 2019‐14

A RESOLUTION DECLARING THE TOWN OF SPRINGDALE’S INTENT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE UTAH COMMUNITY RENEWABLE ENERGY ACT

WHEREAS, during the 2019 Legislative Session, the Utah Legislature adopted House Bill 411, codifying the Community Renewable Energy Act; and

WHEREAS, the Act requires a municipality to adopt a resolution no later than December 31, 2019 that states a goal of achieving an amount equivalent to 100% of the annual electric supply for participating customers from renewable energy sources by 2030; and

WHEREAS, on February 13, 2019, the Town Council adopted Resolution 2019‐02, a Resolution on Clean Energy in Washington County. This resolution in part expressed the Council’s intent to work collaboratively with Washington County and other local governments and various operating utilities within the county, and energy stakeholders, to seek mutually beneficial relationships that increase our utilization of clean energy and energy efficiency, lower our dependence on non‐renewable sources of energy and increase our self‐sufficiency; and

WHEREAS, on July 12, 2017, the Town Council adopted Resolution 2017‐14, a Resolution Taking Action to Reduce Climate Pollution in Alignment with Adopted Goals in the Town’s General Plan. This resolution in part recognized efforts the Town has taken to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and enhance the quality of life in the community and re‐affirmed the Town Council’s commitment to taking action to reduce climate pollution; and

WHEREAS, the Town of Springdale has adopted specific objectives, strategies, and key findings in its General Plan outlining steps the Town has committed to take in partnership with others to reduce our impact on air pollution, climate change, and energy efficiency. Specifically, the following objectives, strategies, and sections support the establishment of this goal and participation in the Community Renewable Energy Act  Chapter 7 (Environmental Resources and Conservation) o Objective 7.2.1 and 7.2.2  Chapter 8 (Public Works) o Objective 8.6.2

o Strategy 8.6.2.A  Chapter 12 (Sustainability) o Existing Conditions and Key Findings; and

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Springdale as follows:

Section 1. Statement of Goal. The Town of Springdale hereby states and establishes a goal of achieving an amount equivalent to 100% of the annual electric supply for participating customers from renewable energy resources by 2030. This goal is intended to express the Town Council’s decision to study and review the costs and other requirements related to the development of renewable resources necessary to support the participating customers within the Town of Springdale.

Section 2. Direction to Town Staff. Town staff is hereby directed to take all actions which are necessary in support of this Resolution and to provide to the Town Council all available information to support a future determination by the Council on full participation in the Community Renewable Energy Act.

Section 3. Effective Date. This Resolution will become effective immediately upon passage by the Town Council.

Passed and adopted this 11th day of December 2019.

______Stanley J. Smith, Mayor

Attest:

______Darci Carlson, Town Clerk

HB 411: Community Renewable Energy Act Guidelines

The Community Renewable Act allows Utah communities served by Rocky Mountain Power to create a Community Renewable Energy Program (“Program”) that will help each participating community meet their goal of 100% renewable energy by 2030. This document provides guidance for communities interested in participating in this program.

What is the Community Renewable Energy Act (HB 411)? HB 411 authorizes a path for Utah municipalities and counties to achieve a net-100% renewable energy portfolio by 2030. Communities will initially “opt-in” all Rocky Mountain Power electricity customers through a local ordinance, and each customer in that jurisdiction will have the opportunity to “opt-out” of the Program. Rocky Mountain Power will create a new service agreement (tariff) for the customers participating in the Program that will be approved by the Utah Public Service Commission.

Utah Public Service Commission Key Terms Rulemaking • Community: All customers residing in a The Utah Public Service Commission (PSC) is municipality or unincorporated area of a responsible for developing the rules for the county served by Rocky Mountain creation and administration of the Program. Power. These rules will address issues like customer termination fees, factors and considerations for • Net 100% Renewable Energy: The electricity rates, and the process for procuring total electricity needs of the community renewable energy resources for the Program. over the course of the year are met by a This rulemaking process (Docket 19-R314-01) comparable amount of total renewable is expected to continue through 2019. energy generation (in megawatt-hours).

• Renewable Energy Resources: Solar, wind, geothermal, hydro-electric power, Acquiring New Renewable Energy and demand management, such as energy efficiency or energy storage Resources technologies. Solar customers who have Rocky Mountain Power will manage the process for developing the renewable energy or a net metering agreement with Rocky demand-side resources required to meet the Mountain Power under “Schedule 135” needs of the communities participating in the are not eligible to participate in the Program. RMP has the option to own any new program. resources developed as a result, as long as the procurement process complies with rules for new energy resources established by the PSC.

Additional Resources For additional information on HB 411, visit slc.gov/sustainability/100-renewable-energy-community-goal/ What Do Communities Need to Do to Participate in the Community Renewable Energy Program?

Municipalities or counties interested in achieving net-100% net-renewable energy by the year 2030 must undertake the following steps to participate in the Community Renewable Energy Program:

1. Adopt a resolution no later than December 31st, 2019, stating that the community will acquire renewable energy in an amount equal to 100% of the community’s annual energy use by 2030. 2. Enter into an agreement with Rocky Mountain Power which addresses key costs associated with the Program. 3. Assist in filing an application with the Utah Public Service Commission to create the Program, including support for consulting services by state regulators. 4. Adopt a local ordinance within 90 days after the Utah Public Service Commission issues an order approving the Community Renewable Energy Program that: i. Establishes local participation in the program ii. Is consistent with the agreement entered with Rocky Mountain Power iii. Complies with the terms and conditions required by the Utah Public Service Commission

Questions or Concerns? Please contact Josh Craft at Utah Clean Energy at [email protected] or (801) 590-4823.

EMBARGOED FOR RELEASE UNTIL Thursday, Oct. 3, 2019 at 9 a.m. MT

Media Hotline: 800‐775‐7950

PacifiCorp draft resource plan calls for increases in lower‐cost wind, solar and storage to manage phased coal transition Plan includes about 7,000 MW of new renewables and storage by 2025

SALT LAKE CITY (Oct. 3, 2019) – PacifiCorp today released a draft of its long‐term energy plan that continues investments in new wind generation and transmission, while adding significant new solar and storage resources. The plan, which is the result of a comprehensive data analysis and stakeholder input process, demonstrates the company’s adoption of additional lower‐cost renewable resources to meet customer needs and support for its phased coal transition. PacifiCorp operates as Rocky Mountain Power in Utah, Wyoming and Idaho.

“The transition in how we meet our customers’ energy needs is under way,” said Rick Link, PacifiCorp’s vice president of resource planning and acquisitions. “With a focus on lower‐cost renewable resources and strategic transmission investments, this plan allows us to continue to deliver the reliable and low‐ cost energy our customers need as we embark on a phased and well‐managed coal transition that minimizes impacts to our thermal operations workforce and communities.”

The draft “preferred portfolio” for the 2019 Integrated Resource Plan (IRP) indicates how the company envisions meeting customer energy needs most cost‐effectively over the next 20 years. PacifiCorp will file its final 2019 IRP with state regulatory commissions by October 18. The draft preferred portfolio and other information about the 2019 IRP can be found at www.pacificorp.com/irp.

The draft 2019 resource plan includes the following additional renewable energy resources:*

Wind generation  More than 3,500 MW of new wind generation by 2025, including resources acquired through customer partnerships, and a total of more than 4,600 MW of new wind generation by 2038, including: o More than 1,500 MW of new wind generation that is currently under construction, including new wind projects in Wyoming as part of the company’s Energy Vision 2020 initiative o 1,920 MW of additional new wind generation in Wyoming by 2024 o 1,100 MW of new wind generation in Idaho in the 2030 to 2032 timeframe

1 Solar and storage  Nearly 3,000 MW of new solar by 2025, including resources acquired through customer partnerships, and more than 6,300 MW of new solar by 2038  Nearly 600 MW of battery storage by 2025 and more than 2,800 MW of battery storage by 2038

The 2019 draft resource plan identifies battery storage as part of a least‐cost portfolio for the first time. All of the storage resources planned by 2025 are paired with new solar generation. The plan adds nearly 1,400 MW of stand‐alone storage resources starting in 2028. The new solar and storage resources added over the planning period include:  3,000 MW of new solar in Utah paired with 635 MW of battery storage, phased in between 2020 and 2037  1,415 MW of new solar in Wyoming paired with 354 MW of battery storage, phased in between 2024 and 2038  1,075 MW of new solar in Oregon paired with 244 MW of battery storage, phased in between 2020 and 2033  814 MW of new solar in Washington paired with 204 MW of battery storage, phased in between 2024 and 2036

*Note: Total capacity includes 799 MW acquired through customer partnerships supported by purchase of 100% of renewable attributes generated by those resources, resources to be used for renewable portfolio standard compliance, and resources where a portion of the renewable attributes are sold to customers, third parties, or are excluded from energy purchased.

Transmission To facilitate the delivery of new renewable energy resources to PacifiCorp customers across the West, the plan calls for the construction of a 400‐mile transmission line known as Gateway South connecting southeastern Wyoming and northern Utah. The new transmission line will be in addition to the 140‐mile Gateway West transmission segment in Wyoming currently under construction. The plan also includes several other transmission upgrades across PacifiCorp’s system that enable new renewables and increase supply reliability and resilience.

“By investing in transmission, we can extend the reach and flexibility of the grid so more low‐cost energy can be delivered to our customers,” said Chad Teply, PacifiCorp’s senior vice president for business policy and development. “Making the necessary long‐term investments to relieve transmission congestion will allow development of additional renewable resources in the near‐term and facilitate long‐term growth of the region,” Teply said.

Coal unit retirements Of the 24 coal units currently serving PacifiCorp customers, the draft plan envisions retirement of 16 of the units by 2030 and 20 of the units by the end of the planning period in 2038. The unit retirements will reduce coal‐fueled generation capacity by nearly 2,800 MW by 2030 and by nearly 4,500 MW by 2038.

“Coal generation has been an important resource in our portfolio, allowing us to deliver reliable energy to our customers, and will continue to play an important role as units approach retirement dates,” Link

2 said. “At the same time, this plan reflects the ongoing cost pressure on coal as wind generation, solar generation and storage have emerged as low‐cost resource options for our customers.”

Coal unit retirements scheduled under the resource plan are:  Jim Bridger 1 in 2023 instead of 2037  Naughton 1 and 2 in 2025 instead of 2029  Craig 2 in 2026 instead of 2034  Colstrip 3 and 4 in 2027 instead of 2046  Jim Bridger 2 in 2028 instead of 2037

The 2019 draft plan also assumes the following units will continue to run until the retirement dates assumed in the 2017 IRP: Naughton 3 (2019); Cholla 4 (2020); Dave Johnston 1‐4 (2027); Hayden 1‐2 (2030); Huntington 1‐2 (2036) and Jim Bridger 3‐4 (2037). The draft preferred portfolio also includes the conversion of Naughton 3 to natural gas in 2020, which will help cost‐effectively maintain system reliability as coal units retire and additional renewable resources are added in the near‐term.

Certainty for our workforce and communities PacifiCorp develops and seeks regulatory acknowledgement of its long‐term resource plans every two years to account for changing market conditions, new policies and other factors that determine the least‐cost resource portfolio. For the 2019 IRP, state regulators will evaluate and consider the resource decisions in the preferred portfolio, including the identified closure dates for the coal units in the plan.

“We are mindful that these resource decisions impact our thermal operations employees, their families and communities,” Teply said. “Our top priority is making certain our employees and communities remain informed about the changes ahead and that we work in concert with everyone involved to develop plans that help them transition through this time of change.”

For an overview of PacifiCorp’s broader vision for achieving an affordable, reliable and sustainable energy future, visit www.pacificorp.com.

# # #

Memorandum To: Mayor, Town Council From: Rick Wixom Date: December 4, 2019 Re: December 11, 2019 Town Council Meeting Resolution 2019-12 FY 19-20 Budget Amendment #1

Overview/Account Review

The following accounts are recommended for amendment. The changes are also highlighted on the attached budget worksheets. As you review the information, please let me know if you have questions.

This budget amendment makes the following adjustments to the budget:

 Establishment of a Historic Preservation Department In October the Council approved moving ahead with the history/visitor center and approved an interlocal agreement with Washington County for funding for the redevelopment of the historic structure as the history/visitor center. This budget amendment establishes various revenue account line items for the history/visitor center as well as a “department” in the general fund for history center/historic preservation related expenses. The reconstruction funding from the County is included in both the revenue line items and the expense accounts. Additionally, the Council approved some money in the Community Development Department this year for historic preservation projects and matching funds. This money is proposed to be moved from the CED Department to the new Historic Preservation Department.

 Buildings and Grounds The heating/AC unit in the basement of the Town Hall is in desperate need of replacement. We are currently evaluating options for replacement of the unit and related changes to separate the main floor and basement heating/AC. We anticipate moving from a propane fueled system to an electric powered system. We have already replaced the building water heater with an electric water heater.

 Parks/CCC Departments In the proposed budget is funding for a replacement truck for one of the Parks employees. We anticipated replacing this truck next budget year, but due to some mechanical problems it is necessary to replace the truck immediately. Vehicles are purchased from the General Fund with repayments budgeted to return money to the fund over five years.

Also included in the Parks and CCC Departments are items that were completed as part of the water treatment project but really belong to these departments, along with a few items not yet done. The rehab of the old water plant, including filling in treatment pit and floor, removal and reconfiguration of electrical components, and paving the area behind the plant, should be booked to the Parks Department and not to the water plant.

Included in the CCC Department is funding for some drainage improvements that will hopefully reduce the amount of standing water in the parking lot on the west side of the building.

Also included in the CCC Department is an allocation from the SMBA Fund for security cameras at the CCC.

 Winderland Lane/Manzanita Road Project The bidding for the Winderland Lane/Manzanita road project has been completed and the Council will consider on this agenda awarding the bid to Interstate Rock. When we did our budget work last spring we included money in the capital projects funds for this project along with other road related work and anticipated an amendment to the fund when final costs were known. In our estimates last spring we included estimated engineering services. This budget amendment separates out engineering, geotechnical and right-of-way from the project construction budget.

This project is funded through a transfer from the General Fund. Future road projects will be funded through a combination of transportation sales taxes (approved by the County Commission this year) and general fund transfers.

 Water Meter Replacement The amendment finalizes the costs for the water meter replacement program the Public Works Department has been working on for the past several months. This project is funded through the Water Fund fund balance.

 Streets Department During the preparation of this amendment a calculation error was discovered in one of the Streets Dept line items. This is being corrected.

Below is a listing of the various accounts recommended for amendment.

General Fund

Revenues Account Number Description Budget Amount Amendment Amount Difference New Account County Tourism Funds New 390,000 390,000 10-39-880 Transfer from SMBA Fund 0 10,000 10,000 10-39-990 Appropriated Use of BF Balance 1033.050 1,337,050 304,000

Expenditures

Non-Departmental (10-50) Account Number Description Budget Amount Amendment Amount Difference 10-50-990 Appropriate Increase Fund Balance 20,388 17,488 (2,900)

Government Buildings (10-51) Account Number Description Budget Amount Amendment Amount Difference 10-51-260 Buildings and Grounds Maintenance 46,064 62,064 16,000

Streets (10-60) Account Number Description Budget Amount Amendment Amount Difference 10-56-255 Shop Equipment and Supplies 3,000 5,900 2,900

Parks (10-70) Account Number Description Budget Amount Amendment Amount Difference 10-70-740 Capital Outlay – Equipment 62,248 106,248 44,000 10-70-780 Capital Outlay – Park Projects 12,000 77,000 65,000

Community and Economic Development (10-78) Account Number Description Budget Amount Amendment Amount Difference 10-78-310 Professional/Technical Services 259,400 241,400 (18,000)

CCC (10-80) Account Number Description Budget Amount Amendment Amount Difference 10-80-740 Capital Outlay – Equipment 0 10,000 10,000 10-80-780 Capital Outlay – Projects 0 21,000 21,000

Historic Preservation (new department) Account Number Description Budget Amount Amendment Amount Difference 10-xx-310 Professional/Technical Services 0 18,000 18,000 10-xx-780 Capital Outlay – Historic Projects 0 390,000 390,000

Transfers Account Number Description Budget Amount Amendment Amount Difference 10-90-400 Transfer to Capital Projects Fund 600,000 758,000 158,000

Streets Capital Project Fund

Revenues Account Number Description Budget Amount Amendment Amount Difference 47-39-100 Transfer from General Fund 600,000 758,000 158,000

Expenditures

Account Number Description Budget Amount Amendment Amount Difference 47-40-310 Professional/Technical Services 0 130.600 130.600 47-40-561 CP Improvements – Streets 1,393,800 1,420,638 26,838

Water Fund

Revenues Account Number Description Budget Amount Amendment Amount Difference 51-39-990 Appropriated Use of BF Balance 226,950 286,950 60,000

Expenditures

Account Number Description Budget Amount Amendment Amount Difference 51-40-780 Capital Outlay – Water Projects 100,000 160,000 60,000

SMBA (Municipal Building Authority) Fund:

Revenues Account Number Description Budget Amount Amendment Amount Difference 53-39-990 Appropriated Use of BF Balance 6,000 16,000 10,000

Expenditures

Account Number Description Budget Amount Amendment Amount Difference 53-90-500 Transfer to General Fund 0 10,000 10,000

As always, if you have any questions during your review of this material, please do not hesitate to call.

RESOLUTION NO. 2019‐12

A RESOLUTION OPENING AND AMENDING THE BUDGET OF REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES FOR THE VARIOUS FUNDS OF THE TOWN OF SPRINGDALE FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDING JUNE 30, 2020

WHEREAS, The Town Council has reviewed the current budget for compliance with State Law; and

WHEREAS, the budgeted allotments of certain departments of the general, enterprise and other funds require revision to reflect budgetary changes; and

WHEREAS, the Town Council is responsible and has the authority to make necessary amendments to its budget; and

THEREFORE, BE IT HEREBY RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Springdale that the following amendments are made to the budget for the 2019‐2020 fiscal year:

General Fund: Increase Revenues and Expenditures by $704,000 to total $5,387,654.

Streets Capital Projects Fund: Increase Revenues by $158,000 to total $1,580,000. Increase Expenditures by $157,438 to total $1,55,238.

Water Fund: Increase Revenues by $60,000 to total $1,220,1250. Increase Expenditures by $60,000 to total $1220,030.

SMBA (Municipal Building Authority) Fund: Increase Revenues and Expenditures by $10,000 to total $73,600.

Passed and adopted this 11th day of December 2019.

______Stanley J. Smith, Mayor

Attest:

______Darci Carlson, Town Clerk Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Explanation Taxes 10-31-100 Current Year Property Taxes - 71,904 71,904 Certified tax rate of .000268 per Wa 10-31-200 Prior Year Property Taxes - 3,000 3,000 10-31-300 Sales & Use Taxes - 650,000 650,000 657,399 10-31-400 Franchise Taxes 10-31-500 Resort Taxes - 1,800,000 1,800,000 1,823,882 1,823,881.51 10-31-505 Transient Room Tax - 550,000 550,000 556,447 10-31-511 Telecommunications Tax - 5,000 5,000 10-31-600 Fee-In-Lieu - 1,500 1,500 10-31-700 RAP Tax - 35,000 35,000 10-31-800 Municipal Energy Tax - 100,000 100,000 56% Taxes Total - 3,216,404 3,216,404

Licenses And Permits 10-32-100 Business Licenses - 20,000 20,000 13-32-200 Sign Permits - 500 500 10-32-210 Building Permits - 40,000 40,000 10-32-215 Demo/Excav/Fill Permits - 500 500 10-32-216 Conditional Use Permits - - - 10-32-217 Open Air Display Permits - - - 10-32-218 Temporary Use Permits - - - 10-32-219 Home Occupation Permits - - - 10-32-220 Agricultural Use Permits - - - 10-32-221 Fence Permits - - - 10-32-222 Special Event Permits - 500 500 10-32-223 Utility Permits - 500 500 10-32-250 Animal Licenses - 200 200 Licenses Total - 62,200 62,200

Intergovernmental Revenue 10-33-400 State Grants - 24,150 24,150 CIB Application - Storm Water Mast 10-33-500 Misc Intergovernmental - - - 10-33-560 Class "C" Road Funds Allotment - 24,000 24,000 10-33-570 FEMA Proceeds - - - 10-33-580 Beer Tax Funds - 12,000 12,000 10-33-585 COPS Grant - - - 10-33-590 Federal Revenue Sharing - - - 10-33-700 Pedestrian Safety Funds - - - 10-33-750 UDOT Cooperative Project Funds - 60,000 60,000 60,000 ZRC Trail Study 10-33-800 Police Services Virgin - - - 10-33-900 Police Services Rockville - 20,000 20,000 Intergovernmental Total - 140,150 140,150

Charges for Services 10-34-240 Inspection Fees - Plan Check fees - 20,000 20,000 10-34-600 Zoning Fees - Misc - - - 10-34-601 Building Permit Applicaions - 2,000 2,000 10-34-602 Zoning Map/Ordinance Revisions - 1,000 1,000 10-34-603 Appeals - - - 10-34-604 Design/Development Review - 2,500 2,500 10-34-605 Ordinance Interpretations - - - 10-34-606 Subdivision Applications - - - 10-34-607 Variances - - - 10-34-810 Sale of Cemetery Lots - 3,000 3,000

General Fund Revenue As of 12/5/2019Page 1 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Explanation 10-34-830 Burial Fees - 1,500 1,500 10-34-850 DCD Review Fees - - - 10-34-860 Parking meters - - -

Charges Total - 30,000 30,000

Fines and Forfeitures 10-35-100 Fines and Forfeitures - 35,000 35,000 - 10-35-200 Parking Citations - - - Court Fines/PD - Springdale, Rockv 10-35-300 Evidence and Forfeitures - - - Parking Citations

Fines Total - 35,000 35,000

Canyon Community Center 10-36-100 Donations - - - cash donations 10-36-200 Rentals - 3,000 3,000 community Center rental fees Class registration/fees - 15,000 15,000 10-36-300 Events - - - Earth Day 10-36-400 Grant revenue - - - 10-36-500 Merchandise (totes, bottles, etc.) - - -

CCC Total - 18,000 18,000

Music Festival Revenues

Music Festival Total - - -

Historic Preservation/History Center County Tourism Funds 390,000 390,000 - History/Visitor Center Construction D County RAP Tax - Federal Grants - State Grants - Private Grants - Sponsors/Donations/Fundraising - Retail Sales - Event Proceeds -

Historic Preservation Total 390,000 390,000 -

Interest 10-38-100 Interest Income - General Acct - 1,000 1,000 10-38-105 Interest Income - Open Space - 600 600 10-38-106 Interest Income - RAP Tax - 1,000 1,000 10-38-110 Interest Income - PTIF Gen Acct - 60,000 60,000 10-38-115 Interest Income - Municipal Parking - 500 500 10-38-120 Interest Income - Cemetery Acct - - - 10-38-121 Interest Income - LLEBG Grant - - - 10-38-125 Investment Interest - 60,000 60,000 Interest Total - 123,100 123,100

General Fund Revenue As of 12/5/2019Page 2 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Explanation Miscellaneous Revenues 10-38-010 Reimbursements 10-38-030 Rents and Concessions - 500 500 Town Hall/gazebo rentals 10-38-040 Grant Revenue - - - 10-38-050 YAZ Revenue - - - 10-38-300 ULGT Dividend - 6,000 6,000 10-38-400 Sale of Fixed Assets - - - 10-38-450 Sale of Bonds - - - 10-38-460 Debt Proceeds - Capital Lease - - - 10-38-500 Photocopies and Research - 250 250 10-38-610 Zoning Maps - - - 10-38-900 Sundry Revenues - - - 10-38-905 Credit Card Convenience Fee - - -

10-38-910 Event Revenues - 19,000 19,000 19,000 19,000 Butch Cassidy 10K Race

Misc Total - 25,750 25,750

Contributions and Transfers 10-39-100 Contributions from Private Sources - - - 10-39-110 Contributions - Ambulance - - - 10-39-115 Contributions to Tennis Court Fund - - - 10-39-120 Contributions - Parks and Recreation - - - 10-39-122 Contribution to ISTEA match - - - 10-39-123 Contribution to Library Fund - - - 10-39-870 Interfund Loan, Transfer or Contributio - - - -

10-39-880 Transfer from SMBA Fund 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 10,000 Security cameras at CCC

10-39-990 Appropriated Use of BF Balance 304,000 1,337,050 1,033,050 1,337,050 - B&C Road Funds for street projects 12,000 RAP Tax Retained Funds 5,000 Beer tax retained funds 758,000 Road Reconstruction 24,150 Storm water master plan (town porti 116,000 Secondary Water Metering Transfer 60,000 Transfer to Irrigation Fund 5,000 Town Hall Architecture program 56,000 Town Hall/CCC Reremodel projects 65,000 Old Water Plant Remodel 21,000 CCC Drainage Improrvements

General Fund Revenue As of 12/5/2019Page 3 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Explanation Vehicle Purchasing: 45,000 Bucket Truck 40,000 Police Trucks 12,000 Police vehicle equipment 38,400 Backhoe (GF portion) 28,000 Mini-ex (GF portion) 7,500 UTC (GF portion) 44,000 Parks Truck

Contributions and Transfers Total 314,000 1,347,050 1,033,050

Total General Fund Revenues 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654 GF Exp 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654 - - -

General Fund Revenue As of 12/5/2019Page 4 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 10-50-270 Utilities 670 670 670 600 Blue Sky Power (20% of total power load, except streetlig 50 Solar energy montoring

10-50-310 Professional/Technical Services 3,200 3,200 3,200 3,200 Treas Audit (see split) - Treas Auditor research/questions

10-50-350 City Celebrations 35,000 35,000 35,000 - July 4th - 24th of July 1,500 Holiday/Misc/Parade Candy 500 Washington County Fair display supplies 10,000 Christmas decorations (street light poles) 2,500 US Flags for holidays (pole banners) 14,000 Treas Butch Cassidy 10K Race 4,000 Joy to the World Fireworks (Lisa says no fireworks) 2,500 Joy To The World Festival

10-50-490 Computer Supplies 13,353 13,353 13,353 165 Treas Infowest Web hosting split 2,000 Misc. Supplies 300 Treas Infowest email account split 1,800 Treas Mountain West Computer Service contract 7,000 Treas CivicPlus Annual Support 1,128 Treas L17-07/2018 Server 960 Slack subscription

10-50-620 Misc Services - - -

10-50-625 Bad Debt - - -

10-50-630 Underground Power - - -

10-50-631 Zions Credit Line Payment - - -

10-50-635 Debt Service Principal - - - -

10-50-636 Debt Service Interest - - - -

10-50-650 Grant Expense - - -

10-50-990 Appropriated Increase Fund Bal (2,900) 17,488 20,388 17,488 12,800 RAP Tax Allocation (held until projects identified) 4,688 fund balancing

FY19-20 Budget (2,900) 69,711 72,611 Previous Year Difference Percentage Change

GF Rev 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654 GF Exp 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654 - - -

Non-Departmental10-50 As of 12/5/2019Page 5 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 10-51-110 Salaries/Wages - 2,340 2,340 2,340 Treas

10-51-120 Payroll Tax Expense - 235 235 235 Treas

10-51-130 Employee Benefits - 9 9 9 Treas

10-51-175 Rent - - -

10-51-250 Equipment: Supplies/Maint - 1,000 1,000 1,000 500 TM Phone system maintenance 500 Treas Locksmith services/maintenance

10-51-260 Bldgs & Grounds/supplies/maint 16,000 62,064 46,064 62,064 1,600 Treas TH Supplies 500 Window washing - 4x per year 167 Fire Extingusher inspections 47 Annual Fire Marshall Inspection (TH, CCC, WTP, Shops) 2,000 Treas Town Hall Maint. (lights, repairs, etc.) - Painting/staining exterior wood 150 Council room maintenance (table refinish, painting, cabin 25,000 fund balaCouncil Room remodel 15,000 fund balaCCC remodel (public meetings) 1,600 New exterior lights 16,000 HVAC Repairs

10-51-310 Professional/Technical Services - 1,402 1,402 1,402 252 Treas Alarm monitoring Town Hall 350 Treas Pest control 300 Treas Alarm Troubleshooting 500 Treas Heating/Air conditioning maintenance - Treas Building security camera addition

10-51-480 Special Dept Supplies - - - -

10-51-510 Insurance - 936 936 936 870 Treas Property Insurance (see split) 66 Treas Equipment Insurance (see split)

10-51-720 Capital Outlay - Buildings - - - -

10-51-730 Capital Outlay - Improvements - - - -

FY19-20 Budget 16,000 67,986 51,986 Previous Year Difference Percentage Change

GF Rev 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654 GF Exp 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654

Government Buildings10-51 As of 12/5/2019Page 6 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 10-60-110 Salaries & Wages - 56,489 56,489 56,489 Treas

10-60-120 Payroll Tax Expense - 5,997 5,997 5,997 Treas

10-60-130 Employee Benefits - 39,516 39,516 39,516 Treas

10-60-150 Contract Labor - 1,200 1,200 1,200 Prison work crew 4 days @ 300/day

10-60-210 Books & Subscriptions - - - -

10-60-220 Public Notices - - - -

10-60-230 Travel - - - -

10-60-235 Vehicle Repair/Maintenance - 6,500 6,500 6,500 3,000 Misc Repair/Maintenance 2,000 Tires 1,500 Sweeper maintenance

10-60-236 Fuel - 8,000 8,000 8,000 Treas Fuel

10-60-237 Dump Truck Rental Expense - - - -

10-60-240 Office Supplies/Expense - 250 250 250 Treas

10-60-250 Equip: Supplies/Maint - 4,000 4,000 4,000 4,000 Various tools and supplies - Equipment rental

10-60-255 Shop Equipment and Supplies 2,900 5,900 3,000 5,900 3,000 PW shop maintenance (bulk items, fuel, trailer maintenan 700 PW shop tools 1,250 Safety supplies and signs (split 4 - streets, irigation, wate - Vehicle maintenance 950 Welding tools/supplies

10-60-260 Streets Maintenance - 34,500 34,500 34,500 1,000 road patching (hot mix/cold mix) 7,000 Road base, A-Core cutting services, asphalt repair, project overruns - Street signs and poles 3,000 Other misc signs and poles 5,000 Sidewalk grinding (trip and fall fixes) 5,000 Sidewalk replacement (damaged, heaving, trip and fall) 2,000 Road stiping paint/supplies - Shop Road 2,500 Emergency preparedness supplies 5,000 Paved Trail Maintenance 1,000 Straw wattles (drainage issues) 3,000 Repair floor at old Parks Shop (for sign shop)

Streets Department10-60 As of 12/5/2019Page 7 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 10-60-265 Uniforms - 1,030 1,030 1,030 850 Quartermaster Uniform - PW (1 employee) 180 PPE/safety equipment

10-60-270 Utilities - 8,675 8,675 8,675 175 Treas Power at shop 8,500 Treas School crossing lights, street lights, shuttle/pedestrian lig

10-60-280 Telephone - 1,600 1,600 1,600 Treas

10-60-310 Professional/Technical Services - 58,250 58,250 58,250 500 misc services 350 Treas Shop pest control services 1,600 Twin D culvert cleaning 5,000 Tree pruning 48,300 fund balan Storm Water Master Plan update 2,500 Development Standards update

10-60-330 Education/Training - 700 700 700 700 CEUs 1,000 Other training - Treas Arbinger Materials for training

10-60-340 Dues & Memberships - - - -

10-60-480 Special Dept Supplies - 850 850 850 600 Treas Wellness/Safety Incentive split ($300 per ee) 250 Treas Staff Christmas party split ($125 per ee) 500 Event banners (event specific)

10-60-490 Computer Supplies - 240 240 240 Treas Lease L13-07/2016

10-60-510 Insurance/Surety Bonds - 8,466 8,466 8,466 5,544 Treas Liability Insurance (see split) 2,500 Treas Auto Insurance (see split) 350 Treas Property Insurance (see split) 72 Treas Equipment Insurance (see split)

10-60-610 Misc Supplies - 250 250 250 Treas

10-60-620 Misc Services - 500 500 500 Treas Vaccinations/Misc

10-60-740 Capital Outlay - Equipment - 129,986 129,986 129,986 45,000 fund balan vehicle purchasing: bucket truck 19,200 fund balan vehicle purchasing: backhoe 14,000 fund balan vehicle purchasing: Mini-Ex 3,750 fund balan vehicle purchasing: UTC 44,986 vehicle account payment: Streets Dept - Equipment/tools for new vehicles 1,800 Flagging Lights 1,250 Road Barriers (water filled)

Streets Department10-60 As of 12/5/2019Page 8 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 10-60-750 Capital Outlay - Shop Equip - - - - -

10-60-780 Capital Outlay - Streets Projects - 30,000 30,000 30,000 street maintenance and improvments, prioritized list move

30,000 Asphalt Driveways (prioritized): 1 Park House Café 2 Dixie Lane 3 Rock Shop 4 Apple Lane 5 Kinesava Dr.

10-60-790 Capital Outlay - Other - - - -

6081 Capital Lease Principal - - -

6082 Capital Lease Interest - - -

FY19-20 Budget 2,900 402,899 399,999 Previous Year Difference Percentage Change

GF Rev 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654 GF Exp 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654 - - -

Streets Department10-60 As of 12/5/2019Page 9 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 10-70-110 Salaries & Wages - 120,776 120,776 120,776 Treas

10-70-120 Payroll Tax Expense - 12,300 12,300 12,300 Treas

10-70-130 Employee Benefits - 62,370 62,370 62,370 Treas

10-70-150 Contract Labor - 900 900 900 Prison work crew: 3 days @ 300/day - Emergency clean up - various landscaping projects (sod, shoveling, etc.)

10-70-210 Books and Subscriptions - - - -

10-70-220 Public Notices - - - -

10-70-230 Travel - 2,000 2,000 2,000 Training expenses

10-70-235 Vehicle Repair/Maintenance - 5,500 5,500 5,500 3,000 Misc Repair/Maintenance 2,000 Tires 500 Trailer maintenance

10-70-236 Fuel - 9,700 9,700 9,700 Treas Fuel

10-70-237 Dump Truck Rental Expense - - -

10-70-240 Office Supplies/Expense - 250 250 250 Treas

10-70-250 Equipment, Supplies & Maint - 17,450 17,450 17,450 500 Equipment rentals 5,000 Equipment service, gas, supplies and maintenance 500 fuel for mowers, trimmers, etc. 1,500 Misc Equipment (see equipment lists) 500 Christmas lights, holiday supplies 600 Sports equipment 200 Sports equipment storage unit 2,500 Aerator 600 Pressure Washer 750 Tower Heaters 2,000 Chipper Shredder Vacuum 200 12v Irrigation Pump 400 BBQ Grills for Parks 200 Shop Vac 2,000 Mulching kit (current mower)

10-70-255 Shop Equipment and Supplies - 3,890 3,890 3,890 3,000 PW shop maintenance (bulk items, fuel, trailer mainten 700 PW shop tools - Safety supplies and signs (split 4 - streets, irigation, wa - Vehicle maintenance 190 Welding tools/supplies

Parks Recreation10-70 As of 12/5/2019Page 10 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 10-70-260 Bldgs & Grounds/Supp/Maint - 27,250 27,250 27,250 5,000 turf fertilizer applications 3,500 building and grounds supplies (i.e. light bulbs, trash bags, mutt mitts, towels, paint, cl 5,000 Irrigation repair and maintenance 1,000 sod for cemetery 1,000 Volleyball court maintenance 1,000 Decorative Rock - Playground Mulch 1,000 Ball field maintenance and improvements (Infield mix, 2,500 Trail maintenance 1,000 Drainage improvements at Parks Shop 750 River Park maintenance 1,000 Tennis Court maintenance - Shop Road 3,000 Maintenance Storage shed (River Park) 1,500 Arbor Day trees/tree planting

10-70-265 Uniforms - 1,880 1,880 1,880 1,700 Quartermaster Uniform - Parks (2 employee) - New employee 180 PPE/safety equipment

10-70-270 Utilities - 2,500 2,500 2,500 Treas

10-70-280 Telephone - 3,000 3,000 3,000 Treas

10-70-310 Professional/Technical Services - 12,060 12,060 12,060 750 Electrician, Plumber, tech support, etc. 600 Recycling at Town Park and River Park 5,000 Tree Trimming 5,000 Memorial Grove Design (USU Community Design Team 710 Treas Shop/Park restroom pest control

10-70-330 Education & Training - 1,650 1,650 1,650 400 CPSI (playground certification) 250 URPA/Outdoor Rec 1,000 Parks education/training - Treas Arbinger materials for training

10-70-340 Dues and Memberships - 150 150 150 URPA

10-70-480 Special Dept Supplies - 1,275 1,275 1,275 900 Treas Wellness/Safety Incentive split ($300 per ee) 375 Treas Staff Christmas party ($125 per ee)

10-70-490 Computer Supplies - 660 660 660 - Tree Inventory 480 Treas Ryan Desktop (L19-02/2019) 180 Adobe Creative Cloud software (Toni)

Parks Recreation10-70 As of 12/5/2019Page 11 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 10-70-510 Insurance/Surety Bonds - 7,170 7,170 7,170 5,544 Treas Liability Insurance (see split) 900 Treas Auto Insurance (see split) 610 Treas Property Insurance (see split) 116 Treas Equipment Insurance (see split)

10-70-520 Youth Recreation Program - 500 500 500

10-70-610 Misc Supplies - 250 250 250

10-70-620 Misc Services - 250 250 250

10-70-740 Captial Outlay - Equipment 44,000 106,248 62,248 106,248 19,200 fund bala vehicle purchasing: backhoe 14,000 fund bala vehicle purchasing: Mini-Ex 3,750 fund bala Vehicle Purchasing: UTC 44,000 fund bala Vehicle Purchasing: employee vehicle 15,298 vehicle account payment:Parks Dept 10,000 Wood Chipper 10,000 Walker Mower (mulching deck)

10-70-750 Capital Outlay - Shop Equipmen - - - - (vehicles, welding, safety) -

10-70-780 Capital Outlay - Park Projects 65,000 77,000 12,000 77,000 - Memorial Grove development 2,000 Garbage can enclosures 75,000 Retrofit of old WTP for Parks offices/shop (filling in floor, electrical, paving back lot)

10-70-790 Capital Outlay - Other - - - - - 7081 Capital Lease Principal - - -

7082 Capital Lease Interest - - -

FY19-20 Budget 109,000 476,979 367,979 Previous Year Difference Percentage Change

GF Rev 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654 GF Exp 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654 - - -

Parks Recreation10-70 As of 12/5/2019Page 12 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 10-78-110 Salaries & Wages - 254,428 254,428 254,428 Treas

10-78-120 Payroll Tax Expense - 23,017 23,017 23,017 Treas

10-78-130 Employee Benefits - 121,401 121,401 121,401 Treas

10-78-165 Fire Marshal - 800 800 800 800 Reviews/meetings/inspections

10-78-210 Books & Subscriptions - 650 650 650 200 Planning books for office reference 150 2018 Existing Buildings Code 150 2018 Energy Code 150 2017 NEC

10-78-220 Public Notices - 200 200 200 legal notices

10-78-230 Travel - 5,000 5,000 5,000 1,400 Hotel state planning conference (Tom, Rick, Sophie) 500 Hotel ICC Code Hearings - Las Vegas (Zac) 800 Travel to state planning conference (Tom, Rick, Sophie) 200 Travel to ICC Code Hearings - Las Vegas (Zac) 400 Travel Outdoor Recreation Summit (Tom & Sophie) 1,000 POV Mileage 700 Per diem confernces

10-78-235 Vehicle Expense (Gas, RM) - 1,800 1,800 1,800 300 maintenance 800 tires 200 Seat covers 500 Spray in bedliner

10-78-236 Fuel - 400 400 400

10-78-240 Office Supplies/Expense - 3,400 3,400 3,400 2,400 Treas Office supplies 500 Misc Office supplies 500 Office furniture (desk and equipment) for Vista intern

10-78-250 Equip: Supplies/Maint - 1,970 1,970 1,970 1,155 Treas Copier Maint. Agreement (see split) 315 Treas Laser Fiche Maint. Agreement (see split) 500 Misc Equipment

10-78-265 Uniforms - 720 720 720 360 Zac Uniform Allowance 360 Jeff Uniforms 400 Tom / Sophie Springdale branded apparel 500 bike helmets

10-78-280 Telephone - 2,700 2,700 2,700 Treas

Community Economic Development Department10-78 As of 12/5/2019Page 13 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 10-78-290 Postage - 2,000 2,000 2,000 2,000 Treas postage/meter rental (split)

10-78-310 Professional/Technical Services (18,000) 241,400 259,400 241,400 25,000 Engineering (building plan reviews, site checks) 400 State Code Update (shared with 1043) 3,500 Sterling Codifiers - recordation of title 10 2,000 court reporter for Appeal Authority, as needed 1,500 Appeal Authority 1,500 Landslide Monitoring 75,000 Zion Regional Collaborative Projects -Matching Funds (V 65,000 Virgin River Plan Technical Consultants - Historic preservation CLG Grant match and projects 1,000 Aerial Imagery - Pictometry Update 4,000 Plan Review consultant 2,500 Development standards update 15,000 Affordable Housing plan 25,000 Open space bond consultants 20,000 Misc ordinance revision consultants

10-78-330 Education & Training - 2,818 2,818 2,818 800 Utah state planning conference registration (Tom, Rick, S 500 Planning Commission training 300 Utah Outdoor Recreation Summit (Tom & Sophie) 350 Utah ICC Annual Conference 200 Building Inspector Webinars St. George 500 2019 ICC Code Hearings - Las Vegas 168 Planetizen Subscription - Treas Arbinger materials for training

10-78-340 Dues & Memberships - 2,335 2,335 2,335 1,700 APA/AICP (Americal Planning Association) (Rick, Tom, S 235 ICC (Utah + General) Zac 400 Certification Renewlas (Zac)

10-78-350 City Celebrations - - - -

10-78-370 Community Center Event Exp - - - -

10-78-480 Special Dept Supplies - 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,200 Treas Wellness/Safety Incentive split ($300 per ee) 500 Treas Staff Christmas party ($125 per ee)

10-78-490 Computer Supplies - 4,182 4,182 4,182 648 Treas Tom Computer lease (L13-07/2016) 672 Treas Zac Lenovo/Docking Lease (L18-10/2018) 672 Treas Jeff Lenovo/Docking Lease (L18-10/2018) 672 Treas Sophie Lenovo/Docking Lease (L18-10/2018) 468 Treas Desktop on Lobby Counter - 300 Acrobat Pro Annual Subscriptions (Tom, Sophie) 750 BlueBeam Software (building inspection software)

Community Economic Development Department10-78 As of 12/5/2019Page 14 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation

10-78-510 Insurance/Surety Bonds - 367 367 367 17 Treas Equipment Insurance (split) 350 Treas Auto Insurance (split)

10-78-610 Misc Supplies - 500 500 500

10-78-620 Misc Services - 500 500 500

10-78-740 Captial Outlay - Equipment - 7,697 7,697 7,697 - Treas - Vehicle Purchasing: 7,697 vehicle account payment: CED

10-78-780 Capital Outlay - CED Projects - - - -

10-78-900 Open Space Preservation Fund - 10,000 10,000 10,000

10-78-910 Municipal Parking Fund - - -

FY19-20 Budget (18,000) 689,985 707,985 Previous Year Difference Percentage Change

GF Rev 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654 GF Exp 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654

Community Economic Development Department10-78 As of 12/5/2019Page 15 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 10-80-110 Salaries & Wages - 47,809 47,809 47,809 Treas

10-80-120 Payroll Tax Expense - 4,869 4,869 4,869 Treas

10-80-130 Employee Benefits - 19,416 19,416 19,416 Treas

10-80-150 Contract Labor - - -

10-80-210 Books & Subscriptions - - - -

10-80-220 Public Notices - - - -

10-80-230 Travel - - - -

10-80-235 Vehicle Expense (Gas, RM) - - - -

10-80-240 Office Supplies - 1,250 1,250 1,250 1,250 Treas Office Supplies (split)

10-80-250 Equip: Supplies/Maint - 2,015 2,015 2,015 315 Treas LaserFiche Maint. (split) - Treas Copier maintenance 300 tablecloths 300 speaker/mic system 250 Karaoke machine 550 Smart TV/Cart 300 Dance Shirts

10-80-260 Bldgs & Grounds/supplies/maint - 12,420 12,420 12,420 1,200 Treas cleaning supplies/bldg maint. supplies - Treas weekend cleaning (about 5 hours per week on averag 2,500 bldg repairs/maint. (gallery lighting, etc.) 1,500 Carpet Cleaning (3x per year) 200 Stained Concrete Floor Maintenance 750 Movable Wall Maintenance 500 Building Signage (sustainability) 170 light bulb replacements (LED) 600 Dance mirror 5,000 Sidewalk Repair/replacement

10-80-270 Utilities - 2,100 2,100 2,100 Treas

10-80-280 Telephone - 720 720 720 Treas cell service

10-80-290 Postage - 300 300 300 Treas

10-80-300 Newsletters - - - -

Canyon Community Center10-80 As of 12/5/2019Page 16 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 10-80-310 Professional/Technical Services - 2,405 2,405 2,405 300 Alarm troubleshooting 252 Treas Alarm monitoring 325 Treas Fire Riser Inspection 560 Treas HVAC Annual Maint. Contract 468 Treas Pest Control 500 paid social media (boosting posts)

10-80-330 Education & Training - 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 CCC Training - Treas Arbinger materials for training

10-80-340 Dues & Memberships - 1,352 1,352 1,352 100 Treas Leave No Trace 350 Treas ASCAP 652 Treas Rotary - Ryan 150 SURC 100 URPA

10-80-350 City Celebrations - - - -

10-80-370 Community Center Event Exp - 5,500 5,500 5,500 250 gallery show expenses (traveling shows) 250 Misc event expenses 3,000 Earth Day celebration 2,000 Night sky events and education

10-80-480 Special Dept Supplies - 825 825 825 400 Volunteer, weeders guild thank yous 300 Treas Wellness/Safety Incentive split ($300 per ee) 125 Treas Staff Christmas party ($125 per ee)

10-80-490 Computer Supplies - 1,556 1,556 1,556 480 Treas Robyn Desktop (L19-02/2019) 240 Treas CCC Laptop (new 2019-20 lease) 500 Misc software 336 Treas CCC Laserfiche Scanner (new lease)

10-80-510 Insurance/Surety Bonds - 7,961 7,961 7,961 2,400 Treas Property Insurance (split) 5,544 Treas Liability Insurance (split) 17 Treas Equipment Insurance/gallery shows (split)

10-80-520 Senior Program - 250 250 250 Senior Program

10-80-610 Misc Supplies - 250 250 250

10-80-620 Misc Services - 250 250 250

10-80-740 Captial Outlay - Equipment 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 10,000 security cameras

Canyon Community Center10-80 As of 12/5/2019Page 17 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 10-80-780 Capital Outlay - special projects 21,000 21,000 - 21,000 21,000 Drainage improvements - Parking Lot Asphalt Maintenance/seal coating

10-80-830 Lease payment to SMBA - 57,600 57,600 57,600 Treas Lease Payment to SMBA

FY19-20 Budget 31,000 200,848 169,848 Previous Year Difference Percentage Change

GF Rev 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654 GF Exp 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654 - - -

Canyon Community Center10-80 As of 12/5/2019Page 18 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Explanation 10-xx-110 Salaries & Wages - - - - Treas

10-xx-120 Payroll Tax Expense - - - - Treas

10-xx-130 Employee Benefits - - - - Treas

10-xx-150 Contract Labor - - - -

10-xx-210 Books and Subscriptions - - - -

10-xx-220 Public Notices - - - -

10-xx-230 Travel - - - -

10-xx-240 Office Supplies - - - - office supplies

10-xx-250 Equipment, Supplies, Maintenta - - - - - Museum materials: pamphlets, printed materials - Museum exhibit development - Museum display materials

10-xx-260 Bldgs & Grounds/supplies/maint - - - - - building maintenance cleaning (assum docents)

10-xx-270 Utilities - - - -

10-xx-280 Telephone - - - - Mango voice phone (in Govt. Buildings)

10-xx-290 Postage - - - -

10-xx-295 Sales Taxes - - - - Retail Merchandise

10-xx-300 Marketing - - - - - Museum marketing - Social media/web marketing

10-xx-310 Professional/Technical Services 18,000 18,000 - 18,000 18,000 Historic preservation CLG Grant match and projects - National Register nominations (8 properties on ILS list) - ILS History Center property - Treas Pest Control - Treas Alarm monitoring - Treas Alarm Troubleshooting - Treas Heating/Air conditioning maintenance - Storage (offsite)

10-xx-330 Education and Training - - - -

10-xx-340 Dues and Memberships - - - - Professional Fees

Historic Preservation As of 12/5/2019Page 19 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Explanation 10-xx-480 Special Dept Supplies - - - - - Mujseum events (quarterly) - Fundraising Expense

10-xx-490 Computer Supplies - - - - Office Technology . 10-xx-510 Insurance/Surety Bonds - - - -

10-xx-520 PayPal charges - - - -

10-xx-610 Misc Supplies - - - -

10-xx-620 Misc Services - - - -

10-xx-740 Captial Outlay - Equipment - - - -

10-xx-780 Captial Outlay - Historic Projects 390,000 390,000 - 390,000 295,000 Building Rehabilitation 95,000 Museum exhibits, technology for displays

FY19-20 Budget 408,000 408,000 - Previous Year Difference Percentage Change

GF Rev 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654 GF Exp 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654 - - -

Historic Preservation As of 12/5/2019Page 20 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Explanation 10-90-100 Transfer to Water Fund - 64,678 64,678 64,678 60,000 Water project debt service 4,678 Payments for water service (estimate based on

10-90-150 Transfer to Irrigation - 176,000 176,000 176,000 116,000 Secondary water metering transfer 60,000 Irrigation Fund Assistance

10-90-200 Transfer to Sewer Fund - 1,387 1,387 1,386 Payments for sewer service (estimate based on

10-90-300 Agency Payments - 120,000 120,000 120,000 120,000 TRT allocation to Wash Co (fy 2020 only)

10-90-400 Transfer to Cap Projects Fund 158,000 758,000 600,000 758,000 758,000 Street Projects (CP-47)

10-90-500 Transfer to SMBA Fund (Community C - - - - transfer to future capital needs fund

FY19-20 Budget 158,000 1,120,065 962,065

Total General Fund Revenue 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654 Total General Fund Expenses 704,000 5,387,654 4,683,654 Variance - - -

Transfers and Fund Totals As of 12/5/2019Page 21 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Explanation Intergovernmental Revenue 47-33-300 CVB 47-33-600 Washington County 47-33-400 Federal/NPS Grant - 800,000 800,000 800,000 FLAP Grant 47-33-400 State Grant 47-33-500 UDOT Grant total intergovernmental - 800,000 800,000

Miscellaneous Revenue 47-38-110 Interest Income - PTIF 47-38-510 Impact Fees - Parks total misc -

Contributions and Transfers 47-39-100 Transfer from General Fund 158,000 758,000 600,000 758,000 Road construction transfer 47-39-123 Contribution to Library Fund 47-39-520 Impact Fees - Planning/Zoning 47-39-530 Impact Fees - Streets/Parking 47-39-540 Impact Fees - Emergency Serv 47-39-870 Transfer from Other Funds - 10,000 10,000 10,000 transfer from Transportation Fund 47-39-990 Appropriated use of BB Bal - 12,000 12,000 12,000 Lion Blvd lights (remaining lights) total contrbutions and transfers 158,000 780,000 622,000

CP47 Revenue total 158,000 1,580,000 1,422,000 157,438 1,551,238 1,393,800

Streets RevenueCapital Projects 47 As of 12/5/2019Page 22 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Explanation 47-40-310 Prof & Tech Services 130,600 130,600 - 130,600 107,600 Engineering, Design, Construction Manag 15,000 Geotechnical 8,000 ROW (Research, Legal, Prop/easment Ac

47-40-561 CP Improvements - Streets 26,838 1,420,638 1,393,800 1,420,638 12,000 Shuttle stop light removal and replace on 10,000 Public bike racks (transportation fund mo 50,000 Green bike paint (transportation fund mon

street maintenance and improvments, prioritized list: 198,100 Manzanita - road reconstruction (FY2020 291,900 Winderland (FY2020) (SR9 to Redhawk C 564,238 Winderland, Manzanita Road Project Foothill drainage improvements Watchman - road reconstruction (FY2021 Canyon View - road reconstruction (FY20 Balanced Rock - road reconstruction [eng Paradise Road - road reconstruction, Win Big Springs - road reconstruction (FY202 Winderland (Redhawk to Paradise) (FY?? 717,600 Tiley Hill Sidewalk 47,400 Balanced Rock Storm Drain 116,800 Lion Blvd. Sidewalk, Curb Gutter

157,438 1,551,238 1,393,800

CP47 Revenue 158,000 1,580,000 1,422,000 CP47 Expenses 157,438 1,551,238 1,393,800 CP 47 totals 562 28,762 28,200

537,400 Winderland/Manzanita Project

56,200 Engineering Design 45,400 Bidding/Negotiating 15,000 Landmark 6,000 staking 8,000 ROW (research, legal, property and ease

Streets ExpendituresCapital Projects 47 As of 12/5/2019Page 23 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Explaination

Operating Revenue 51-37-100 Water Sales 725,000 725,000 51-37-400 Contributed Resort Tax - - 51-37-500 Garbage 47,000 47,000 51-37-600 Irrigation Fees - - 51-37-700 Irrigation Assessments - - 51-39-980 Water Dedication Fee-in-Lieu - - 900/ERU if water dedication not available total operating - 772,000 772,000

Non-Operating Revenue 51-37-200 Connection Fees 54,540 54,540 54,540 9 homes @ 6,060 each 51-37-300 Utility Encroachment Permits 500 500 51-37-800 Rockville Pipeline Capital Cont 5,957 5,957 51-38-100 Interest Earnings 500 500 51-38-110 Interest - State Treasurer 19,000 19,000 51-38-120 State Planning Grant - - water master plan grant - State of Utah 51-38-140 State CIB - - 51-38-400 Sale of Fixed Assets - - 51-38-570 Federal Grant Proceeds - - 51-38-800 BWR Reimb, Water Proj - - 51-38-870 ARRA Project Funds - - 51-38-900 Miscellaneous 4,000 4,000 51-38-910 Penalties 12,000 12,000 total non-operating - 96,497 96,497

Contributions and Transfers 51-39-870 Interfund Loan, Xfer or Contribution 64,678 64,678 64,678 Transfer from General Fund

51-39-990 Appropriated Use of Beginning Fund Balan 60,000 286,950 226,950 286,950 20,000 Appropriation for emergency water line rep 20,000 New WTP Contingency - Contra Flow repair 50,000 Water shares acquisitions (water dedication 19,200 Vehicle purchasing: Backhoe 14,000 Vehicle purchasing: Min-Ex 3,750 Vehicle purchasing: UTC - Water meter reading software and equipme - SR-9 Betterment Projects - Zion Shadows Water Line 160,000 water meter replacement

total contributions 60,000 351,628 291,628

Water Revenue Totals 60,000 1,220,125 1,160,125 Water Fund Expenses 60,000 1,220,030 1,160,030 - 95 95

Water Fund Revenue As of 12/5/2019Page 24 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation Operating Expenses

51-40-110 Salaries & Wages 210,698 210,698 210,698 Treas

51-40-120 Payroll Tax Expense 20,455 20,455 20,455 Treas

51-40-130 Employee Benefits 115,445 115,445 115,445 Treas

51-40-210 Books & Subscriptions - - -

51-40-220 Public Notices - - -

51-40-230 Travel 1,700 1,700 1,700 1,500 training related travel 200 Treas Pelorus Conf (split)

51-40-235 Vehicle Repair/Maintenance 5,000 5,000 5,000 3,000 Misc Repair/Maintenance 2,000 Tires

51-40-236 Fuel 7,000 7,000 7,000 Treas Fuel

51-40-237 Dump Truck Rental Expense - - -

51-40-240 Office Supplies & Expense 1,000 1,000 1,000 Treas Office Supplies

51-40-250 Equip: Supplies/Maint 23,215 23,215 23,215 315 Treas LaserFiche Maint. Agreement (see split) 250 Treas Downstairs Copier Maint. (split) 600 Treas Utility Bills/Envelopes (split) 250 Treas WTP Copier Maint. (split with 52) 5,000 fund balancemergency water line repair supplies 10,000 cullinary water parts 2,500 Misc equipment maintenance 2,300 Generator Service Contract - Parts for meter setters replacements 2,000 Water sample stations

51-40-252 Chemicals 15,500 15,500 15,500 chemicals (increase for new plant?)

51-40-255 Shop Equipment and Supplies 6,090 6,090 6,090 3,000 PW shop maintenance (bulk items, fuel, trailer ma 700 PW shop tools 1,250 Safety supplies and signs (split 4 - streets, irigatio - Vehicle maintenance 1,140 Welding tools/supplies

Water Fund Expenditures As of 12/5/2019Page 25 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 51-40-260 Bldg/Grounds: supp/maint 22,464 22,464 22,464 250 Weed control, paint, lights, restroom supplies 167 Fire Extinguisher Inspections 47 Annual Fire Marshall Inspection - Shop Road Maintenance 20,000 fund balancNew WTP contengency (misc fixes, changes, etc 2,000 Water sampling stations

51-40-265 Uniforms 1,880 1,880 1,880 1,700 Quartermaster Uniform - PW (2 employee) - New employee 180 PPE/safety equipment

51-40-270 Utilities 43,150 43,150 43,150 38,000 Treas 3,200 Treas Irrigation pump house (culinary portion) 615 Treas Blue Sky Power (20% of total power load) 285 Treas Power at Shop 300 Solar energy monitoring 750 Treas Internet 51-40-275 Utilities - Irrigation - - -

51-40-280 Telephone 8,160 8,160 8,160 6,600 Treas WTP phone/cell + 1/2 of new hire 1,560 Treas Portion of Mangovoice (6 phones)

51-40-290 Postage 3,000 3,000 3,000 2,500 Treas Postage/Meter Rental (split) 500 Treas UPS

51-40-300 Contract Labor 15,000 15,000 15,000 fund balancassistance on water breaks/other work

51-40-310 Professional/Technical Services 17,158 17,158 17,158 1,000 Sunrise Engineering, sampling 2,000 SCADA maintenance/support 3,100 Treas water portion of audit (split) 1,870 Treas Pelorus software support (split) 255 Treas WTP Alarm Monitoring 350 Treas WTP pest control 333 State Code Update - UCMA Benchmarking project - Water usage totalizers (system telemetry) - Water master plan update - Tank Cleaning 750 Treas master meter support 5,000 Tank Road maintenance 2,500 Development Standards update

51-40-330 Education/Training 4,000 4,000 4,000 500 Certifications 3,500 Training - Treas Arbinger materials for training

Water Fund Expenditures As of 12/5/2019Page 26 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 51-40-340 Dues & Memberships 925 925 925 525 Treas RWAU 250 Treas AWWA 50 RWAU Scholarship Fund 100 Treas Utah Water Users Assoc.

51-40-350 Garbage Administration 44,400 44,400 44,400 Treas

51-40-360 Purchased Water 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 fund balancWater Shares acquisition

51-40-370 Water Tests 5,500 5,500 5,500

51-40-380 Water Rights Assessments 50 50 50

51-40-390 Irrigation Shares Assessments - - -

51-40-480 Special Dept Supplies 850 850 850 600 Treas Wellness/Safety Incentive split ($300 per ee) 250 Treas Staff Christmas party split ($125 per ee)

51-40-490 Computer Supplies 2,283 2,283 2,283 - 670 Treas Mountain West Computer Service Contract split 150 Treas Infowest web hosting split 400 Treas infowest email account split 396 Treas Joe Desktop Lease (L13-07/2016) 94 Treas Server (L17-07/2018) 93 Treas 3 Lenovo Notebooks (L18-10/2018) 480 Treas Slack subscription

51-40-510 Insurance/Surety 16,952 16,952 16,952 1,350 Treas Auto Premium (see split) 7,025 Treas Property premium (see split) 5,940 Treas Liability Insurance (see split) 105 Treas Equipment Insurance (see split) 120 Treas Safe Drinking Water Bond 71448625 610 Treas Treasurer's Bond 68766025 (split w/1043) 1,000 Treas Position Schedule Bond 70057956 (split w/1043) - Treas 802 Treas Community Impact Funding Bond 71518003

51-40-520 Bank Charges ------

51-40-610 Misc Supplies 250 250 250 Treas

51-40-620 Misc Services 250 250 250 Treas Vaccinations/Misc.

Water Fund Expenditures As of 12/5/2019Page 27 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 51-40-625 Bad Debt - - -

51-40-650 Depreciation - - - Portion of depreciation

51-40-740 Capital Outlay - Water Equipment 72,715 72,715 72,715 19,200 fund balancVehicle Purchasing: Backhoe 14,000 fund balancVehicle Purchasing: Mini-Ex 3,750 fund balancVehicle Purchasing: UTC 32,715 Vehicle account payment: Water Fund 1,800 Flagging Lights (split) 1,250 Road Barriers (water filled) (split)

51-40-750 Capital Outlay - Shop Equipment - - - -

51-40-780 Capital Outlay - Water Projects 60,000 160,000 100,000 160,000 160,000 fund balancewater meter replacement

51-40-785 Capital Outlay - Shop Projects - - -

51-40-790 Capital Outlay - Other - - - -

51-40-795 Capital Outlay - ARRA Project - -

Total Operating 60,000 875,090 815,090

Non-Operating Expenses

51-40-810 Debt Service Principal 247,000 247,000 247,000 - Treas 8079446 Water Revenue Bond 1987A - Treas 8079466 Water Revenue Bond 1995A - Treas 8079465 2004 Water Tank Bond - Treas 2004 Water Tank Bond Reserve 64,000 Treas 2009 Water Tank Bond Treas 2009 Water Tank Bond Reserve 5,000 Treas 2012 Water Revenue Bond (pond 178,000 Treas 2017 Water Revenue Bond

51-40-820 Debt Service Interest 42,700 42,700 42,700 - Treas 8079465 2004 Water Bond Int. 289700 13,990 Treas 2009 Water Tank Bond Interest 28,710 Treas 2017 Water Revenue Bond Interes

51-40-830 Due to General Fund - - -

51-90-880 Transfer to General Fund - -

Water Fund Expenditures As of 12/5/2019Page 28 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 51-90-400 Transfer to Cap Projects Fund - - - Transfer to CDBG for Zion Shadows water line pr

51-90-500 Transfer to Irrigation Fund - - - Transfer to Irrigation fund for operating expenses

51-90-600 Renewal and Replacement Fund 55,240 55,240 55,240 5% of all expenses to renewal and replacement fu

51-90-990 Appriated Increase Fund Balance - - - Fee-in-lieu payments

Total Non-Operating - 344,940 344,940

Total Water Fund Expenses 60,000 1,220,030 1,160,030 Previous Year budget

Waer Fund Revenue 60,000 1,220,125 1,160,125 289700 Water Fund Expenses 60,000 1,220,030 1,160,030 Totals Water Fund - 95 95

Water Fund Expenditures As of 12/5/2019Page 29 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account Description Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Explanation

Operating Revenue 53-37-400 Contributed Tax 53-37-600 Lease Payment - 57,600 57,600 57,600 Lease payment from General Fund total operating - 57,600 57,600

Non-Operating Revenues 53-38-100 Interest Earnings - - 53-38-110 Interest - State Treasurer - - 53-38-120 Private Contributions - - 53-38-400 Sale of Fixed Asses - - 53-38-900 Miscellaneous - - 53-38-901 Event Proceeds - - 53-38-910 Penalties - - 53-38-920 Repair/Replacement Fund - - - From Washington County total misc - - -

Contributions and Transfers 53-39-870 Transfer from GF 53-39-990 Appropriated Use of Beginning Fund Balance 10,000 16,000 6,000 16,000 6,000 Buildings and Grounds Misc 10,000 CCC Improvements

total transfers 10,000 16,000 6,000

Community Center Fund Revenue 10,000 73,600 63,600 Community Center Fund Expenses 10,000 73,600 63,600 - - -

SMBA Fund Revenue As of 12/5/2019Page 30 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account 07-08 Budget Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation Operating Expenses

53-40-110 Salaries & Wages

53-40-120 Payroll Tax Expense

53-40-130 Employee Benefits

53-40-210 Books & Subscriptions

53-40-220 Public Notices

53-40-230 Travel

53-40-235 Vehicle Expense (Gas, RM)

53-40-240 Office Supplies & Expense

53-40-250 Equip: Supp/Maint

53-40-260 Bdlgs/Grounds/Supp/Maint 6,000 6,000 6,000

53-40-270 Utilities

53-40-280 Telephone

53-40-290 Postage

53-40-300 Contract Labor and Equipment

53-40-310 Professional/Technical Services -

53-40-330 Education & Training

53-40-340 Dues & Memberships

53-40-480 Special Dept Supplies

53-40-510 Insurance/surety bonds - - - - Treas CIB Bond - Treas Registered Agent Fee

53-40-530 Bank charges - Treas Trustee Fees

53-40-610 Misc Supplies

53-40-620 Misc Services

53-40-625 Bad Debt

SMBA Fund Expenditures As of 12/5/2019Page 31 of 32 Fiscal Year 2019/2020 Final Budget Town Manager

Account 07-08 Budget Change Amend #1 19-20 Budget Request Who Explanation 53-40-650 Depreciation - -

53-40-740 Capital Outlay - Equipment

53-40-750 Capital Outlay - Special Projects

53-40-790 Capital Outlay - Other

Total Operating Expenses - 6,000 6,000

Non-Operating Expenses

53-40-810 Debt Service Principal 37,000 37,000 37,000 - Treas CCC DSRF 37,000 Treas Debt service principal

53-40-820 Debt Service Interest 20,600 20,600 20,600 Treas Debt service interest

53-40-821 Loss-Disposal of Assets - -

53-40-880 Interfund Loan, Xfer or Contrib. - -

53-90-400 Transfer to Cap Projects Fund - -

53-90-500 Transfer to GF 10,000 10,000 - 10,000 Transfer to GF for… 10,000 Building security cameras

53-90-990 Appropriated Increase Fund Balance or Renewal/Replacement Fund

Total Non-Operating Expenses 10,000 67,600 57,600

10,000 73,600 63,600

Community Center Fund Reven 10,000 73,600 63,600 Community Center Fund Expen 10,000 73,600 63,600 Community Center Totals - - -

SMBA Fund Expenditures As of 12/5/2019Page 32 of 32

Memorandum To: Town Council From: Thomas Dansie, Director of Community Development Date: December 6, 2019 Re: December 11, 2019 Town Council Meeting Ferber Development Agreement: Amendment Language

In the November meeting the Council approved an amendment to the development agreement between the Town and Stewart Ferber. The amendment removes the requirement for the employee housing on 21 West Temple Drive to be developed as duplexes.

The attached document formally amends the development agreement and memorializes the Council’s previous action. Staff recommends the Council approve the revised development agreement language and authorize the Mayor to sign the document.

Draft Minutes of the November 13 Town Council Meeting Request for a possible revision to the Ferber Development Agreement allowing flexibility in the type of employee housing units developed at 21 West Temple Drive: As part of a 2015 development agreement between the Town and Stewart Ferber, the property at 21 West Temple Drive was limited to ten (10) employee housing units constructed in five (5) duplexes. Mr. Dansie indicated the intent was to regulate the total number of units not necessarily the style. Mr. Ferber proposed to develop the units in a variety of housing types.

Stewart Ferber was in attendance to answer Council questions. He requested flexibility with the configuration of the units to accommodate the needs of married employees. Mr. Ferber confirmed the total number of units would remain the same and all development ordinances would be followed.

Ms. Zumpft asked about the box culvert project at the campground. • Mr. Ferber said he was on “Allen Lee’s” list; the project would be staked out December 3rd. It was understood the Montclair Quality Inn could not build more units until four employee housing units were built on the West Temple property.

Ms. Zumpft raised concerned about windows facing out to SR-9. • Mr. Ferber said the units would all be single story and if there was an issue it would be addressed with screening of some type.

It was confirmed the West Temple property was located in the Central Commercial zone and multi- family housing was an approved use.

With a unit configuration change, a revised Design/Development Review would go back through the Planning Commission.

If approved, Mr. Hardman said a simple amendment to the development agreement would need to be drafted and signed by all affected properties. Motion made by Mike Alltucker that the previously approved ten (10) employee housing units originally configured as five (5) duplexes on West Temple Drive be modified to allow the applicant to development ten (10) units in some configuration, contingent upon an amendment to the agreement being executed and signed by all parties. Seconded by Adrian Player. Aton: Aye Zumpft: Aye Smith: Aye Player: Aye Alltucker: Aye Motion passed unanimously.

First Amendment to Development Agreement This First Amendment to Development Agreement is entered into as of the ____ day of December, 2019 (the “Effective Date”) by and between the TOWN OF SPRINGDALE, a Utah municipal corporation (the “Town”), and the following parties: STEWART FERBER, an individual; FERBER ENTERPRISES, L.L.C., a Utah limited liability company; HALEY HARRISON HOSPITALITY, L.L.C., a Utah limited liability company; STUMAR PROPERTIES, L.L.C., a Utah limited liability company; ZION CANYON CAMPGROUND, L.L.C., a Utah limited liability company; and THE ROBERT E. AND VIOLET B. RALSTON TRUST, u/a/d March 18, 2002, and the Second Amendment to and Complete Restatement of The Robert E. and Violet B. Ralston Trust, dated May 15, 2008, and the Addendum to the Second Amendment to and Complete Restatement of The Robert E. and Violet B. Ralston Trust, dated April 4, 2014 (“The Robert E. and Violet B. Ralston Trust”). Stewart Ferber, Ferber Enterprises L.L.C., Haley Harrison Hospitality L.L.C., Stumar Properties L.L.C., Zion Canyon Campground L.L.C. and The Robert E. and Violet B. Ralston Trust are sometimes referred to collectively as the “Ferber Parties.” Recitals A. The Town and the Ferber Parties have signed a Development Agreement dated November 10, 2015 (the “Development Agreement”).

B. The Ferber Parties would like to amend the Development Agreement to modify a specification regarding a required building type.

C. The Town is willing to amend the Development Agreement to modify a specification regarding a required building type.

Terms 1. Amendment. Section 3(a)(i) of the Development Agreement is hereby amended so that the first sentence now reads as follows: “Development shall be limited to ten (10) employee housing units and uses accessory to the ten (10) employee housing units, with the exception of improvements necessary for public access to the Town trail.”

2. Effect of Amendment. Other than as specifically provided in Paragraph 1, all provisions of the Development Agreement shall remain in full effect and are not modified by this Amendment. THIS AMENDMENT shall be binding upon the parties hereto, their administrators, heirs, successors or assigns and can be changed only by written agreement signed by all parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Amendment as of the Effective Date.

Amendment to Development Agreement Town of Springdale – Ferber Parties Page 1 of 3 TOWN OF SPRINGDALE, a Utah municipal corporation,

______By: Stanley Smith Its: Mayor

ATTEST:

______Town Clerk

FERBER ENTERPRISES, L.L.C.

______By: Stewart E. Ferber Its: Managing Member

HALEY HARRISON HOSPITALITY, L.L.C.

______By: Stewart E. Ferber Its: Managing Member

STUMAR PROPERTIES, L.L.C.

______By: Stewart E. Ferber Its: Managing Member

ZION CANYON CAMPGROUND, L.L.C.

______By: Stewart E. Ferber Its: Managing Member

Amendment to Development Agreement Town of Springdale – Ferber Parties Page 2 of 3 THE ROBERT E. AND VIOLET B. RALSTON TRUST

______By: Stewart E. Ferber Its: Successor Trustee

______By: Stewart E. Ferber, Individually

Acknowledgement and Consent Hurricane Suite Retreats, LLC hereby executes this Amendment for the sole purpose of acknowledging and consenting to the Amendment.

Hurricane Suite Retreats, LLC

______By: Brandon Adams Its: Manager

______By: Jessie Adams Its: Manager

Amendment to Development Agreement Town of Springdale – Ferber Parties Page 3 of 3

Memorandum To: Town Council From: Thomas Dansie, Director of Community Development Date: December 6, 2019 Re: December 11, 2019 Town Council Meeting Property Donation: Parcel S-161-A-1-C

Curtis Oberhansly has offered to donate a 1.6-acre piece of property on Quail Ridge Road to the Town of Springdale to be held as open space.

A portion of Quail Ridge Road traverses the southern side of the parcel. The property is otherwise undeveloped. The property is adjacent to single family residential development on the east and south. To the north and west the property is bordered by undeveloped property. The property is shown in the aerial photograph below.

There are steep slopes (well in excess of 30% grade) on the majority of the property. These steep slopes will make development of the property difficult. In 2005 the owners of the property to the northeast (parcel S-161-A-14) applied for a variance to allow a driveway to be developed across the steep slopes on the subject property. The hillside disturbance necessary to develop this driveway would be visible from a significant portion of the Town. The variance was denied (the denial was upheld on appeal at District Court). Preserving this property as open space will prevent future development on these steep slopes. Such development would be highly visible from the valley floor.

The property is near the Claret Cup subdivision. The Claret Cup subdivision contains a significant amount of open space protected by a conservation easement. The Claret Cup subdivision is immediately adjacent to Zion National Park. Preserving the subject property as open space will create a network of protected open space extending all the way into the National Park.

The effects of transferring the subject property to the Town will be: 1) preventing development on highly visible steep slopes, and 2) preserving natural open space near an important conservation easement and Zion National Park.

If the Council is willing to accept the property donation, staff recommends the following due diligence procedures: 1- Obtain a title report to ensure there are no title defects. 2- Require Mr. Oberhansly to fill out standard seller’s disclosures (e.g. disclose knowledge of any environmental waste on the property, etc.).

Staff understands Mr. Oberhansly may wish to claim a tax benefit for this donation. If so, the Mayor will need to sign an IRS form (likely IRS Form 8283). This form requires an appraisal.

If the Council would like to accept the property donation, staff recommends the Council make a motion with the following direction:

1- Direct staff to obtain a title report for the property. 2- Require Mr. Oberhansly to submit signed seller’s disclosures. 3- Direct the Town Attorney to review the title report and seller’s disclosures. 4- Upon Attorney approval after reviewing the title report and seller’s disclosures, direct Mr. Oberhansly to sign a warranty deed transferring the property to the Town. 5- If Mr. Oberhansly is seeking a tax benefit for the donation, direct Mr. Oberhansly to submit an appraisal of the property and authorize the Mayor to sign the required IRS form.

Curtis Oberhansly

December 3, 2019

Springdale Town Council Town of Springdale 118 Lion Boulevard Springdale, UT 84767

Dear Mayor and Council Members:

I own a lot on 1.57 acre lot on Quail Ridge Road titled in the name of Claret Cup Properties, tax ID #S-161-A-1-C. This is a remainder parcel from approximately 40 acres I purchased in the 1980’s, the bulk of which was subdivided over the ensuing years (Claret Cup development).

Pursuant to conversations with Tom Dansie, I am offering to deed this piece to the Town as a charitable donation. Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,

Curtis Oberhansly

FEE SCHEDULE

TABLE OF CONTENTS CLERK’S OFFICE

SECTION A: BUSINESS LICENSING

SECTION B: CEMETERY RATES

SECTION C: RECORDS REQUESTS (GRAMA)

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

SECTION A. IMPACT FEES BUILDING PERMIT FEES

SECTION B. ZONING FEES IMPACT FEES

SECTION C: BUILDING PERMITS ZONING FEES

SECTION D. GRADING & EXCAVATION FEES

SECTION E. OTHER FEESEVENT & TEMPORARY USE PERMITS

PARKS AND RECREATION

PUBLIC SAFETY

SECTION A: PARKING

SECTION B: ANIMAL RELATED

PUBLIC WORKS

SECTION A. WATER & SEWER USE RATES

SECTION B. WATER & SEWER RATE ADJUSTMENTS

SECTION C. WATER LOSS

SECTION D. OTHER

Adopted 12/11/19

CLERK’S OFFICE JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A: BUSINESS LICENSING

License Type Fee Base Commercial $100 Additional Use $20 each Home Occupation $0 Non-Profit $0 Special Event $100 Business License Renewal Late Penalty $25

If a business wishes to sell alcohol, additional licensing fees apply as listed below. A Permit must also be obtained by the Utah Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control in order for the Springdale liquor license to be approved.

Alcohol Licenses in Conjunction with Utah DABC Fee Off Premise Beer Retailer $300 Restaurant – Beer Only $300 Restaurant – Limited Service $300 Restaurant – Full Service $300 Tavern $300 Banquet & Catering $300 Package Agency $300

2 Adopted 12/11/19

CLERK’S OFFICE JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION B: JOLLEY-GIFFORD CEMETERY RATES:

RESIDENT – Defined as a person who has lived in Springdale for 12 consecutive months immediately prior to purchase. Residents must pay non-resident rate for lots purchased for non-residents.

PLOTS $350

WEEKDAYS SATURDAY VAULT OPEN/CLOSE* $200 $300

CREMAINS OPEN/ WEEKDAYS SATURDAY CLOSE* $100 $200

EXUMATION $500 * An additional fee of $50 applies to services performed after 3:30 PM Monday – Saturday. NON-RESIDENT

PLOTS $600

WEEKDAYS SATURDAY VAULT OPEN/CLOSE* $250 $350

CREMAINS OPEN/ WEEKDAYS SATURDAY CLOSE* $150 $250

EXUMATION $500 *An additional fee of $50 applies to services performed after 3:30 PM Monday - Saturday

3 Adopted 12/11/19

CLERK’S OFFICE JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION C: RECORDS REQUESTS (GRAMA)

Government Records Access Management Act (GRAMA) Request (63G-2-204):

• Requests must be submitted in writing, preferably on the appropriate request form. Unless an expedited response is requested and approved, the information will be released within 10 business days, unless there are extraordinary circumstances. 63G-2-204(5). • Fees will be determined on an individual basis per UCA 63G-2-203, based on the Town’s standard administrative fees. • If the request is substantial and time-consuming, the applicant may be required to prepay if fees are expected to exceed $50. 63G-2-203(8)(a)(i) • If the requestor has fulfilled but unpaid GRAMA requests outstanding, the custodian of the records may require payment of those fees before processing a new request. 63G-2-203(8)(a)(ii) • The town is not required to fulfill a person's records request if the request unreasonably duplicates prior records requests from that person. 63G-2-201(8)(a)(iv) • In certain circumstances, particularly if releasing the record primarily benefits the public rather than a person, the custodian of the records may waive fees, upon request. 63G-2-203(4)(a) • Processes exist for appealing denial of waivers, denial of access to records, and protesting fees. 63G- 2-205, 63G-2-401

STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE FEES

Certified Mail delivery of letters regarding a delinquent account: $10.00

Staff time: The weighted hourly rate for the lowest paid employee with the necessary skill and training required for searching, retrieving, compiling, formatting, packaging, summarizing, organizing and other direct administrative activities needed to fulfill the request: $24.27/hour. The first ¼ hour is free.

Electronic services fee: When asked to compile a record in a form other than that normally maintained, the Records Officer must first determine it is able to do so without reasonably interfering with the governmental entity’s duties and responsibilities, and, the requester agrees to pay the fee, assessed at $24.27/hour, for providing the record in the requested form. 63G-2-203

If printing is required, the Town’s standard per-page photocopy fees will also apply.

Photocopies: $0.25 for 81/2 x 11 single or double sided on town paper

$0.35 for 81/2 x 14 single or double sided on town paper

$0.60 for 11 x 17 single or double sided on town paper

$0.05 for any size single or double sided on your own paper

CDs used to supply digital copies of data or meeting recordings: $3.00 ea.

4 Adopted 12/11/19

CLERK’S OFFICE JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION C: RECORDS REQUESTS (GRAMA), CONT.

Standard police reports in paper form: $5.00 (Staff time may also apply if multiple reports are requested at the same time and if they require redaction.)

Police reports requested to be supplied in digital form are subject to electronic services fees in addition to $5.00 base fee and redaction fees.

Returned check fee: $25.00

5 Adopted 12/11/19

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A: IMPACT FEES BUILDING PERMITS

Impact fees are one-time fees charged to help pay for the cost of the infrastructure that serves the residents of Springdale.

Building Permit Deposit: For all multi-family residential projects and commercial projects with a valuation of more than $250,000, a $5,000 deposit is required at the time of building permit application. The deposit will be credited toward the total building permit cost (all permit and review fees required at the time a building permit is issued, based on the fees listed below). Any amount of the deposit in excess of the total building permit cost will be credited back to the applicant. If the applicant elects to abandon the project without obtaining a building permit, the deposit will be used to cover the town’s actual costs in reviewing the permit application up to the point the applicant informs the town of the intent to abandon the project. Any amount of the deposit in excess of the town’s actual costs will be credited back to the applicant.

Building Permit Application: $125.00

Building Permit: Based on valuation of construction. See Table 1-A

Plan Review Fee: 65% of the Building Permit fee from Table 1-A.

Table 1-A – Building Permit Fees

UBC 1997

Total Valuation Fee

$1.00 to $500.00 $23.50

$501.00 to $2,000.00 $23.50 for the first $500.00 plus $3.05 for each additional $100.00 or fraction thereof to and including $2,000.00

$2,001.00 to $25,000.00 $69.25 for the first $2,000.00 plus $14.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof to and including $25,000.00

$25,000.00 to $50,000.00 $391.75 for the first $25,000.00 plus $10.10 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof to and including $50,000.00

$50,000.00 to $100,000.00 $643.75 for the first $50,000.00 plus $7.00 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof to and including $100,000.00

$100,001.00 to $500,000.00 $993.75 for the first $100,000.00 plus $5.60 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof to and including $500,000.00

$500,000.00 to $1,000,000.00 $3,233.75 for the first $500,00.00 plus $4.75 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof to and including $1,000,000.00

$1,000,001 and up $5,608.75 for the first $1,000,000.00 plus $3.65 for each additional $1,000.00 or fraction thereof

6 Adopted 12/11/19

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION A: BUILDING PERMITS, CONT.

Fire District Review: Actual Cost as charged by the Fire District. For review, contact them directly at Hurricane Valley Fire District

Sewer Grinder Pump: $4,599. Sewer grinder pumps shall only be provided for properties where the Town has a contractual obligation to provide them. Property owner or contractor shall install grinder pump in accordance with adopted Town standards and specifications.

Surcharge Tax: 1% of Building Permit Fee

Town Engineer Review: Actual Cost – an estimate of costs will be applied to the Building Permit

Solar and other alternative energy devices: Building permit fees shall include the actual costs of plan review and inspection, based on $75 per hour. No other building permits fees apply. (Note: If the alternative energy device is part of a larger construction or building project, all standard fees will apply to the project, except that the value of the alternative energy device may be deducted from the total valuation of the project in determining the building permit and plan review fees.)

Fee In-Lieu of Water Dedication: $950 per equivalent residential unit (ERU)

Water Meters:

Meter Meter Size Placement ¾ Inch $208$365 1 Inch $303$425

1 ½ Inch $540$800 2 Inch $1443$1025 3 Inch $2500

4 Inch $3010

Town shall supply and install meter. Property owner or contractor shall install meter box and culinary water lines in accordance with adopted Town standards and specifications. Owner or contractor may arrange with Town to supply those parts at cost, if necessary. Town of Springdale Public Works personnel shall inspect installations before Town accepts meter box or line installation.

7 Adopted 12/11/19

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A: BUILDING PERMITS, CONT.

Other Inspections and Fees:

1. Inspections outside of normal business hours: $75.00 per hour commercial & $55.00 per hour residential (minimum charge 2 hours). 2. Re-inspection fees: $75 per hour commercial & $55 per hour residential. (Note: There is no charge for the first re-inspection. The re-inspection fees apply to the second and all subsequent re-inspections). 3. Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions to plans: $75.00 per hour commercial & $55.00 per hour residential. Minimum charge is ½ hour. 4. For use of outside consultants for plan checking and inspections, or both: Actual costs.

Items 1-3: Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is the greatest. This cost shall include supervision, overhead, equipment, hourly wages and fringe benefits of the employee involved. Item 4: Actual costs include administrative and overhead costs.

8 Adopted 12/11/19

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION B: ZONING IMPACT FEES

Impact fees are one-time fees charged to help pay for the cost of the infrastructure that serves the residents of Springdale.

Culinary Water Impact Fees:

Impact Fees

Meter Culinary Size Water ¾ Inch $6,060 1 Inch $10,880 1 ½ Inch $23,377 2 Inch $43,244 3 Inch $97,369 4 Inch $173,115 6 Inch $389,338

If expansion, modification, or change in use of a building requires additional water flow, an upsized meter may be connected at the cost of installation plus the difference in price between the original meter and the required new meter.

Parks and Open Space Impact Fees:

Residence: $3,883 per residential unit. (Unit is defined as one residential dwelling, one apartment, and one condominium.)

Transient Lodging Unit: $3,285 Transient Lodging Unit is defined as: one individually rented unit in a hotel/motel, one individually rented room in a Bed and Breakfast, one vacation rental home if the entire home is rented as a single unit, one individually rented room in a vacation rental home if the rooms in the vacation rental are rented separately.

Habitat Impact Fees:

Residence: .002 of value of construction of home

Subdivision: $250.00 per acre

Fee In-Lieu of Water Dedication: $950 per equivalent residential unit (ERU)

9 Adopted 12/11/19

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION B: BUILDING PERMITS C: ZONING FEES

Zoning Fees

Accessory Use determination: $100.00

Amendment to Zoning Maps (zone change): $1000.00

Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance: $1000.00

Appeals: $800.00

Conditional Use Permit: $400.00

Design Development Review Fees:

DCD Review for minor projects as defined by section 10-15-7: $125.00

Planning Commission Review: $500.00

Revised Design Development Review: $150.00

Design Development Review for Walls and Fences in Residential Zones: $25.00

Design Development Review for solar and other alternative energy devices: No

charge. (Note: If the alternative energy device is part of a larger construction or building project, the applicable DDR fee above will apply.)

Fire District Review: Actual Costs

Home Occupation Permit: $400.00 for public home occupation & $75.00 for non-public home occupation

Ordinance Interpretation: $100.00

Sign Permit: $75.00

Special Meeting: $100.00

Subdivisions:

Preliminary Plat: $400.00 plus $25.00 per lot plus Engineering and Fire

Marshal Costs

Final Plat: $600.00 plus $25.00 per lot plus Legal, Engineer, Fire District, and

other review Fees

10 Adopted 12/11/19

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION B: BUILDING PERMITS C: ZONING FEES, CONT.

Banner Permit: No Fee

Plat Amendments: $400.00 plus $25.00 per lot plus Engineer and other review fees

Town Attorney Review: Actual cost

Town Engineer Review: Actual cost

Variance: $800.00

Wireless Communication Facility application: $500.00

Zoning Ordinance: $35.00

Zoning Map (color 11 x 17): $7.00

11 Adopted 12/11/19

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION D: GRADING & EXCAVATION FEES

Excavation Grading Permit Application: $75.00

ExcavationGrading Permit: Based on Volume of earth removed or relocated. See table A-33-A

ExcavationGrading Plan Review: See Table A-33-B

TABLE A-33-A – GRADING PLAN REVIEW FEES2

UBC - 1997

50 cubic yards (38.2 m3) or less No Fee

51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m3 to 76.5 m3) $23.50

101 to 1000 cubic yards (77.2 m3 to 764.6 m3) $37.00

1001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 m3 to 7,645.5 m3) $49.25

$49.25 for the first 10,000 cubic yards (7,645 m3) plus $13.25 for each additional 10,000 3 3 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards (7646.3 m to 76,455 m ) cubic yards (7,645.5 m3) or fraction thereof.

$269.75 for the first 100,000 cubic yards (76,455 m3) plus $13.25 for each additional 10,000 3 3 100,001 to 200,000 cubic yards (76,456 m to 152,911 m ) cubic yards (7,645.5 m3) or fraction thereof.

Other Fees:

Additional plan review required by changes, additions or revisions: $50.00 per hour (minimum charge is ½ hour).

12 Adopted 12/11/19

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION D: GRADING & EXCAVATION FEES, CONT.

TABLE A-33-B – GRADING PERMIT FEES1

UBC – 1997

50 cubic yards (38.2 m3) or less $23.50

51 to 100 cubic yards (40 m3 to 76.5 m3) $37.00

$37.00 for the first

101 to 1000 cubic yards (77.2 m3 to 764.6 m3) 100 cubic yards (76.5 m3) plus $17.50 for each additional 100 cubic yards (76.5 m3) or fraction thereof.

. $194.50 for the first 1,000 cubic yards (764.6 m3) plus $14.50 for each 3 3 1001 to 10,000 cubic yards (765.3 m to 7,645.5 m ) additional 1,000 cubic yards (764.5 m3) or fraction thereof.

. $325.00 for the first 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m3) plus $66.00 for 3 3 10,001 to 100,000 cubic yards (7646.3 m to 76,455 m ) each additional 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m3) or fraction thereof.

$919.00 for the first 100,000 cubic yards (76,455 m3) plus $36.50 for each additional 3 100,001 (76,456 m ) or more 10,000 cubic yards (7,645.5 m3) or fraction thereof.

Other inspections and fees:

Inspections outside of normal business hours: $50.50 per hour2 Minimum charge is 2 hours

Re-inspection fees: $75.00 per hour2

Footnotes:

1The fee for a grading permit authorizing additional work to that under a valid permit shall be the difference

between the fee paid for the original permit and the fee shown for the entire project.

2Or the total hourly cost to the jurisdiction, whichever is greatest. The cost shall include supervision,

overhead, equipment, hourly wages, and fringe benefits of the employees involved.

13 Adopted 12/11/19

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION E. OTHER FEESEVENT AND TEMPORARY USE PERMITS

Free Speech Event Permit: No fee

Fundraising Event Permit: No Fee

Large Outdoor Event Permit: $250

Private Outdoor Event Permit: $25

Special Event Permit: $250

Temporary Structure Permit: $50.00

*Private Events requiring additional security or police presence: $35/hour/officer

OTHER FEES:

Street Light Banner Permit Application: $35

Application Fee: $35

Street Light Banner Permit Fee: $200, for up to 20 banners. Each additional banner requested in the same application, $10 each banner.

14 Adopted 12/11/19

PARKS AND RECREATION JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Standard Facilities Rental Fees

Springdale Park Facilities rental:

(Rentable facilities include Ballfield and gazebo. Please see Park Use and Event Policy)

Private, non-commercial events with fewer than 50 attendees: $50 per facility rented.

Large events permitted as temporary uses, in addition to required Temporary Use Permit Fee:

1 to 50 attendees: $50

51 to 100 attendees: $85

More than 100 attendees: $100 for the first 101 attendees plus $10 for

each additional 50 attendees

Damage Deposit:

$100 for rentals of the Gazebo, Tennis Courts, Volleyball area and small private rentals at the Ballfield.

$1000 for temporary use permit rentals of the Ballfield

15 Adopted 12/11/19

PUBLIC SAFETY JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A. PARKING FEES

Rate for parking in a paid parking zone:

Zone A: First 2 hours $1/hour, then $20 for all day parking

Zone B: First 2 hours $1/hour, then $15 for all day parking

Zone C: First 2 hours $1/hour, then $12 for all day parking

Oversized vehicle parking on Lion Boulevard: First 2 hours $2/hour, then $24 for all day parking

Off-season parking rates: 50% of rates shown above (in effect December 1 to March 1)

Parking citation fees:

Violation of section 6-2-3: $125.00, Late penalty: $30.00

Violation of section 6-2-4: $125.00, Late penalty: $30.00

Violation of section 6-2-5: $125.00, Late penalty: $30.00

Violation of section 6-2-6: $60.00, Late penalty: $15.00

Violation of section 6-2-9: $25.00, Late penalty: $5.00

All other parking violations: $60.00, Late penalty: $15.00

16 Adopted 12/11/19

PUBLIC SAFETY JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION B. ANIMAL RELATED

Dog Tags

Spayed/Neutered: $5.00

Unspayed/unneutered: $40.00

Dog Kennel License

Non-Commercial: $50.00

Impound and Boarding Fees

Springdale animal impound and boarding are provided under a contract with La Verkin City. The following rates are the La Verkin City rates in effect as of 12/11/19 and are subject to change.

Impound fee:

First offense: $25.00

Second offense: $50.00

Third offense: $100.0075.00

Boarding fee: $20 per day. Boarding fee shall be applied for each day an animal is impounded.

Dogs & Cats: $10/day.

Other Animals: Boarding fee for other animals shall be determined by the animal control officer at the time the animal is impounded.

Emergency Medical Care: Owner of impounded animal will reimburse actual costs of emergency medical care of impounded animals before animal may be redeemed from the pound.

17 Adopted 12/11/19

PUBLIC WORKS JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A. WATER & SEWER IRRIGATION USE RATES

Water Use Rates

Application fee: $20.00

1. Inspection fee: $20.00 for new installations

2. Connected Services: There shall be a monthly base charge of $16.93, plus billing of the water usage according to schedule A below.

Schedule A

Usage Cost

(Gallons) (per 1000 gallons)

0 – 5,000 $5.15

5,001 – 10,000 $7.25

10,001 – 25,000 $9.01

25,001 – 50,000 $10.41

Over 50,000 $11.47

3. Unconnected and reserve connections: There shall be a monthly base charge of $16.93.

4. Construction water: Water usage during the construction of any building, excavation or grading shall be billed using a flat rate equal to the highest rate in Schedule A above in addition to a monthly base charge of $16.93. Construction water is any water used prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy and Zoning Compliance. Construction water may be made available through a meter installed on the property, a hydrant meter rental from the Town, or a hydrant meter provided by the contractor or other outside source. In any case, a water account must be established with the Town before construction water will be delivered. Hydrant meter rental: $1,000 refundable deposit.

5. Rental Deposit: Applications for water accounts at rental properties must pay a rental deposit of $125. Deposit shall be refunded after the account is settled and closed. 6. Residential Fire Sprinkler Connections: When the Fire Marshall requires a residential structure to be equipped with fire sprinklers, the fire sprinkler system must have a dedicated and metered connection to the town’s culinary water system. The fire sprinkler connection may not be used for any purpose other than fire suppression. Fees for the water meter and connection to the

18 Adopted 12/11/19

PUBLIC WORKS JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A. WATER & SEWER IRRIGATION USE RATES, CONT.

Water Use Rates, continued

town’s system are the responsibility of the property owner. Fire sprinkler connections will not be charged a culinary water impact fee. Fire sprinkler connections will not be charged a monthly base charge if there is no use on the connection. If there is use on the connection due to legitimate operation of the fire sprinkler system, the connection will not be charged a monthly base charge or any use charges. If there is use on the connection for any purpose other than legitimate operation of the fire sprinkler system, the connection will be charged a monthly base charge for each month in which the unauthorized use occurred. The connection will also be charged use charges according to the highest rate in Schedule A above for all unauthorized use.

Sewer Use Rates

1. Application fee: $20.00 2. Inspection fee: $20.00 for new installations 3. Connected Services: There shall be a monthly base rate charge of $14.03, plus a volume charge of $.00383 per gallon ($3.83 per 1000 gallons) of water used, as measured through the water meter, after 7,000 gallons. 4. Unconnected and reserve connections: There shall be a monthly base rate charge of $14.03 5. National Park Service will be assessed at a proportionate share of the O&M costs per agreement, as determined by proportionate flow, (currently measured at 45 %,) to be billed as a monthly fee. 6. Rockville Accounts: A. Connected Residential: Monthly rate of $21.56. B. Unconnected Residential: Monthly rate of $14.03. C. Bed and Breakfast Home Occupations: Assessed at a rate of 2.5 average family residential units, or a monthly rate of $53.91 ($21.56 x 2.5). D. Other Home Occupations: Assessed a rate to be determined based on the highest use on their water meter for the months of December, January or February of the preceding year, per the Rockville Water System billing clerk. E. Rockville Community Center: Assessed at a rate of 2.5 average family residential units, or a monthly rate of $53.91 ($21.56 x 2.5).

Irrigation Use Rates

User fees shall apply only to town irrigation customers, not irrigation company shareholders. Application and inspection fee shall apply to all irrigation connections including irrigation company shareholders.

1. Application fee: $20.00 2. Inspection fee: $20.00 for new installations 3. User fee: User fees shall be assessed on a monthly basis by the Town of Springdale as set forth in Schedule B (below). Please note that all irrigation connections installed after 10/9/2019 are limited to a 1-inch connection (Ord. 2019-11) 19 Adopted 12/11/19

PUBLIC WORKS JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION A. WATER & SEWER IRRIGATION USE RATES, CONT.

Schedule B – Irrigation Use Rates

Valve Annual Monthly

Size Rate Rate

1 Inch $254.00 $21.17

1 ½ Inch $508.00 $42.34

2 Inch $762.00 $63.50

2 ½ Inch 1,016.00 $84.67

3 Inch $1,270.00 $105.83

3 ½ Inch $1,524.00 $127.00

4 Inch $1,779.00 $148.25

Public Works/Utility Superintendent shall determine appropriate valve size. Property owner or contractor shall install all valves and lines in accordance with the adopted Town standards and specifications. Town Public Works personnel shall inspect installations before Town accepts valve or line installation.

20 Adopted 12/11/19

PUBLIC WORKS JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION B. WATER & SEWER RATES ADJUSTMENTS

1. In order to obtain an adjustment to the water and sewer charges incurred in the event of an aboveground water leak on the property owner’s side of the meter, the following conditions must be met:

a. The Utility Superintendent, Town Manager or their designee must review and inspect the leak before any repair is made, or sufficient evidence must be provided to the Utility Superintendent, Town Manager or their designee to document the cause and nature of the leak. b. The Utility Superintendent, Town Manager or their designee must determine that the leak resulted from a major failure of the water system such as a broken pipe or valve as opposed to a condition or situation that the property owner was or should have been aware of such as a tap or hose left running, running toilet, leaking taps, leaking swamp cooler, known and unrepaired leaks, irrigation usage, etc. c. The Utility Superintendent, Town Manager or their designee must see evidence of the repair of the leak.

d. The amount of water used on the utility bill (water used and water lost due to the leak) must be equal to or greater than twice the historical usage on the property for the same month in the previous year. If the property has had utility service for less than one year, the Town Manager and Town Treasurer shall estimate the usage based on the nearest month in the same season. e. No adjustments shall be made for water used for irrigation purposes.

If the above conditions are met, the Utility Superintendent or Town Manager will instruct the Town Treasurer to make an adjustment to the utility account. The water and sewer rate will be adjusted according to paragraph 3 below. Rate adjustments will be applied only if the property owner is diligent in fixing the leak within three days of its detection. If diligence is not shown within three days, a Waste of Water penalty of $50 per day will be assessed each following day until the Superintendent is satisfied the repair is completed, and additional penalties as outlined in Section 8.1.16.B may apply. Repair costs are the responsibility of the property owner.

2. In order to obtain an adjustment to the water and sewer charges incurred in the event of an underground water leak on the property owner’s side of the meter, the following conditions must be met:

a. The Utility Superintendent, Town Manager or their designee must review and inspect the leak before any repair is made, or sufficient evidence must be provided

21 Adopted 12/11/19

PUBLIC WORKS JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION B. WATER & SEWER RATE ADJUSTMENTS

to the Utility Superintendent, Town Manager or their designee to document the cause and nature of the leak. b. The Utility Superintendent, Town Manager or their designee must determine that the leak resulted from a failure of the water system as opposed to a deliberate waste of water, a condition or situation that the property owner was or should have been aware of, or an aboveground leak as described in paragraph 1 above. c. The Utility Superintendent, Town Manager or their designee must see evidence of the repair of the leak.

If the above conditions are met, the Utility Superintendent or Town Manager will instruct the Town Treasurer to make an adjustment to the utility account. The water and sewer rate will be adjusted according to paragraph 3 below. Rate adjustments will be applied only if the property owner is diligent in fixing the leak within five days of its detection. If diligence is not shown within five days, a Waste of Water penalty of $50 per day will be assessed each following day until the Utility Superintendent is satisfied the repair is completed, and additional penalties as outlined in Section 8.1.16.B may apply. Repair costs are the responsibility of the property owner.

3. Adjustments shall be based on the amount of the meter readings for the same month a year prior. The water user will pay the current rate for the amount of water and sewer as the prior year’s reading plus ½ of the current lowest usage rate for all additional water resulting from the leak. If the property has had utility service for less than one year, the Town Manager and Town Treasurer shall estimate the usage based on the nearest month in the same season.

4. In order to obtain an adjustment to the sewer charges incurred on the filling of a swimming pool, 1) the owner must provide sufficient proof to the Utility Superintendent that the pool doesn’t drain to the sewer, and 2) the owner must contact the Utility Superintendent before filling the pool and when the pool is full, so the water used to fill the pool can be metered. The Utility Superintendent will provide the meter readings to the Town Treasurer. Only the amount of water used for filling the pool will be adjusted from the sewer fees; there will be no adjustment to the water charges. If this procedure is not followed, or if the pool is found to drain into the sewer system, there will be no adjustment to the sewer charges.

22 Adopted 12/11/19

PUBLIC WORKS JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION C. WATER LOSS

Loss of Water – Private Unmetered Fire Service Connections

Fire service connections or fire sprinkler connections are generally private unmetered connections to the Town’s culinary water system that provide support during fire emergencies. Due to line size, breaks or other failure in these lines has the potential to result in the loss of hundreds of thousands of gallons of treated culinary water.

When a break in a private, unmetered fire service connection or line results in the loss of water, the property owner responsible for the private fire sprinkler connection/line will be billed for the value of the water lost due to the break based on the cost to produce water, currently $5.61 per 1000 gallons according to the Town Engineer.

Water loss will be estimated by the Town Public Works Department based on documented tank levels before and after the break or leak is reported.

23 Adopted 12/11/19

PUBLIC WORKS JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION D. OTHER

Residential Garbage Collection

$14.27 per month effective January 1, 2018 (Ord. 4-5-7 and 4-8-6)

Utility and Encroachment Permit Fees

Encroachment Permit Fee: $250

Utility Permit Fee: $150

24 Adopted 12/11/19

RECORDS REQUESTS (GRAMA) JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Government Records Access Management Act (GRAMA) Request (63G-2-204):

STANDARD ADMINISTRATIVE FEES

Certified Mail delivery of letters regarding a delinquent account: $10.00

If printing is required, the Town’s standard per-page photocopy fees will also apply.

Photocopies: $0.25 for 81/2 x 11 single or double sided on town paper

$0.35 for 81/2 x 14 single or double sided on town paper

$0.60 for 11 x 17 single or double sided on town paper

$0.05 for any size single or double sided on your own paper

CDs used to supply digital copies of data or meeting recordings: $3.00 ea.

25 Adopted 12/11/19

RECORDS REQUESTS (GRAMA), CONT. JUMP TO TABLE OF CONTENTS

Standard police reports in paper form: $5.00 (Staff time may also apply if multiple reports are requested at the same time and if they require redaction.)

Police reports requested to be supplied in digital form are subject to electronic services fees in addition to $5.00 base fee and redaction fees.

Returned check fee: $25.00

26 Adopted 12/11/19

UPDATED STAFF REPORT 12/10/19

Memorandum To: Mayor and Town Council From: Darci Carlson, Town Clerk Date: December 6, 2019 Re: 2020 Town Council Meeting Dates

Below please find the proposed meeting schedule for 2020. Both the Town Council and Planning Commission dates are listed. Please note the dates in light yellow highlight have been adjusted since the staff report sent last Friday.

These proposed dates take into account the ULCT Mid-Year Conference April 22-24 and the ULCT Annual Convention September 23-25. We have pre-scheduled the year-end budget meeting in June. Also, Mayor Smith indicated he will likely be unavailable for the meeting on May 13th; therefore, the Council can conduct the meeting with the Mayor pro tem officiating, or reschedule.

Items for consideration/discussion:

Council/Commission joint session: The Planning Commission has discussed scheduling a joint work session with the Council. The goal of this meeting would be to: accept feedback from the Council on the Commission’s streetscape and building design initiatives; conduct an overview conversation about priorities for the Commission’s 2020 work meetings; set the stage for the General Plan update. Staff recommends this joint meeting be held January 7th so the resulting direction can be put into action as soon as possible.

Second Town Council monthly meeting: The concept of scheduling a second monthly meeting is new. The goal is to provide an additional opportunity for Council members to talk through work items, departmental updates, and conduct general discussion to facilitate greater productivity and transparency. The meeting would also allow the Council flexibility in taking action on routine administrative items, or other matters that could help improve efficiency. Staff proposes this meeting be scheduled during normal working hours to avoid a night session. The meeting would be posted on the yearly meeting calendar but only held as-needed.

UPDATED STAFF REPORT 12/10/19 2020 Public Body Meeting Dates Meetings are held at the Canyon Community Center, 126 Lion Blvd. Springdale, UT 84767 Town Council REGULAR meeting begins at 5:00pm. Town Council 2nd meeting begins at TBD. Planning Commission WORK and REGULAR meetings begin at 5:00pm.

Planning Commission WORK Town Council REGULAR Meeting Planning Commission REGULAR Town Council 2nd Meeting Meeting (starts at 5:00pm) Meeting

(1st Wednesday) (2nd Wednesday) (3rd Wednesday)

1/7 1/8 1/15 1/22 January 7th is a Tuesday

2/5 2/12 2/19 2/26

3/4 3/11 3/18 3/25

4/1 4/8 4/15 4/7* or 4/14* *Annual Budget Work Meeting (Tuesday)

4/17* *Annual Public Officials Training (Friday)

5/6 5/13* 5/20 5/27 *Mayor Smith unavailable for this meeting

6/3 6/10 6/17 6/24* *EOY Budget Meeting

7/1 7/8 7/15 7/22

8/5 8/12 8/19 8/26

9/2 9/9 9/16 9/30

10/7 10/14 10/21 10/28

11/4 11/11 11/18 11/24* *November 24th is a Tuesday

No Dec PC Work Meeting 12/9 12/2 No Dec TC Work Meeting