CLEARFIELD CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA September 8, 2020 – WORK AND POLICY SESSION
Meetings of the City Council of Clearfield City may be conducted via electronic means pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 52-4-207 as amended. In such circumstances, contact will be established and maintained via electronic means and the meetings will be conducted pursuant to the Electronic Meetings Policy established by the City Council for electronic meetings.
Multipurpose Room 55 South State Street Second Floor Clearfield, Utah
6:00 P.M. JOINT CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION Discussion on the Clearfield Station Master Development Agreement
**ADJOURN THE JOINT CITY COUNCIL/PLANNING COMMISSION WORK SESSION AND IMMEDIATELY RECONVENE IN A CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION **
CITY COUNCIL WORK SESSION Discussion on 200 South Well Solutions
(Any items not fully addressed prior to the Policy Session will be addressed in a Work Session immediately following the Policy Session)
City Council Chambers 55 South State Street Third Floor Clearfield, Utah
7:00 P.M. POLICY SESSION CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Shepherd OPENING CEREMONY: Councilmember Bush APPROVAL OF MINUTES: August 4, 2020 – Work Session August 11, 2020 – Work Session August 11, 2020 – Policy Session August 18, 2020 – Work Session August 20, 2020 – Work Session August 25, 2020 – Policy Session
PRESENTATION 1. PRESENTATION OF OFFICER OF THE YEAR AWARD TO DETECTIVE JOSH CARLSON BY THE UTAH CHIEFS OF POLICE ASSOCIATION
BACKGROUND: Each year the Utah Chiefs of Police Association recognizes officers who are involved in outstanding investigations or involved in incidents that represent exceptional police work. There are a variety of reasons that an officer can be nominated. Chief Bennett nominated Detective Josh Carlson for his outstanding dedication relevant to the Clearfield Cold Case investigation. The investigation involved numerous City police officers as well as officers and detectives from multiple law enforcement agencies. However, in 2018, Detective Carlson was assigned to the investigation as the lead investigator. He worked closely with a genetic genealogist and was able to identify a suspect. After several months of reviewing hundreds of documents, conducting interviews, reviewing evidence, and following up on investigative leads, a suspect was arrested for multiple rapes in Clearfield City. Subsequently, the suspect entered a guilty plea and will serve the remainder of his life in prison. He also confessed to other alleged rapes and homicides in the Western United States.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: 2. PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AMENDMENTS TO THE 2020/2021 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN RELATED TO COVID-19 EFFORTS AND NEEDS
BACKGROUND: The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) has allocated CARES Act funding to distribute to entitlement communities through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. As an entitlement community Clearfield City has been allocated $129,178 of the funding to distribute. Open Doors and Safe Harbor submitted funding request letters outlining their needs to assist Clearfield residents impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive public comment.
3. PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON AMENDMENTS TO THE FORM BASED CODE’S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY USE WITH THE ENACTMENT OF PROVISIONS RELATED TO ALLOWING SELF STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE GATEWAY CORRIDOR COMMERCE (CC) ZONE
BACKGROUND: An application has been made to add “Indoor Temperature Controlled Storage Facilities” as a permitted use in the Gateway Corridor Commerce (CC) zone in the Form Based Code (FBC). The request included specific development standards to encourage high quality design and development. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on the request on August 19, 2020 and recommended approval with some modifications from the original request.
RECOMMENDATION: Receive public comment.
SCHEDULED ITEMS: 4. OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
The Open Comment Period provides an opportunity to address the Mayor and City Council regarding concerns or ideas on any topic. To be considerate of everyone at this meeting, public comment will be limited to three minutes per person. Participants are to state their names for the record. Comments, which cannot be made within these limits, should be submitted in writing to the City Recorder at [email protected].
The Mayor and City Council encourage civil discourse for everyone who participates in the meeting.
5. CONSIDERATION OF APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO THE 2020/2021 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT ONE-YEAR ACTION PLAN RELATED TO COVID-19 EFFORTS AND NEEDS
RECOMMENDATION: Approve amendments to the 2020/2021 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) One-Year Action Plan related to COVID-19 efforts and needs and authorize the Mayor’s signature to any necessary documents.
6. CONSIDERATION OF ORDINANCE 2020-13 AUTHORIZING AMENDMENTS TO THE FORM BASED CODE’S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS BY USE WITH THE ENACTMENT OF PROVISIONS RELATED TO ALLOWING SELF STORAGE FACILITIES IN THE GATEWAY CORRIDOR COMMERCE (CC) ZONE
RECOMMENDATION: After careful consideration of the information presented, the Clearfield City Council moves to: 1. Approve Ordinance 2020-13 authorizing amendments to the Form Based Code’s Development Standards by Use with the enactment of provisions related to allowing self- storage facilities in the Gateway Corridor Commerce (CC) zone and authorize the Mayor’s signature to any necessary documents. 2. Deny Ordinance 2020-13 authorizing amendments to the Form Based Code’s Development Standards by Use with the enactment of provisions related to allowing self- storage facilities in the Gateway Corridor Commerce (CC) zone. 3. Table consideration of Ordinance 2020-13 authorizing amendments to the Form Based Code’s Development Standards by Use with the enactment of provisions related to allowing self-storage facilities in the Gateway Corridor Commerce (CC) zone and set additional time to consider the request.
COMMUNICATION ITEMS: Mayor’s Report City Councils’ Reports City Manager’s Report Staffs’ Reports
**ADJOURN AS THE CITY COUNCIL**
Dated this 3rd day of September, 2020.
/s/Nancy R. Dean, City Recorder
The City of Clearfield, in accordance with the ‘Americans with Disabilities Act’ provides accommodations and auxiliary communicative aids and services for all those citizens needing assistance. Persons requesting these accommodations for City sponsored public meetings, service programs or events should call Nancy Dean at 525-2714, giving her 48-hour notice.
TO: Mayor Shepherd and City Council Members FROM: Spencer W. Brimley, Community Development Director MEETING DATE: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 SUBJECT: Joint Work Session –Master Development Agreement (MDA)
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The attached MDA is still in draft form and is not ready for final applications and consideration by the City. Following the work session the developer and staff will work to address any necessary items to allow this to be ready for application and formal consideration. This will be an opportunity to discuss and provide feedback on the draft Clearfield Station Master Development Agreement (MDA) and discuss any items the Council and Commission decide are essential.
DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND
The project contains four office towers within walking distance of the platform consisting of approximately 450,000 – 600,000 square feet of office space, in addition to apartment buildings (mixed use), townhouses, retail space, two parking structures and trails, public and private recreational opens space. MDA with the Master Developer and UTA (property owner) sets forth the terms under which the development may proceed and the responsibilities of the parties.
There are still a couple areas where language is being evaluated and contemplated.
• Bonding for the horizontal infrastructure is still being evaluated • Language to address undergrounding utilities is also being evaluated IMPACT
a. Fiscal
As the property is developed, it will come onto the tax rolls (it is currently tax exempt), and new construction and occupancy will increase the property’s valuation for both real and personal property. Even though a portion of these property taxes will be diverted to the CDRA, the City will still benefit from an increase in property taxes. City anticipates an increase in sales and franchise taxes as a result of the development. For the Enterprise Funds, one-time impact fees and ongoing new rate revenues will benefit the City’s utility systems, offsetting the new demand and O&M impacts.
b. Operations / Service Delivery
It will take several years to build out, but this project will provide a boost Clearfield’s economy and community over the coming years. The project will also result in many businesses coming to Clearfield. The growth in business is good for our economy (job creation and the multiplier effect), but there are other impacts to be aware of—increased traffic; new streets and neighborhoods to patrol, plow, and otherwise maintain; new demands on the capacity of the City’s systems, facilities, and services, etc. Without a doubt, development has an impact on government, and in some cases that may mean additional staffing needs, expanded programs, capital projects, or other costs. These won’t be felt immediately, but gradually over time.
SCHEDULE / TIME CONSTRAINTS
Staff has laid out the schedule of meetings for approval for the MDA and MDP. The development team is anticipating approval by the end of October. This timeline can be adjusted or changed as needed, but was meant to provide some guidance for all the parties. The UTA board will consider the approval of the MDA following final approval by the Council.
• Tuesday, September 8th: Commission and Council Work session for DRAFT-MDA • Wednesday, October 7th: Planning Commission meeting - MDA/MDP • Tuesday, October 13th: Council Work Session for the MDA/MDP? • Wednesday, October 27th: Council Work Session/Policy Session for decision of MDA/MDP • November 4th: UTA Board meeting for final approval of the MDA CORRESPONDING POLICY PRIORITY (IES)
This discussion is fundamental to this project and can be tied most effectively to one of our Policy Priorities:
• Improving Clearfield’s image, livability, and economy.
ATTACHMENTS
• DRAFT MDA and Exhibits
2
09.02.2020
MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT CLEARFIELD STATION
THIS MASTER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (“MDA”) is made and entered into as of the ____ day of ______, 2020 (“Effective Date”), by and between Clearfield City, a Utah municipal corporation (“City”), and [<
RECITALS
WHEREAS, UTA is the owner of that certain real property located generally between State Street and the Frontrunner commuter rail corridor, and approximately between 1100 South and 1450 South, in Clearfield, Davis County, Utah, as more particularly described in Exhibit “A” (“Property”), and as generally depicted in the Master Development Plan (“MDP”), attached hereto as Exhibit “B”; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to develop, design and construct Property in accordance with this MDA in a manner that is in harmony with the long-range policies, goals, and objectives of the City’s general plan, the Clearfield Connected Station Area Plan, and the MDP, as well as any applicable zoning and development regulations; and
WHEREAS, the City is willing to grant Master Developer vested rights in and to the development and use of Property as more fully set forth in this MDA in order to promote the City’s goals and objectives and to ensure that Property is developed in a unified and consistent fashion; and
WHEREAS, Development of the Project as a master-planned, transit-oriented development pursuant to this MDA and the MDP is acknowledged by the Parties to be consistent with the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act, as set forth in Title 10, Chapter 9a of the Utah Code, as amended (“Act”); as well as with the City’s land use ordinances as set forth in Title 11 of the Clearfield City Code; and
WHEREAS, the Parties acknowledge that development of the Property pursuant to this MDA and the MDP will result in significant planning, economic and fiscal benefits to UTA and to the City and its residents by, among other things, requiring orderly development of Property as a master-planned, transit-oriented development and increasing revenues to the City based on improvements to be constructed on the Property; and
1
09.02.2020
WHEREAS, Master Developer, UTA and City have each cooperated in the preparation of this MDA and the MDP and understand that this MDA is a “development agreement” within the meaning of the Act; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that it is in the best interests of the City, its residents, and the general public to enter into this MDA; and
WHEREAS, the Parties desire to enter into this MDA to specify the rights and responsibilities of the Master Developer to develop Property as part of Project, and the rights and responsibilities of the City to approve and regulate the development of Project, and to provide certain City services for the benefit of the Project;
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants contained herein, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the City, UTA and Master Developer hereby agree to the following:
TERMS
I. GENERAL PROVISIONS
A. Incorporation
The foregoing Recitals are hereby incorporated. All exhibits are hereby incorporated into this MDA and by reference are made part hereof. The Master Development Plan is expressly made a part of this Agreement and is incorporated herein.
B. Definitions
As used in this MDA, the words and phrases specified below shall have the following meanings:
“Act” means the Municipal Land Use, Development, and Management Act, as set forth in Title 10, Chapter 9a of the Utah Code as amended.
“Bonding Authority” means Clearfield City.
“Building Permit” means a permit issued by the City to allow construction, erection or structural alteration of any building, structure, private or public infrastructure, Project Infrastructure, or any off-site infrastructure.
2
09.02.2020
“Buildout” means the substantial completion of all of the development on all of the Property for the entire Project.
“CC&R’s” means the Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions regarding certain aspects of use, management, design and/or construction on all or a portion of the Property to be recorded in the real property records of Davis County.
“City Laws” means the ordinances, policies, standards and procedures of the City related to zoning, subdivisions, development, public improvements and other similar or related matters, including but not limited to the City Code, that have been and may be adopted in the future.
“City Code” means the Clearfield City Code, including its land use regulations adopted pursuant to the Act and other applicable laws and ordinances.
“Clearfield Station Group” means the design review committee who oversees the design and construction of the Project consisting of a member of Stack, Hamilton Partners, UTA, Arch Nexus, Psomas, and City staff.
“Construction Steps” means the development of a portion of the Project as set forth in Exhibit “C.”
“Council” means the elected City Council of the City.
“Default” means a material breach of this MDA.
“Development Application” means an application to the City for development of a portion of the Project, including a Subdivision and Site Plan, from the City required for development of such portion of the Project.
“Development Standards” means a set of standards approved by the City as set forth in the MDP and the City Laws controlling certain aspects of the design and construction of the development of the Property including but not limited to setbacks, height limitations, parking and signage, and design and construction standards for buildings, roadways and infrastructure. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the standards set forth in the MDP with regard to right-of-way widths differ from corresponding standards set forth in the City Laws. The Parties further acknowledge and agree that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this MDA, with regard to right-of-way widths, pavement widths, and any other design standard directly related to or affected by right-of-way width, the standards set forth in the MDP shall control.
3
09.02.2020
“Final Plat” means the recordable map or other graphical representation of land prepared in accordance with the Act and the City’s subdivision ordinance which has been approved by the City, effectuating a Subdivision of any portion of the Property.
“Impact Fees” means those fees, assessments, exactions or payments of money imposed by the City as a condition on development activity pursuant to the Utah Impact Fees Act, subject to any adjustments or reimbursements as specifically set forth in this MDA, as described in Exhibit “D.”
“Master Developer” means [<
“Master Development Plan” or “MDP” means the plan for the Project, as approved and mutually agreed upon by the Parties, attached hereto as Exhibit “B,” which sets forth the design guidelines, development standards, allowable uses, etc., for the proposed future development of the Property. The MDP may be amended from time to time upon mutual agreement of the Parties and as provided by Clearfield City Code 11-11F-9.
“Master Development Agreement” or “MDA” means this Master Development Agreement including all of its Exhibits.
“MU Zone” means the “Mixed-Use” zoning classification which is set forth in Title 11, Chapter 11 of the City Code.
“Notice” means any notice to or from any party to this MDA that is either required or permitted to be given to another party as provided in Section 5.4.
“Office Space” means buildings which provide general office uses as set forth in the MDP.
“Owner’s Association(s)” means one or more associations formed pursuant to Utah law to perform the functions of an association of property owners.
“Planning Commission” means the City’s Planning Commission established by City Laws.
“Project” means the development to be constructed on Property pursuant to this MDA and the MDP with the associated public and private facilities, intended uses, densities, Phases and all of the other aspects approved as part of this MDA including its Exhibits.
“Project Infrastructure” means those items of public or private infrastructure, at the minimum level of service required by the City under the then-current, generally applicable standards
4
09.02.2020
(except to the extent of any conflicts between generally applicable City standards and the Development Standards, in which case the Development Standards shall control; however, if the Development Standards do not specifically address an infrastructure issue, then the City standards shall be applied), which are a condition of the approval of a Development Application because they are necessary for development of a portion of the Property, such as local roads, including street lights, utilities, sidewalks, park strip and median planting/irrigation/site furnishings, curb and gutter located on or around that portion of the Property, including but not limited to those Project Infrastructure items required in connection with specific Phases of the Project.
“Property” means the real property subject to this MDA and the MDP as more fully described in Exhibit “A.”
“Responsible Party” means Clearfield City, unless otherwise stated herein, who shall be responsible for contracting for the design and construction of the Project Infrastructure from bond proceeds as detailed in Exhibit “E,” “Responsibility for Project Infrastructure and Funding.”
“Site Plan” means a site plan as contemplated and required in the City Code with respect to a parcel(s) of the Property, reflecting the location, design and configuration of development and improvements thereon.
“Soft Costs” mean expenses incurred by Master Developer for the design, planning, engineering, soils, and environmental costs of Phase 1.
“Subdeveloper” means an entity other than Master Developer which acquires rights to develop one or more parcels subject to this MDA and the MDP.
“Subdivision” means the dividing of land into two (2) or more lots, parcels, sites, plots or other division for the purpose of development pursuant to the Act and City Laws.
“Transit Critical Infrastructure” means infrastructure that supports and satisfies the necessary and sufficient conditions for operations to occur at a transit station, such as the station platform, bus loop, drop-off areas, parking, transit plaza, and facilities appurtenant to transit activity.
C. Effect of this MDA
The City Council is authorized to enter into development agreements with any person or entity. This MDA is such an agreement intended to work in conjunction with the MDP. In the event of a conflict between this MDA and the MDP, then this MDA shall be controlling. This
5
09.02.2020
MDA with its incorporated Exhibits shall be the sole agreement between the parties for the development of the Property.
D. Conditions Precedent to the Efficacy of this Agreement
As a condition precedent to the obligations of the Parties herein, this MDA is contingent upon Bonding Authority obtaining bond proceeds sufficient to fund Project Infrastructure as detailed in Exhibit “E,” “Responsibility for Project Infrastructure and Funding.” The figures listed in Exhibit “E” are an estimate only and are subject to change based on construction conditions and should not be construed as creating a limit to the amount of bond proceeds utilized for a particular Project Infrastructure.
E. Term of Agreement
Subject to conditions precedent, the term of this MDA shall be from the Effective Date and continue until the obligations are fulfilled hereunder by all parties, unless earlier terminated by either party as provided herein.
II. DEVELOPMENT OF PROJECT
Development of the Project shall be in accordance with this MDA, the MDP and City Laws, except to the extent of any City Laws which are inconsistent with the terms, Development Standards and provisions of this MDA or the MDP, in which case the MDA and MDP shall take precedence.
A. Construction to follow Master Development Plan
1. The Parties acknowledge and agree that final approved designs and drawings are not yet completed for any portion of the Project. Under the MDP, it is envisioned that at Buildout there will be approximately 800 Residential Units, approximately 81,500 square feet of Commercial Space (part of which may be developed initially as flexible space for office, commercial or residential uses, but not industrial), and approximately 450,000 - 600,000 square feet of Office Space. In the event that a Purchase and Sale Agreement is not executed between the Master Developer and The Front Climbing Club, the amount of Commercial Space will be reduced accordingly. The City has evaluated the need for affordable housing and found that there is not a requirement for units to be sold or leased at subsidized rates.
2. The Parties acknowledge that the MDP satisfies the requirement under the City Code for approval of a concept plan for the development of the Property as referenced in the MU Zone, but not the amended plat required for a subdivision or site plan required under the City Code.
6
09.02.2020
3. The City acknowledges that Master Developer and/or Subdevelopers, as applicable, may submit multiple applications from time-to-time to develop and/or construct portions of the Project in Phases in accordance with the phasing requirements of this MDA and the MDP.
B. Construction Steps
The Project is divided into two distinct stages, as follows and as shown in Exhibit “C” (“Construction Steps”):
1. Construction Step 1: Project Infrastructure (Horizontal Improvements). This stage consists of the construction of Transit Critical Infrastructure, as well as roadways and underground utilities necessary to serve the buildings that will be developed. This stage will be undertaken by the City as described more fully in Section III of this Agreement.
2. Construction Step 2: Parcel / Lot Development (Vertical Improvements). This stage consists of the construction of various buildings and spaces that will primarily be privately owned (office, retail and other commercial buildings, mixed-use residential buildings, townhouses, etc. as described in Section II(A)(1) of this Agreement and in the MDP). This stage will be undertaken by Master Developer.
a. Sequencing. An underlying principle of the sequencing is that the timing of the programmatic uses detailed in the MDP will be based on anticipated market demand. As such, lot-specific phasing or sequencing is not mandated in this MDA.
Nevertheless, this MDA and the MDP requires a balanced approach to the buildout of the site. From beginning to end, there shall be a balance to the amount of residential development as compared to office/commercial development. To accomplish this, each multi-family residential complex shall be paired with the construction of an office/commercial component. In other words, a second multi-family residential complex shall not be developed until an office/commercial building has been developed (and not a third multi-family until a second commercial, and so on).
The land uses labeled as Mixed-Use Residential A, B, C, and D have the potential to be balanced within themselves, but only if the commercial aspect of the building is constructed and marketed as such, excluding private amenities normally included in multifamily residential development. If initially no viable commercial retail is identified from a marketability standpoint, then a flexible residential alternative may be substituted provided that it is designed for conversion to commercial use in the future. These may include live/work units or storefront residential units. To ensure that the phasing is balanced throughout the development of Clearfield Station, a Mixed- Use Residential A, B, C, or D building that utilizes the designated commercial space as residential
7
09.02.2020
shall be considered a solely residential complex that must be balanced by a separate office/commercial building.
Any variation from this balanced approach (seeking additional residential development before the requisite commercial is in place) will require the explicit approval of the Clearfield City Council in the form of an amendment or addendum to this MDA (and/or the MDP).
C. Financing
The City acknowledges that Master Developer intends to obtain one or more loans and/or other financing in connection with the development of the Project, and the City agrees to cooperate with Master Developer (and/or any Subdeveloper, as applicable) in providing such documents or other information as may be reasonably requested by Master Developer or a lender in connection with any such financing.
D. Zoning and Vested Rights
1. UTA and Master Developer shall have a vested right to develop and construct the Project on the Property, with the uses, densities and other characteristics of the Project in accordance with the MU Zone, the MDP, Development Standards and other matters specifically addressed in the MDP, subject to compliance with the terms and conditions of this MDA as well as applicable City Laws, except as otherwise specifically provided in this MDA or MDP.
2. The Parties understand and agree that the Project shall be required to comply with future changes to City Laws which are in effect as of the filing date of a Development Application that do not prohibit, limit, delay or otherwise interfere with the vested rights granted pursuant to the terms of this MDA and which are not inconsistent with the terms and provisions of this MDA or the MDP. The following are examples for illustrative purposes only and are a non-exhaustive list of the type of future laws that may be enacted by the City that would be applicable to the Project, subject to the standard set forth in the immediately preceding sentence:
a. Compliance with State and Federal Laws. Future laws which are generally applicable to all properties in the City and which are required to comply with State and Federal laws and regulations affecting the Project; or
b. City Construction and Development Standards. Future laws that are updates or amendments to existing building, plumbing, mechanical, electrical, dangerous buildings, drainage, or similar construction or safety related codes, such as the International Building Code, the APWA Specifications, AASHTO Standards, the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices or similar standards that are generated by a nationally or statewide recognized construction/safety
8
09.02.2020
organization, or by the State or Federal governments and are required to meet legitimate concerns related to public health, safety or welfare; or
c. Taxes. Taxes, or modifications thereto, so long as such taxes are lawfully imposed and charged uniformly by the City to all properties, applications, persons and entities similarly situated; or
d. Fees. Except as otherwise provided in this MDA, Master Developer and/or any Subdeveloper, as applicable, shall pay to the City all fees (including, but not limited to, land use application fees, engineering fees, plan review fees, building permit fees, hookup fees and inspection fees) as are generally applicable to all development within the City and which are adopted pursuant to State law, in amounts specified in the City Laws.
E. Approval Process for Development Applications
Approval processes for Development Applications shall be as provided in the City Laws. A Development Application shall be approved by the City if the improvements to be constructed pursuant to the Development Application (i) conform to this MDA and the MDP, and (ii) comply with the City Laws, except as otherwise provided in this MDA or the MDP.
F. Impact Fees
1. Developer agrees to pay Impact Fees as are generally applicable to all development within the City and which are adopted pursuant to State law. All Impact Fees owing to the City hereunder shall be charged at such times in the course of development of Property as the City customarily charges similar Impact Fees to other developers within the City in accordance with applicable law (i.e. at the time of building permit).
2. All Impact Fees charged in connection with the construction of improvements shall be calculated in accordance with the applicable Impact Fee schedules as set forth in Exhibit “D,” “Impact Fees Costs.”
3. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, Master Developer and UTA do not waive any right, whether pursuant to statute or otherwise, including §11-36a-603 of the Utah Code relating to the refunding of Impact Fees, to challenge any Impact Fee charged, or sought to be charged, by the City.
9
09.02.2020
III. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS
Subject to compliance with Master Developer’s obligations as set forth in this MDA, the City shall provide all of the standard municipal services to the Project, including, but not limited to, culinary water, sanitary sewer collection, storm drainage, transportation facilities and public safety facilities and services and police services, at the same levels of service and on the same terms as are generally provided by the City to and for the benefit of the City’s other similarly situated residents, institutions and businesses. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the City does not provide fire protection/suppression services or emergency medical services (such services are provided by the North Davis Fire District).
A. Funding and Construction of Project Infrastructure
1. It is the Parties’ intent that funding for Project Infrastructure as shown in Exhibit “E” shall be obtained through the Bonding Authority. The purpose of Exhibit “E” is to define what Infrastructure shall be paid for from the bond proceeds and/or eligible for reimbursement from Bonding Authority, the priority in which the funds shall be allocated, and what Infrastructure shall be the responsibility of Master Developer. Transit Critical Infrastructure shall have the highest priority, and be designed according to the UTA TOD Policy and TOD Design Guidelines, in order for the Project to function as a TOD. As additional infrastructure needs are discovered or arise, Exhibit “E” may be amended from time to time to reflect the additional infrastructure and related funding as agreed upon in writing by the parties.
2. The Parties understand and agree that the City shall have the responsibility to design, construct and install or cause to be designed, constructed and installed, all portions of the Project Infrastructure that is funded from bond proceeds as detailed in Exhibit “E,” and in coordination with Master Developer and the Clearfield Station Group, who shall meet together regularly to discuss the design and construction of Project and to address issues as they arise. The parties also understand that these activities will be subject to the City’s procurement policies unless otherwise described herein.
3. Costs incurred by Master Developer in the construction and installation of Project Infrastructure eligible for reimbursement as shown in Exhibit “E” shall be reimbursed by the Bonding Authority within thirty (30) days of receiving an invoice from Master Developer, but only after bond proceeds are available. If additional infrastructure is required by City not listed in Exhibit “E,” it shall be paid for from bond proceeds or be reimbursed from same.
4. City agrees to reimburse Master Developer for Soft Costs incurred in the design of the Project Infrastructure (horizontal improvements) from bond proceeds (once available). In the
10
09.02.2020
event the City does not bond, or does not obtain bond proceeds as envisioned herein, City agrees to reimburse Master Developer for its Soft Costs.
5. The Parties understand and agree that in order to secure the most advantageous bond financing, Bonding Authority intends to pledge tax revenues other than the property tax increment that will be generated by the Project, though property tax increment is the intended revenue source for servicing the debt. It is imperative, therefore, that Master Developer carry out the construction of the Project as expeditiously as possible (subject to market demands), in order to generate the property tax increment that is anticipated. The Parties also understand that Bonding Authority’s risk is that tax increment proceeds in a given year may be insufficient to cover that year’s debt service. Beginning in the City’s fourth fiscal year from the date the bond proceeds are disbursed, and in the event that the annual tax increment generated by Project is insufficient to service the annual bond debt payment, Master Developer and UTA respectively agree to contribute to City their pro-rated share of the deficiency, respectively, corresponding to improvements funded from bond proceeds that subsequently are not owned by the City (e.g., a private plaza or station plaza) (“UTA Tax Increment Subsidy” and “Developer Tax Increment Subsidy,” respectively). The current estimate of the pro-rata share of UTA is [
B. Dedication of Rights-of-Way and Infrastructure
A plat (or plat amendment) that dedicates rights-of-way is required prior to any construction or installation of Project Infrastructure. Project Infrastructure shown in Exhibits “E” and “F” shall be built to City standards (except to the extent of any conflicts between generally applicable City standards and the Development Standards, in which case the Development Standards shall control; however, if the Development Standards do not specifically address an infrastructure issue, then the City standards shall be applied) and dedicated to the City (if not already installed by the City) in connection with each applicable Phase of the Project, thereby making it accessible for public use. All Project Infrastructure that is dedicated to the City as described in Exhibit “E” shall thereafter be under the exclusive control of the City. The dedication of Project Infrastructure shall have no limitations as to future control, maintenance, modification, or abandonment of all or part of the dedicated Project Infrastructure by the City.
1. Approval of Infrastructure as a Part of a Development Approval. Any Development Application for a Subdivision or a Site Plan shall include a plan for constructing the applicable
11
09.02.2020
portions of the Project Infrastructure and shall demonstrate that the proposed Project Infrastructure is compatible with the overall development of the Project, as then contemplated, at Buildout.
C. Utilities
1. Culinary Water. Subject to the appropriate funding being secured as described in III(A), and as detailed in Exhibit “E,” and in coordination with the Clearfield Station Group, the City shall be responsible for the design, installation and construction of Project Infrastructure sufficient to extend the City’s culinary water system throughout the Project, including Project Infrastructure necessary for each individual water connection for the various buildings, open spaces, etc., throughout the Project.
a. Attached hereto as Exhibit “F,” the “Utility and Drainage Plan,” which includes a culinary water plan (“Culinary Water Plan”) generally depicting the various culinary water improvements anticipated to be constructed in connection with the Project (including certain offsite improvements, such as the upsizing of a water line in State Street and 1000 East, and installing a water line in the Depot Street extension). The Culinary Water Plan is a general depiction only, showing approximate locations. Final locations shall be determined through additional design engineering.
b. This Section is not intended to and does not create any affirmative construction obligations in connection with undeveloped Phases of the Project.
c. The Parties acknowledge and agree that water lines and other improvements which extend from a water meter to a particular building or other end use shall be and remain private, and the City shall neither pay for, own nor maintain such lines and improvements.
d. The abandonment of the existing culinary water pipeline as depicted in Exhibit “F” shall be pursuant to environmental guidelines.
e. Offsite improvements to the City’s water system for both culinary water and for fire flow, such as the pipeline underneath State Street and 1000 East that will encroach into a right of way owned by the Utah Department of Transportation (“UDOT”), are subject to approval from UDOT.
2. Sanitary Sewer. Subject to the appropriate funding being secured as described in III(A), and as detailed in Exhibit “E,” and in coordination with the Clearfield Station Group, the City shall be responsible for designing and installing the necessary Project Infrastructure to extend the City’s sanitary sewer collection system throughout the Project. The City shall identify and implement a gravity-flow sanitary sewer solution that is sufficient to meet the requirements of the
12
09.02.2020
Project and City Laws. Ongoing maintenance of said gravity-flow sanitary sewer facilities shall be the responsibility of the City (public portions only; not private lateral lines, which are defined as the service line starting at the City’s main line connection, extending to a particular building or other end user).
a. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the City does not act as a sanitary sewer treatment provider (North Davis Sewer District provides sewer treatment facilities in the area).
b. Master Developer shall be responsible for all applicable connection, permit and impact fees associated with said sewer connections within the Project as are generally applicable to all developments in the City, as described in Exhibit “D.” Moreover, the City shall not be responsible for costs associated with making said connections.
c. City shall be responsible for installing the Project Infrastructure necessary for each individual sewer connection for the various buildings throughout the Project.
d. Attached hereto as Exhibit “F,” the “Utility and Drainage Plan,” which includes a sanitary sewer plan (“Sanitary Sewer Plan”) generally depicting the various sanitary sewer improvements anticipated to be constructed in connection with the Project (including certain offsite improvements, such as the installation of sanitary sewer line in 1000 East). The Sanitary Sewer Plan is a general depiction only, showing approximate locations. Final locations shall be determined through additional design engineering.
e. This Section is not intended to and does not create any affirmative construction obligations in connection with undeveloped Phases of the Project.
3. Storm Drainage. Subject to the appropriate funding being secured as described in III(A), and as detailed in Exhibit “E,” and in coordination with the Clearfield Station Group, the City shall be responsible for installing the necessary Project Infrastructure to extend the City’s storm drainage system throughout the Project. Master Developer shall be responsible for all applicable connection, permit and impact fees associated with said storm drain connections within the Project as are generally applicable to all developments in the City, as described in Exhibit “D.” City agrees it currently owns, maintains and will continue to maintain the existing 48” and 24” storm sewer line that exists in the Project.
a. Attached hereto as Exhibit “F,” the “Utility and Drainage Plan,” which includes a storm drainage plan (“Storm Drainage Plan”) generally depicting the various storm drainage improvements anticipated to be constructed in connection with the Project. The Storm
13
09.02.2020
Drainage Plan is a general depiction only, showing approximate locations. Storm water will be discharged from the Property via an outfall from Pond 3 to an existing 36” storm drain in the southwest corner of the Property, leading to a regional detention basin. Final locations shall be determined through additional design engineering. The Storm Drainage Plan does not depict any onsite / private storm water retention or detention facilities that may be required, for which Master Developer will be responsible for construction, ownership, and maintenance. .
b. This Section is not intended to and does not create any affirmative construction obligations in connection with undeveloped Phases of the Project.
c. If the City’s existing 24” and 48” storm sewer line that runs through the Property requires relocation, the cost thereof shall be paid from the bond proceeds described in III(A) (anticipated within Depot Street right of way). Master Developer shall not be responsible for any fees, permit fees, or impact fees related to its relocation. Any such relocation shall be in accordance with the City’s standards and shall be located so that it will not detrimentally impact the Project as depicted by the MDP.
4. Other Utilities. The City will coordinate with Master Developer and UTOPIA for the installation of state-of-the-art fiber/internet infrastructure to be installed in the Project area. It is understood that such fiber provider(s) will be required to purchase or lease any conduits and real property necessary for communication sheds or structures from Master Developer.
a. The City will cooperate with Master Developer during the installation of both electrical service and natural gas service by Rocky Mountain Power and Dominion Energy, respectively. Master Developer agrees that new overhead utilities are strictly prohibited within the Project, provided however, Master Developer will not be required to underground existing utility poles. If excess bond proceeds remain after the completion of Construction Step 1 Project Infrastructure, then the Clearfield Station Group may consider utilizing the excess bond proceeds for the purpose of undergrounding existing utility lines on State Street and/or 1000 East.
D. Open Space, Parks and Trails
Subject to the appropriate funding being secured as described in III(A), and as detailed in Exhibit “E,” and in coordination with the Clearfield Station Group, the City shall install the necessary Project Infrastructure to provide open space, plazas, parks and trails throughout the Project.
14
09.02.2020
1. Open space shall consist of meaningful areas that promote the goals and objectives of Master Developer and City, but shall not include roads (but shall include landscaped areas within rights-of-way) or parking lots.
2. Attached hereto as Exhibit “G-1,” “Open Space Plan,” is an open space, parks and trails plan (the “Open Space Plan”) generally depicting the open and civic spaces acreage. The figures are for general reference only, and are not intended to be minimum requirements.
3. Pursuant to City ordinances, the Parties acknowledge and agree that the open space, parks and trail improvements identified on Exhibit “G-1” as ‘Public,’ shall be owned and maintained by the City. The improvements identified thereon as ‘Private’ shall remain privately owned and maintained by their respective owner.
4. Landscaping and landscape buffers shall be consistent with the MDP.
5. Open Space Maintenance. The Responsible Party, as listed in Exhibit “G-2,” “Maintenance Responsibility Plan,” shall be responsible for the ongoing maintenance of the designated open space areas. Open spaces shall be maintained at a high level to ensure the perpetual beautification of Project. The aesthetic shall be consistent with the MDP and shall comport at all times with an attractive, cultivated, and orderly appearance. Any party derelict in maintaining its portion of open space shall be notified and subject to the provisions of Section V, as well as subject to enforcement action pursuant to City Code.
E. Roads and Rights of Way
Subject to the appropriate funding being secured as described in III(A), and as detailed in Exhibit “E,” and in coordination with the Clearfield Station Group, the City shall install the necessary Project Infrastructure to provide transportation facilities throughout the Project.
1. Attached hereto as Exhibit “H,” “Road Network Plan,” is a road network plan (“Road Network Plan”) generally depicting the various road improvements anticipated to be constructed in connection with the Project. The Road Network Plan is a general depiction only, showing approximate locations. It is provided for the purpose of designating which improvements are to be public and which are to be private. Final locations shall be determined upon design of Project Infrastructure, as generally depicted in the MDP.
2. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the road improvements identified on Exhibit “H” as ‘Public’ shall be owned and maintained by the City.
15
09.02.2020
3. This Section is not intended to and does not create any affirmative construction obligations in connection with undeveloped Phases of the Project.
4. Master Developer agrees that any roads constructed in connection with the Project shall be constructed according to typical City standards and as set forth in this MDA and MDP, except with regard to right-of-way widths, pavement widths, and any other design standards directly related to or affected by right-of-way width, which shall be as set forth in the MDP. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the standards set forth in the MDP with regard to right-of-way widths differ from corresponding standards set forth in the City Laws. The Parties further acknowledge and agree that notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this MDA, with regard to right-of-way widths, and pavement widths, the standards set forth in the MDP shall control.
5. Depot Street. The Parties understand and agree that as an off-site public improvement intended to mitigate additional traffic impact from the Project and to further facilitate use of the Project, City agrees to install or cause to be installed an extension of Depot Street southward from approximately 1100 South in Clearfield, ultimately connecting with the Project’s roadways at the northern portion of the Project. The Clearfield Station Group shall oversee the design of the Depot Street extension. The Depot Street extension shall be a ‘Public’ road.
a. The Parties acknowledge that a reimbursement agreement between City and Ironwood Development Group, L.C. requires the City to collect an estimated share of the cost of improving Depot Street from approximately 830 South to approximately 1100 South from owners of certain real property deemed to be benefitted by the improvement, including Property. The City agrees to waive any collection of reimbursement from Parties pursuant to the Ironwood agreement. City affirms that Parties are not responsible for costs related to the improvements under the Ironwood agreement and releases and indemnifies Parties therefrom, which costs the City intends to collect and to make reimbursement to Ironwood from funds generated by RDA #9 to the north of Project.
b. Parties understand and agree that any land acquisition costs necessary for the extension of Depot Street, as described above, shall be the responsibility of the City and included in the bond package as described in this Agreement, unless other funding sources are identified (e.g. grants). To the extent that the City owns any lands, or acquires any lands, that are required in connection with the Depot Street extension, the City shall dedicate such lands for the Depot Street extension without payment, and at no cost to Master Developer.
c. Parties acknowledge that the intent is to accomplish the extension of Depot Street in approximately the same timing (and in the same contract) as the construction of the rest of the Project Infrastructure, pending successful acquisition of the necessary rights-of-way.
16
09.02.2020
6. New Primary Intersection at State Street. The Parties understand and agree that in order to facilitate better traffic flow both within and adjacent to the Project, City shall either construct or cause to be constructed a new intersection that includes signalization at the junction of Station Boulevard and State Street. The Clearfield Station Group shall oversee the design of the improvements. The costs thereof, including the acquisition of right-of-way (if any), will be included in the bond package as described in this Agreement, unless other funding sources are identified (e.g. grants). The Parties acknowledge that approval from the Utah Department of Transportation is required in order to accomplish these improvements.
7. Southern Ingress/Egress on 1000 East and Extension of 1450 South from 1000 East to State Street; Signalization. The Parties understand and agree that in order to facilitate better traffic flow both within and adjacent to the Project, City shall either construct or cause to be constructed a new entrance/exit for the Project as depicted in Exhibit “H.”
The Parties understand and agree that as an off-site public improvement intended to mitigate additional traffic impact from the Project and to further facilitate traffic flow in the area, the City shall install or cause to be installed an extension of 1450 South eastward from 1000 East to State Street in Clearfield, ultimately connecting State Street to the east with the Project’s roadways. This extension of 1450 South shall be generally in conformance with the design in the MDP and is subject to approval from UDOT and the City. The Clearfield Station Group shall oversee the design of the improvements. The costs thereof, including the acquisition of right-of- way, will be included in the bond package as described in this Agreement, unless other funding sources are identified (e.g. grants). Parties acknowledge that the intent is to accomplish the extension of 1450 South in approximately the same timing (and in the same contract) as the construction of the rest of the Project Infrastructure, pending successful acquisition of the necessary rights-of-way.
8. Modifications to 1000 East and State Street Intersection. The Parties understand and agree that in order to facilitate better traffic flow both within and adjacent to the Project, City shall construct a new median in State Street and cause traffic movement in a “right in, right out” pattern as detailed in Exhibit “H.”
a. Said intersection shall be generally in conformance with the conceptual design in the MDP, subject to approval from the Utah Department of Transportation (“UDOT”) and the City. The Clearfield Station Group shall oversee the design of the improvements, the costs thereof, including the acquisition of right-of-way (if any), will be included in the bond package as described in this Agreement, unless other funding sources are identified (grants).
9. The City acknowledges and agrees that it will seek to secure easements or other rights from third parties in connection with certain off-site improvements for the benefit of the
17
09.02.2020
Project at its own expense, the costs thereof, including the acquisition of any easements or rights- of-way will be included in the bond package as described in this Agreement, unless other funding sources are identified (e.g. grants). Master Developer shall cooperate with City in its efforts to obtain such easements or other rights associated therewith.
a. The City acknowledges its right of eminent domain to acquire property necessary for roads and related purposes as well as its willingness to consider the exercise of such right if warranted by the circumstances; however, the Parties also acknowledge and agree that the City’s exercise of eminent domain powers is a future legislative decision of the City Council as constituted when that issue arises.
10. Vacation of Designated Rights of Way. The City has certain rights-of-way located on Property which are not compatible with the MDP and Exhibit “H.” These rights-of-way will require formal vacation by the City pursuant to Utah Code Ann. §10-9a-609.5.
a. The rights-of-way, or portions thereof, on Property subject to vacation are:
(i) Express Drive; (ii) Box Car Drive (partial vacation); (iii) Station Boulevard; and (iv) Switch Lane.
b. The City Council shall hold a public hearing and determine whether good cause exists for the vacation and whether any public interest will be materially injured by the proposed vacation. In the event the rights-of-way are thereafter vacated, City shall convey the same to Master Developer.
F. UTA Park & Ride Facilities
1. UTA Park & Ride Parking Facilities. The Parties acknowledge and agree that the social and economic viability of Project includes the need to provide adequate parking to service both the surrounding land uses and patrons using the UTA Frontrunner. Accordingly, as detailed in Exhibit “I,” “Parking Stages Plan,” the Clearfield Station Group shall oversee the design, construction, and installation of the necessary Project Infrastructure to provide designated parking stalls that are reserved for use by UTA patrons as Park & Ride Facilities. The location of said facilities shall be planned in various areas throughout the development, and in successive stages, as depicted in Exhibit “I.”
2. Number of Stalls. The quantity of stalls shall be determined by UTA to satisfy park & ride demand, and shall not exceed seven hundred (700) stalls, which shall be subject to a parking
18
09.02.2020
Construction, Operation and Easement Agreement. Park & Ride Facilities shall be located and oriented in such a way that they are compliant with UTA’s TOD Design Guidelines and policies.
3. Funding of Park & Ride Facilities. All UTA Park & Ride Facilities that are depicted in Stages 1 thru 3 of Exhibit “I,” except for the south parking structure, shall be funded by the initial bond package and shall be prioritized as a use of those bond proceeds as Transit Critical Infrastructure. Excess bond proceeds remaining after Construction Step 1 may be applied toward the southern parking structure. Prior to development occurring as depicted in Parking Stage 4 and Stage 5, funding for UTA Park & Ride Facilities in those Stages shall be secured, which funding may come from a variety of funding sources (i.e., the Bonding Authority securing a second bond, Transportation Reinvestment Zone funds, grants, and so on), provided, however, UTA shall not be obligated to, but may choose to, contribute to the funding of the southern parking structure.
a. Phasing of UTA Park & Ride. The locations and quantities of UTA Park & Ride Facilities shall be phased with the ongoing Development of Project, as depicted in Exhibit “I.” At each Parking Stage, the location and quantity of stalls shall reflect actual demand for park & ride stalls by UTA patrons.
b. Ownership of Parking Structure. UTA shall own the Parking Structure and operate its use pursuant to a Construction, Operation and Easement Agreement.
c. Transportation Demand Management Strategies. UTA will consult with City its implementation of Transportation Demand Management strategies for the Parking Structure.
G. Resolution of Disputes Regarding Project Infrastructure
If the City determines that the proposed Project Infrastructure is not compatible with the overall development of the Project, as then contemplated, at Buildout, in accordance with applicable City Laws, the MDP and this MDA, then any such dispute shall be subject to the “Meet and Confer” provisions of Section 5(A)(2), included below.
H. Restrictions on Certificates of Occupancy
No certificates of occupancy may be issued by the City for any Phase until completion of all items of Project Infrastructure specifically required pursuant to an approved Building Permit application in accordance with this MDA, the MDP, and the City Laws, except landscaping.
19
09.02.2020
I. CC&R’s
As applicable, the owner(s) of all or a portion of the Property, and or the Owner’s Association(s) created with respect thereto, shall be responsible for the implementation and enforcement of CC&R’s if and as they deem necessary or appropriate. The CC&R’s may be adopted and amended without any requirement of approval thereof by the City; however, Master Developer shall submit all CC&R’s to the City for review and comment prior to adoption or amendment. All CC&R’s shall be subject to the terms and provisions of this MDA and must not be in conflict with the MDA, the MDP, or City Laws.
IV. CONSTRUCTION STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS
A. Permits
1. Building Permits. Before beginning construction or development of any buildings, structures or other work or improvements upon any portion of the Property, Master Developer or a Subdeveloper, as applicable, shall secure, or cause to be secured, any and all permits which may be required by the City or any other governmental entity having jurisdiction over the work. Upon satisfactorily meeting all pertinent requirements as set forth in this MDA, the MDP and City Laws, the City agrees to grant to Master Developer, or a Subdeveloper, as applicable, those permits and approvals necessary to permit the Master Developer or Subdeveloper to implement and complete the development of the Project. The City shall reasonably cooperate with the Master Developer or a Subdeveloper in seeking to secure such permits from other governmental entities.
2. Grading. Master Developer and/or a Subdeveloper may apply for and obtain a grading permit following preliminary approval by the Planning Commission of a Site Plan or a Subdivision Plat if Master Developer and/or a Subdeveloper has submitted and received approval of a site grading plan from the City Engineer. Any grading performed by Master Developer and/or a Subdeveloper pursuant to only a grading permit prior to the establishment of finished grades by a final approval shall be at the risk of Master Developer or the Subdeveloper. If there are any discrepancies between the grade elevations created by the grading permit activities and the final, approved elevations, the City shall have no responsibility or liability for any such discrepancy. Nothing herein shall prevent Master Developer from obtaining a demolition permit, at any time Master Developer reasonably deems necessary.
20
09.02.2020
V. DEFAULT
A. Notice
If UTA, Master Developer or a Subdeveloper, or the City is believed to be in Default for failing to perform its respective obligations hereunder or to comply with the terms hereof, the party believing that a Default has occurred shall provide written Notice to the party that is believed to be in Default, and to UTA. If the City provides any Notice of Default to any Subdeveloper it shall also provide a courtesy copy of such Notice to Master Developer and UTA at the same time.
1. Contents of Notice of Default. The Notice of Default shall:
a. Specify the nature of or claimed event of Default;
b. Identify with particularity the provisions of any applicable law, rule, regulation or provision of this MDA or the MDP that is claimed to be in Default;
c. Identify why the Default is claimed to be material; and
d. If elected by the party delivering the Notice of Default, in its discretion, the Notice of Default may propose a method and period of time for curing the Default, which period of time shall be not more than sixty (60) days.
2. Remedies. Upon service of a Notice of Default:
a. The Parties shall attempt to resolve the Default through a “Meet and Confer” meeting within 10 calendar days.
b. If no resolution is reached, the Parties may elect any rights or remedies available at law or equity.
c. In no event shall the City have any obligation to pay Master Developer, UTA, or any successor in interest, for consequential damages, lost profits, or lost opportunity costs arising by reason of an alleged or established Default of the City, and Master Developer and UTA hereby irrevocably waive any right to assert any claim for the same. Notwithstanding any other provision contained herein, the City’s aggregate liability for out-of-pocket costs actually paid by Master Developer by reason of the City’s Default, including but not limited to attorney’s fees, legal expenses and court costs, shall not exceed five million dollars ($5,000,000.00).
21
09.02.2020
d. Extended Cure Period. If any Default cannot be reasonably cured within sixty (60) days then such cure period may be extended by the non-defaulting party so long as the defaulting party is pursuing a cure with reasonable diligence.
3. Cumulative Rights. The rights and remedies set forth herein shall be cumulative.
4. Service of Notices. All notices required or permitted under this MDA shall be given in writing by certified mail, postage prepaid; or personally; or by nationally-recognized overnight courier service to the street address used by the respective party. Any party may change its address for Notice under this MDA by giving written Notice to the other party in accordance with the provisions of this Section.
a. Appointment of Representatives. To further the commitment of the parties to cooperate in the implementation of this MDA, the City, UTA and Master Developer each shall designate and appoint a representative to act as a liaison between the City and its various departments and the Master Developer.
(i) City: the initial representatives shall be JJ Allen and Summer Palmer, 55 South State Street, Clearfield, Utah 84015.
(ii) UTA: the initial representatives shall be Jordan Swain and Paul Drake, 669 West 200 South, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101.
(iii) Master Developer: the initial representatives shall be Trevor Evans (Stack), 2801 N. Thanksgiving Way, Ste. 100, Lehi, Utah 84043; and Ken Shields (Hamilton Partners), 222 South Main Street, Ste. 1760, Salt Lake City, Utah 84101.
(iv) The parties may change their designated representatives by Notice.
VI. MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS
A. Amendment. This MDA, and all Exhibits thereto, is the entire agreement between the Parties regarding the subject matter included herein and may not be amended or modified except either as provided herein or by a subsequent written amendment signed by all Parties. Any amendment to this MDA shall be recorded against the Property.
B. Headings. The captions used in this MDA are for convenience only and are not intended to be substantive provisions or evidences or intent.
22
09.02.2020
C. No Third Party Rights / No Joint Venture. This MDA does not create a joint venture relationship, partnership or agency relationship between the City, UTA and Master Developer. Further, the parties do not intend this MDA to create any third-party beneficiary rights. The parties acknowledge that this MDA refers to a private development and that the City has no interest in, responsibility for or duty to any third parties concerning any improvements to the Property, except as otherwise specifically provided in this MDA.
D. Assignability. The rights and responsibilities of Master Developer under this MDA may be assigned in whole or in part by Master Developer with the consent of the City as provided herein, which consent shall not be unreasonably withheld, conditioned or delayed. City understands and agrees that the Project is large and diverse, and that Master Developer is likely to assign a portion or portions of its development rights under this MDA to one or more Subdevelopers in order to facilitate the development of various phases and/or portions of the Project. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary herein, Master Developer shall have the right to assign its rights under this MDA to any “Affiliate” of Master Developer without obtaining the City’s consent therefor. As used in this Section, “Affiliate” shall mean any person or entity controlling, controlled by or under common control with Master Developer (as used herein “control” means the possession, directly or indirectly, of the power to direct or cause the direction of the management, policies and decision-making of such person or entity, through the ownership of voting interests).
1. Partial Assignment. If any proposed assignment is for less than all of Master Developer’s rights and responsibilities then the assignee shall be responsible for the performance of each of the obligations contained in this MDA to which the assignee succeeds. Upon any such approved partial assignment, Master Developer shall be released from and have no liability with respect to any future obligations as to those obligations which are assigned but shall remain responsible for the performance of any obligations that were not assigned.
2. Grounds for Denying Assignment. The City may only withhold its consent if the assignee’s ability to perform the obligations of Master Developer proposed to be assigned is in question, and the City provides a specific description of its objections in writing. Any refusal of the City to consent to an assignment shall be subject to the “Meet and Confer” process.
E. No Waiver. Failure of any party hereto to exercise any right hereunder shall not be deemed a waiver of any such right and shall not affect the right of such party to exercise at some future date any such right or any other right it may have.
F. Severability. If any provision of this MDA is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid for any reason, the parties consider and intend that this MDA shall be deemed amended to the extent necessary to make it consistent with such decision and the balance of this MDA shall remain in full force and effect.
23
09.02.2020
G. Force Majeure. Any prevention, delay or stoppage of the performance of any obligation under this Agreement which is due to strikes, labor disputes, inability to obtain labor, materials, equipment or reasonable substitutes therefor; inability to obtain reasonable financing in the event of significant changes in the credit markets, acts of nature, governmental restrictions, regulations or controls, judicial orders, enemy or hostile government actions, wars, civil commotions, fires or other casualties or other causes beyond the reasonable control of the party obligated to perform hereunder shall excuse performance of the obligation by that party for a period equal to the duration of that prevention, delay or stoppage.
H. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence to this MDA and every right or responsibility shall be performed within the times specified.
I. Mutual Drafting. Each party has participated in negotiating and drafting this MDA and therefore no provision of this MDA shall be construed for or against either party based on which party drafted any particular portion of this MDA.
J. Applicable Law. This MDA is entered into in the State of Utah and shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah irrespective of Utah’s choice of law rules.
K. Venue. Any action to enforce this MDA shall be brought only in the Second Judicial District Court for the State of Utah, Farmington Department.
L. Recordation and Running with the Land. This MDA shall be recorded against the Property in the real property records of Davis County. This MDA shall be deemed to run with the land and shall be deemed binding upon the Parties, and all of their successors and assigns.
M. Authority / Good Standing.
1. Master Developer represents and warrants to the City and UTA that (i) Master Developer is duly formed and validly existing under the laws of Utah and is qualified to do business in the State of Utah; (ii) the individuals executing this MDA on behalf of Master Developer are duly authorized and empowered to bind Master Developer; and (iii) this MDA is valid, binding and enforceable against Master Developer in accordance with its terms.
2. City represents and warrants to Master Developer and UTA that (i) City is a Utah municipal corporation; (ii) City has power and authority pursuant to enabling legislation, the Act, City Laws, and the City Code, to enter into and be bound by this MDA; (iii) the individual(s) executing this MDA on behalf of City are duly authorized and empowered to bind the City; and (iv) this MDA is valid, binding and enforceable against the City in accordance with its terms.
24
09.02.2020
3. UTA represents and warrants to the City and Master Developer that (i) UTA is a large public transit district organized under the Utah Public Transit District Act; (ii) UTA has power and authority pursuant to authority and approval from the Act and other enabling legislation in the Utah Code, to enter into and be bound by this MDA; (iii) the individual(s) executing this MDA on behalf of UTA are duly authorized and empowered to bind UTA; and (iv) this MDA is binding and enforceable against UTA in accordance with its terms.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this MDA by and through their respective, duly authorized representatives as of the day and year first herein above written.
CLEARFIELD CITY, a municipal corporation
(signature block of Clearfield representatives)
[<
(signature block of [<
UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY a large public transit district organized under the Utah Public Transit District Act
(signature block of Utah Transit Authority representatives)
25
09.02.2020
TABLE OF EXHIBITS
Exhibit “A” Description of Property
Exhibit “B” Master Development Plan
Exhibit “C” Construction Steps
Exhibit “D” Impact Fee Costs
Exhibit “E” Responsibility for Project Infrastructure and Funding
Exhibit “F” Utility and Drainage Plan
Exhibit “G” Open Space Plan & Maintenance Responsibility Plan
Exhibit “H” Road Network Plan
Exhibit “I” Parking Stages Plan
26
TO: Mayor Shepherd and City Council Members FROM: Eric Howes, Community Services Director MEETING DATE: September 8, 2020 SUBJECT: 200 South Well Options
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Authorize staff to utilize park impact fees in the amount of $35,000 to upgrade the 200 South well that supplies Mabey Pond by lowering the bowls and replacing the existing motor to prevent future issues with cavitation.
DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND
Last summer when the 200 South well was put back into service to fill Mabey Pond, we experienced issues with cavitation as a limited availability of water in the aquifer at the depth of the bowls. At that time staff obtained a quote from Nickerson Company Inc. to explore options that would resolve the issue for the future. They recommended lowering the bowls an additional 40’ further into the aquifer and replacing the existing pump motor with a smaller submersible pump at an estimated cost of $32,284.
While waiting for the evaluation of the situation and the receipt of the quote, the aquifer began to recharge at that depth, the issue resolved itself and we were able to continue to pump water from the aquifer to fill the pond. Staff also reduced the flow from the pump by partially closing a valve to limit the rate at which we pulled water from the aquifer to avoid future cavitation issues. However, this causes additional stress to the pump and motor and reduces the overall life of those components. Since the well in not operating all of the time, staff determined that at the time it would be best to try this approach to see if pumping more slowly from the well would eliminate the cavitation issue on its own.
This summer, with the extended dry weather, we are again experiencing cavitation issues with the well and have not been able to pump water into the pond for several weeks. Since this option now represents the simplest and best option to maintain flow from the well throughout the year, staff is recommending lowering the bowls and replacing the existing pump with a 40 HP submersible pump as indicated in the attached quotation. Staff again contacted Nickerson Company and asked them to update their quote from 2019. The cost to complete the work is $33,338.00 and staff recommends a $1,662.00 contingency for a total project cost of $35,000.
Additionally, since Nickerson Company Inc. has already completed the analysis of the 200 South Well, has existing video footage, and experience with this specific site, contracting with any other provider would cause the City to incur additional costs and significant delay, staff is recommending that Nickerson Company Inc. be contracted to complete the project according to the procurement to meet existing needs and unforeseen conditions provisions of the purchasing policy.
CORRESPONDING POLICY PRIORITY (IES)
To create a place where people want to be by providing outstanding arts, recreation, and events. The 200 South well is critical to keeping Mabey Pond full and to the beautification of the park and the surrounding areas, making it more desirable for proposed redevelopment in the area.
FISCAL IMPACT
The quoted price of the project is $33,338.00 with a proposed contingency of $1662.00 from Park Impact Fees.
ALTERNATIVES
• Delay the project. However, this will not resolve the cavitation issue and we will have to manage several weeks each year without being able to add water to the pond.
SCHEDULE / TIME CONSTRAINTS
The sooner that we are able to make these changes to the well, the sooner we will be able to add water to the pond again.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Quote from Nickerson Company Inc.
2
Nickerson Company, Inc. Estimate Sheet P.O. Box 25425 2301 West Indiana Ave. Salt Lake City, UT 84125
Customer: CLEARFIELD CITY DATE 8/24/2020 Attention: BEN FRYE
Phone: Fax: Job Name: 200 SOUTH WELL Condition of Service: # Item Unit Extension
DRIVE TO SITE. RIG UP. PULL DEEP WELL COMPLETE INCLUDING MOTOR, DISCHARGE HEAD, COLUMN TUBE AND SHAFT, BOWL ASSEMBLY. RIG DOWN. TAKE ALL ITEMS TO NICKERSON SHOP DUE TO LACK OF SECURE SPACE FOR STORAGE. THE COLUMN PIPE IS IN 10' LENGHTS AND THE NORMAL LENGHTS ARE 20' FOR OIL LUBE COLUMN TUBE AND SHAFTS. RETURN AFTER 2 WEEKS AND VIDEO WELL 1 PULL/INSTALL USING DUAL CAMERA LENS WELL CAMERA. $ 7,800.00 $ 7,800.00
QUOTE INCLUDES TRAILER AND UNLOADING OF MATERIALS AT NICKERSON SHOP, CLEARFIELD CITY IS RESPONSABLE FOR CUTTING POWER TO OVERHEAD LINES IF NEEDED AND FOR TRAFIC REDIRECTION AND BARACADES AS NEEDED.
DRIVE TO SITE. RIG UP, FURNISH AND INSTALL THE FOLLOWING: NATIONAL M6HC-8 STAGE CAST IRON BRONZE FITTED SUBMERSIBLE BOWL ASSEMBLY WITH 40 HP FRANKLIN 3600 FRANKLIN SUBMERSIBLE SANDFIGHTER MOTOR (460V) 420' OF 4" X 20' SUBMERSIBLE COLUMN PIPE WITH PUMP COUPLINGS, 475' OF #4 - 3 CONDUCTOR PLUS GROUND SUBMERSIBLE POWER CABLE. ADAPT EXISTING DISCHARGE HEAD TO SUBMERSBILE DISHCARGE ELBOW (USE ADAPTED EXISITNG HEAD) SO DISCHARGE WILL BE THE SAME AS IT IS NOW. INSTALL 1 EACH SUBMERSIBLE FURNISH/ CHECK VALVE INLINE IN COLUMN PIPE. RETURN AFTER 1 ADAPT HEAD ELECTRICAL IS COMPLETE AND PERFORM START UP. $ 25,538.00 $ 25,538.00
I HAVE INCLUDED THE INFO FROM THE WELL VIDEO DONE YEARS AGO SHOWING A REDUCTION AT 327' SO WELL PUMP 1O " DIAMETER CAN NOT BE LOWERED. A NOTE IN FILE FROM 93 SHOWS CITY WANTED TO LOWER PUMP 40' BUT DECIEDED NOT TO FOR REASONS UNKNOWN.
ONCE VIDEO IS DONE WE CAN QUOTE TO ABANDON WELL IF WANTED THAT WAY WE KNOW DEPTH AND DIAMETER TO FIGURE CORRECT COST. $ - IF CITY WANTS WE CAN DELIVER MATERIALS TO CITY YARD INSTEAD OF NICKERSON SHOP SO ADDITIONAL CHARGES WILL NOT BE ASSESED IF CITY WANTS OLD MATERIALS BACK AT END OF PROJECT. UNLOADING AT CITY SHOP IS CITY RESPONSABILITY $ - IF NEW SUBMERSIBLE IS APPROVED THE CITY WILL NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT THE 75' MORE OF HEAD AND THE EXTRA 100' SETTING IS ENOUGH COVERAGE OVER THE BOWLS AT DRAWDOWN $ - $ - Options: $ - $ - l t-reIgm: INCLUDED
NOT Tax INCLUDED Total Price: $ 33,338.00 Shipment: FOB:
QUOTE GOOD FOR 4 WEEKS
Terms: Net 30 days Phone: 801-973-8888 Quoted by:Garry Noyce Fax: 801-973-8267 NICKERSON COMPANY, INC. WARRANTY, TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF SALE. PURCHASER:______P.0 .#______
DESCRIPTION ______
All orders shall be made out to Nickerson Company, Inc. at P.O. Box 25425, Salt Lake City, Utah 84125 and shall be subject to acceptance by Nickerson Company, Inc.
1. CONSTRUCTION AND LEGAL EFFECT. Our sale to you will be solely upon the terms and conditions set forth herein. They supersede and reject any conflicting terms and conditions of yours, any statement in yours to the contrary notwithstanding. Exceptions to any of our terms and conditions must be contained in a written or typed (not printed) statement received from you; we shall not be deemed to have waived any of our terms and conditions or to have assented to any modification or alteration of such terms and conditions unless such waiver or assent is in writing and signed by an authorized officer. No representation of any kind has been made by us except as set forth herein; this agreement conclusively supersedes all prior writings and negotiations with respect thereto and we will furnish only the quantities and items specifically listed on the face hereof; we assume no responsibility for furnishing other equipment or material shown in any plans and/or specification for a project to which the goods ordered herein pertain. Any action for breach of contract must be commenced within one year after the cause of action has accrued Our quoted prices, discounts, terms and conditions are subject to change without notice.
2. PRICES. Unless otherwise noted on the face hereof, prices are net F.O.B. Point of Origin. Service time of a factory-trained service man is not included and may be charged extra. The amount of any applicable present or future tax or other government charge upon the production, sale, shipment or use of goods ordered or sold will be added to billing unless you provide us with an appropriate exemption certificate.
3. DEFECTIVE EQUIPMENT AND LIMITATION OF WARRANTIES. Providing purchaser notifies us promptly, if within one year from date of shipment equipment sold by Nickerson Company, Inc. fails to function properly under normal, proper and rated use and service because of defects in material or workmanship demonstrated to our satisfaction to have existed at the time of delivery, the company reserving the right to either inspect them in your hands or request their return to us will at our option repair or replace at our expense F.O.B. our Salt Lake City plant, or give you proper credit for such equipment or parts determined by us to be defective, if returned transportation prepaid by purchaser. The foregoing shall not apply to equipment that shall have been altered or repaired after shipment to you by anyone except our authorized employees, and the company will not be liable in any event for alterations or repairs except those made with its written consent. Purchaser shall be solely responsible for determining suitability for use and the company shall in no event be liable in this respect The equipment or parts manufactured by others but furnished by us will be repaired or replaced only to the extent of the original manufacturer's guarantee. Our obligations and liabilities hereunder shall not be enforceable until such equipment has been fully paid for. Purchaser agrees that if the products sold hereunder are resold by purchaser, he will include in the contract for resale, provisions which limit recoveries against us in accordance with this section. In case of our failure to fulfill any performance representation, it is agreed that we may at our option remove and reclaim the equipment covered by this agreement at our own expense and discharge all liability by repayment to the purchaser of all sums received on account of the purchase price. (The foregoing obligations are in lieu of all other obligations and liabilities including negligence and all warranties, or merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose or otherwise, express or implied by connection with the sale or furnishing of goods or parts, their design, suitability for use, installation or operation.) We will in no event be liable for any direct, indirect, special or consequential damages or delay resulting from any defect whatsoever, and our liability under no circumstances will exceed the contract price for the goods for which liability is claimed.
4. DELIVERY. Delivery, shipment and installation dates are estimated dates only, and unless otherwise specified, are figured from date of receipt of complete technical data and approved drawings as such may be necessary. In estimating such dates, no allowance has been made, nor shall we be liable directly or indirectly for delays of carriers or delays from labor difficulties, shortages, strikes or stoppages of any sort, fires, accidents, failure or delay in obtaining materials or manufacturing facilities, acts of government affecting us directly or indirectly, bad weather, or any causes beyond our control or causes designated Acts of God or force majeure by any court of law, and the estimated delivery date shall be extended accordingly. We will not be liable for any damages or penalties whatsoever, whether direct, indirect, special consequential, resulting from our failure to perform or delay in performing unless otherwise agreed in writing by an authorized officer.
5. OPERA TING CONDITIONS AND ACCEPTANCE. Recommendations and quotations are made upon the basis of operating conditions specified by the Purchaser. If actual conditions are different than those specified and performance of the equipment is adversely affected thereby, Purchaser will be responsible for the cost of all expenses incurred in, and reasonable profit for, performance of the equipment is adversely affected thereby, Purchaser will be responsible for the cost of all changes in the equipment required to accommodate such conditions, and we reserve the right to cancel this order and Purchaser shall reimburse us for all costs and expenses incurred in, and reasonable profit for, performance hereunder. We reserve the right to refuse any order based upon a quotation containing an eITOr. The provisions in any specification or char issued by Nickerson Co. are descriptive only and are not warranties or representations; Nickerson Co. will certify to a rated capacity in any particular product upon request. Capacity head and efficiency certifications are based on shop tests and when handling clear, fresh water at a temperature not over 85° F. Certifications are at this specified rating only and do not cover sustained performance over any period of time nor under conditions varying from these.
6. SHIPPING. Unless you specify otherwise in writing, (a) goods will be boxed or crated as we may deem proper for protection against normal handling, and extra charge will be made for preservation, waterproofing, export boxing and similar added protection of goods; (b) routing and manner of shipment will be at our discretion, and may be insured at your expense, value to be stated at order price. On all shipment F.O.B. our plant, delivery of goods to the initial carrier will constitute delivery to you and all goods will be shipped at your risk. A claim for loss of damage in transit must be entered with the carrier and prosecuted by you. Acceptance of material from a common carrier constitutes a waiver of any claims against us for delay or damage or loss.
7. CANCELLATION AND RETURNED EQUIPMENT. Orders may be cancelled only with our written consent and upon payment or reasonable and proper cancellation charges. Goods may be returned only when specifically authorized and you will be charged for placing returned goods in saleable condition, any sales expenses then incurred by us, plus a restocking charge and any outgoing and incoming transportation costs which we pay.
8. CREDIT AND PAYMENT. Payment for products shall be 30 days net. Pro-rata payments shall become due with partial shipments. A late charge of 2 percent per month or the maximum permitted by law, which ever is less, will be imposed on all past due invoices. We reserve the right at any time to alter, suspend, credit, or to change credit terms provided herein, when in our sale opinion your financial condition so warrants. In such case, in addition to any other remedies herein or by law provided. Failure to pay invoices at maturity date at our election makes all. subsequent invoices immediately due and payable irrespective of terms, and we may withhold all subsequent deliveries until the full account is settled, and we may terminate this agreement. Acceptance by us of less than full payment shall not be a waiver of any of our rights. You represent by sending each purchase order to us that you are not insolvent as that term is defined in applicable state or federal statutes. In the event you become insolvent before delivery of any products purchased hereunder, you will notify us in writing. A failure to notify us of insolvency at the time of delivery shall be construed as a reaffirmation of your solvency at that time. Irrespective of whether the products purchased hereunder are delivered directly to you, or to a customer of yours, and irrespective of the size of shipment, we shall have the right to withhold or reclaim goods under the applicable state and federal statutes. Where youCare responsible for any delay in shipment the date of completion of goods may be treated by us as the date of shipment for purposes of payment. Completed goods shall be held at your cost and risk and we shall have the right to bill you for reasonable storage and insurance expenses. Regardless of price quoted, all orders will be invoiced in the minimum amount of $50.00 net.
9. INSPECTION. Inspection of goods in our plant by you or your representative will be permitted insofar as this does not unduly interfere with our workflow, provided that complete details of the inspection you desire are submitted to us in writing in advance.
10. RECORDS, AUDITS AND PROPRIETARY DATA. Unless otherwise specifically agreed in writing signed by an authorized officer, neither you nor any representative of yours, nor any other person, shall have any right to examine or audit our cost accounts, books or records of any kind or on any matter, or be entitled to, or have control over, any engineering or production prints, drawings or technical data which we, in our sale discretion, may consider in whole or part proprietary to ourselves.
The undersigned accepts this quotation and agrees to the warranty terms and conditions printed on this sheet, and acknowledges that he and, or she is bound thereby and it is fully understood and agreed that ownership, title and right of unrestricted repossession of property, shall remain with the Nickerson Company, Inc., until paid for in full. The signers hereof agree that if any default of this contract occurs, they will return all above merchandise in good order upon demand, and all payments previously made are to be forfeited for rental and use thereof, plus an additional sum for any legal or attorney fees incurred in the enforcement of above provisions.
SIGNED TITLE DATE Please sign and return to Nickerson Co. with order.
CLEARFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 6:00 P.M. WORK SESSION August 4, 2020
City Building 55 South State Street Clearfield City, Utah
The meeting was held electronically via Zoom Meeting address:
Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89823547318 Meeting ID: 898 2354 7318
PRESIDING VIA ZOOM MEETING: Mark Shepherd Mayor
PRESENT VIA ZOOM MEETING: Kent Bush Councilmember Nike Peterson Councilmember Vern Phipps Councilmember Tim Roper Councilmember Karece Thompson Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT VIA ZOOM MEETING: JJ Allen City Manager Summer Palmer Assistant City Manager Stuart Williams City Attorney Kelly Bennett Police Chief Adam Favero Public Works Director Eric Howes Community Services Director Spencer Brimley Community Development Director Brad McIlrath Senior Planner Rich Knapp Finance Manager Lee Naylor Accountant Trevor Cahoon Communications Coordinator Wendy Page Deputy Recorder
EXCUSED: Nancy Dean City Recorder
VISITORS: Brian, Heather Laird – Resource Consultants, Ryan Hales, Elizabeth McNannay – Resource Consultants, Ken Shields, Doug Thimm, Darin Fristrup, Tyler Smithson, Timothy Merrill, Nathan Ricks, David Abraham, Trevor Evans
Mayor Shepherd called the meeting to order at 6:03 p.m.
1
DISCUSSION ON THE DRAFT 2020 ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE REPORT
Brad McIlrath, Senior Planner, welcomed Heather Laird and Elizabeth McNannay the consultants from Resource Consultants that worked with staff on preparing the Analysis of Impediments for 2020. He explained the Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice report had been a requirement of the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program each time it completed at five-year action plan. He indicated the study should drive the City’s CDBG funding to help remove barriers to the development of housing choices for low and moderate income households. He reviewed the following impediments to fair housing in Clearfield that the consultants had identified in the 2020 AI report: 1) Limited English proficiency 2) Large populations of minorities, disabled, low-income and other protected classes found in Clearfield 3) Lack of accessible and visitable housing 4) Job transit connections 5) Lack of familiarity with the Fair Housing Act
Heather Laird, Resource Consultants, pointed out she had helped many communities prepare the AI report and each had to identify impediments. She noted every community had things to work on, but Clearfield should feel good about where it was as a community. She acknowledged the biggest challenge for low to moderate income households was simply the cost of housing burden and that problem was bigger than one to be solved on the City Council level. Ms. Laird mentioned the five impediments were things that the City could integrate into projects and things already happening in the community. She stated all of the action items were relatively inexpensive and easy to do to make a substantial difference for the low and moderate income households in the community. She recognized the document had to show areas of challenge; but expressed her opinion in relationship to Davis County, the State of Utah, and the country, Clearfield was doing really well.
Elizabeth McNannay, Resource Consultants, added the items in the plan were items already called out in other planning documents the City was using. She agreed Clearfield should get a big high five for doing so well. She stated the impediments identified were common and some communities had challenges, but Clearfield was already working towards the action items and doing a good job.
Ms. Laird reported last week the federal government announced it would no longer require the AI report as a qualifier for funding from entitlement communities. She added it could be utilized as much or as little going forward; but 45 days from now, it would no longer be a requirement. Mr. McIlrath clarified the current presidential administration was not requiring the document; however, that could change in the future based on the desire of another administration.
Councilmember Peterson stated some of the recommendations were not being addressed in the budget and she wondered if there were some things that might need to be discussed further during the budget discussion such as contracted translation services. She pointed out several of
2
her questions currently seemed irrelevant because an assessment of how the City was addressing impediments would not be required.
Councilmember Thompson questioned how well the City’s new website would correlate with Google Translate. JJ Allen, City Manager, responded the City currently translated several of its documents into Spanish especially those related to the CDBG program, but he was not sure how it would work for the City’s new website which was still being designed. Trevor Cahoon, Communications Coordinator, mentioned staff had done some integration for translation, but it might not be perfect so it should be further tested. He recognized twenty (20) percent of the City’s population could be helped by Spanish translation. He mentioned the website would also be compliant with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) standards to ensure it was usable for every person and population. Mr. Cahoon acknowledged the text would be limited so that should help with the amount of translation necessary. He pointed out it would also be necessary to work on translating other documents of the City so those were available.
Councilmember Peterson wondered if it would be more cost effective to pursue contracted translation services or make technical changes in the website to allow Google Translate to assist the Spanish population of the City. Mr. Cahoon answered making the City’s website more adaptive with Google Translate would be ideal. Councilmember Peterson requested to have staff provide information in the future on what the costs or options would be to serve the Spanish population of the City and have it integrated with the website while it was still in the design phase and before it went live. Mr. Allen added the City did have some personnel who could assist with translations when needed at the Customer Service Center, Police, or Court; however, there were translation services available when necessary.
Councilmember Thompson wondered what the law was on advertising to make sure some of the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit LIHTC projects in the City were targeting the most underrepresented populations. Mayor Shepherd responded the City would not be responsible for marketing the LIHTC projects; it would be an obligation of the developer. Ms. Laird agreed the developers understood the requirements and ultimately were responsible for meeting those guidelines. There was a discussion about affordable housing in Clearfield and areas of responsibility ranging from developers, the County, and the City to work collaboratively in moving forward with regional affordable housing goals.
Mr. Allen stated the document was called Analysis to Impediments Fair Housing Choice but much of the discussion had been about affordable housing. He asked if fair housing choice and affordable housing were fundamentally the same or completely separate issues. There was a discussion about how fair housing and affordable housing often blended together. Mr. Allen pointed out the fundamental purpose of the document was to address impediments to fair housing for protected classes; however, it was often confused with affordability. Ms. Laird commented there was a struggle in many communities where those with low income levels might have difficulty in finding housing but that was not a problem in Clearfield. She added different communities had different minority pressures.
Councilmember Thompson wondered if the document addressed renter’s rights. He expressed his concern that if renter’s rights were violated it could create a challenge for residents in the City.
3
Ms. Laird commented section three spoke broadly to fair housing rights, but not specifically about renter’s rights.
Councilmember Thompson wondered if there was something more that could be done on the City’s website or through collaborating to help residents be aware of their rights. Ms. Laird questioned if he was concerned specifically about eviction rights. Councilmember Thompson said yes, the residents could have challenges with displacement if eviction rights were violated. He mentioned United Way 211 did a great job of helping people connect to a wide range of resources and services. Ms. Laird indicated the Disability Law Center (DLC) was the place someone could file a grievance with HUD if there had been a violation of the Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity Act. She pointed out many cities contracted with consultants to do an audit of the community and determine if there were challenges for renters or other areas where improvements could be made such as marketing or messaging.
Ms. McNannay stated Clearfield’s eviction rates were at one percent which was great in comparison to national eviction rates of ten (10) to fifteen (15) percent. She mentioned that statistic was encouraging and indicated that Clearfield was doing something that was working. She pointed out it would be important during the current economic difficulties that the City continue to use its resources or provide extra support to renters ensuring eviction rates remained low. She acknowledged if an individual or family was evicted their chance of homelessness increased substantially. Ms. McNannay added a great benefit which could also be effective in keeping eviction rates low would be to partner regionally and hold landlord trainings.
Mayor Shepherd thanked the consultants for their work in preparing the AI.
DISCUSSION ON THE CLEARFIELD STATION DRAFT MASTER DEVELOPMENT PLAN (MDP)
Summer Palmer, Assistant City Manager, indicated the staff report listed two outstanding issues remaining with the Clearfield Station draft Master Development Plan (MDP). She asked if there were any additional things to discuss other than the two listed in the staff report.
Councilmember Bush wondered if the phasing of the 1450 South connection was determined to be the last thing. JJ Allen, City Manager, answered it would all be done first thing presuming the rights-of-way were in place. Councilmember Bush asked if the same would be true of Depot Street. Mayor Shepherd responded yes. He indicated the idea of preparing a super pad for the site was to ensure all intersections and utilities were in place and the ground was shovel ready for further development.
Councilmember Bush questioned if the pedestrian and bike trail connections planned with Utah Transit Authority for the FrontRunner Station were also happening in conjunction with the MDP. Spencer Brimley, Community Development Director, explained the trail improvement project was being coordinated with the Clearfield Station project to make sure it was consistent; however, it was a completely separate project and had not yet been designed. Brad McIlrath, Senior Planner, reported staff would soon be meeting with UTA staff to visit the site and begin plans for its design.
4
Ms. Palmer stated the alternative intersection plan was recently emailed to the Council. She pointed out on July 16, 2020, the document was discussed in a meeting with the Clearfield Station development team, Mayor Shepherd, and Councilmembers Bush and Peterson. She mentioned the alternate arrangement had been reviewed and constraints were listed that would need to be overcome to accomplish the alternative plan. Ms. Palmer indicated the developers and some representatives from UTA would be available on the Zoom meeting to help answer any questions if needed. She asked if the Council wanted to choose the alternate intersection plan and overcome the constraints to avoid the originally presented arrangement.
Mayor Shepherd pointed out the following things would be challenging and expensive: Billboard would require relocation. Acquisition of property at the intersection which would result in landlocked/unusable property. Acquisition of right-of-way along 1150 South, east of State Street to and perhaps beyond 1000 East. He voiced having difficulty in choosing to use imminent domain to acquire property for the project as opposed to the original right-in, right-out configuration. He pointed out there would be challenges for traffic no matter what configuration was used. Mayor Shepherd expressed his concern for Manuel’s El Burrito restaurant that could be impacted from adjustments to traffic patterns, but expressed optimism the future development of Clearfield Station should benefit the business. He acknowledged the property acquisition alone would cost the City $1 million to $1.5 million.
Mr. Allen shared the original layout with the Council and pointed out the east side of 1150 South would be right-in, right-out. Councilmember Bush asked if the intersection would be signalized. Mr. Allen answered it would. He pointed out crosswalks were still an ongoing discussion with Utah’s Department of Transportation (UDOT) and there was a possibility UDOT might not allow a crosswalk on the north side but staff was working through those options. Mayor Shepherd confirmed if the north side were not an option the south side would still be allowed to have a crosswalk. There was a discussion about how traffic patterns around 650 North businesses were similar to what was being proposed.
Mr. Allen stated the group discussion was planned for staff to obtain clear direction on which intersection plan to use.
Councilmember Roper expressed his opinion the first plan worked best and even though it was not ideal, it was better than the alternative option.
Councilmember Bush commented one of his reasons for not wanting the alternative option was the developer had mentioned there might be adjustments to the townhomes that would be necessary. He expressed his opinion a reduction in the townhomes and adding more apartments for the density displacement was not appealing. Ms. Palmer agreed the displaced density created by the alternative plan would not allow for a step down approach on the south end of the project.
Councilmember Phipps recognized there was no good alternative, but he appreciated the efforts of preparing another option for review.
5
Councilmember Thompson indicated his concern with the plans was over the impacts for children needing access to the schools along 1000 East. There was a discussion about new traffic patterns and how students would get to school safely. Mr. Allen pointed out it was important to understand as the site developed all the answers to questions might not be known; however, there would be time to study things, make adjustments, or call in experts when necessary. He noted questions surrounding safe school routes should not delay consideration of the MDP. Councilmember Thompson agreed but wanted to voice his concern. Ms. Palmer pointed out there could be alternatives or natural paths for routes to school through the development or along trails which would not be identified until the development began.
The consensus of the Council was to move forward with the original plans for the intersection at 1150 South and State Street.
Ms. Palmer commented the other issue to vet as a group was related to the phasing of residential versus commercial uses for the overall project. She mentioned staff had been working to fix the language in the agreement on page 70 to better articulate the balance desired by the Council between residential and other uses in the project and hold the developers accountable to it. She pointed out the development would be a long-term market driven project. Ms. Palmer indicated the sediment behind the language updates was meant to provide the developer flexibility recognizing the marketability component and also include the desire of the Council to have the development be balanced between residential and other uses.
Ms. Palmer acknowledged some language was proposed in the staff report and wondered if it hit the mark or needed additional adjustments.
Councilmember Phipps liked the sediment expressed but as he read the language he had not entirely understood what it said so he appreciated the explanation behind it.
Councilmember Peterson commented the phasing was her big sticking point so she appreciated the work that went into the language changes. She felt the overall sediment was going in the right direction. She proposed striking the sentence beginning with the word “alternatively.” She voiced her concern with having ambiguous language in the agreement and holding a developer to return annually to the Council and provide a report on the progress of the development. She expressed her worry about the Planning Commission if the MDP were vague, it would be challenging to interpret it and make it work. Councilmember Peterson suggested as each project within the development was brought to the City it should be reviewed and identified as either residential or some other use, but it should not be allowed until the proper balance for the development was in place, as opposed to hoping the commercial uses would be provided in the future. She continued the flexibility for the developer was in the land use process, which was purposely difficult but allowed for a vetting process if amendments to the development plan were needed. She hoped the development team would recognize the flexibility in the land use process balanced the risk and burden of the City for its completing the project’s infrastructure, which was something no other developer had asked of the City. There was a discussion about the balanced and strategic approach to the development, keeping the development in line with the square footages included in the Master Develop Agreement (MDA), using the MDP to lay out the process as it should be followed, phasing of the project for parity between residential and
6
commercial or other uses, and the length of the project made the balancing aspect of the MDP important.
Mr. Allen pointed out the focus of the discussion should be narrowed to best understand how to handle mixed uses. He stated the difficulty with the paragraph in the MDP on page 70 was with crafting language that explained how to find balance for the development when it pertained to mixed uses. He mentioned staff had been struggling with creating language. He shared the following draft of the language with the Council: The complexes labeled as MU Residential A, B, C, and D have the potential to be balanced within themselves, but only if the commercial aspect of the building is constructed, marketed, and used as such from the beginning, and is a use that is other than dedicated residential support. If initially no viable commercial retail is identified from a marketability standpoint, then a flexible residential alternative may be substituted provided that it is designed for conversion to commercial use in the future. These may include live/work units or storefront residential units. To ensure that the phasing is balanced throughout the development of Clearfield Station, a MU Residential A, B, C, or D building that utilizes the designated commercial space as residential shall be considered a solely residential complex that must be balanced by a separate office/commercial building.
Any variation from this balanced approach (seeking additional residential development before the requisite commercial is in place) will require the explicit approval of the Clearfield City Council.
Mayor Shepherd said he liked the last sentence and felt it would work. Councilmember Peterson agreed the last sentence worked. Councilmember Bush voiced his concern the development phasing should also be tied to the square footages. Councilmember Peterson expressed her worry if phasing was tied to a square footage it could put future staff and Council in a difficult position at the end of the project. She felt there should be a way for staff to govern the land use when an application came in. Mayor Shepherd agreed and reported it was difficult to spot fill commercial as seen with the Clearfield Junction project. He noted the development partners would not want to build something without knowing it was ready for the intended uses. Mayor Shepherd expressed his opinion the last sentence in the drafted language that said any variation from the balanced approach would require the explicit approval of the City Council would help ensure the desired development phasing. Councilmember Peterson wondered if rather than the wording “will require the explicit approval of the Clearfield City Council” the language should be more specific and point to the process of an amendment so it was clear what step would be necessary.
Mr. Allen reminded the Council the intent for the development was to begin with its first building as the gym and then next would be the development of a portion of residential use and then alternating between commercial and residential development. Councilmember Peterson appreciated the potential for the development and simply wanted to make sure the intentions were represented well in the MDP.
Councilmember Phipps voiced his concern about the language in the first sentence and wondered why if there was a deviation from what was planned as stated “from the beginning,” the City was
7
not requiring an amendment to the MDP for that change but instead the language appeared to be giving pre-approval for changes to occur. There was a discussion about the drafted language and its flexibility with alternative options for the developer because of the long term nature of the project and how the administrative process would work if things changed during construction so the development could remain true to its balanced phasing.
Councilmember Phipps voiced his concern based on the discussion there were differing interpretations of what the phrase “from the beginning” meant in the drafted language of the MDP. He pointed out if that phrase were removed it would allow for changes at any time throughout the development process, which seemed from the discussion to be an acceptable solution; as long as it was done properly through the amendment process. The consensus of the Council was to remove the phrase “from the beginning” from the first sentence of the drafted language.
Mr. Allen thanked the Council for its help in making the adjustments to the drafted language. He noted it would need to be reviewed and agreed upon by the developer. He expressed his opinion the language now expressed the intent discussed with the development team during the meeting on July 16, 2020.
Councilmember Bush wondered if there needed to be any changes to the language which required the explicit approval of the City Council. Ms. Palmer noted Stuart Williams, City Attorney, had already considered updating the language to similar wording included in other areas of the MDP as well as the drafted MDA. Mr. Allen indicated both documents could be worked so the language was properly replicated for both.
The Council took a break at 7:56 p.m.
The meeting resumed at 8:06 p.m.
DISCUSSION ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2021 BUDGET
Rich Knapp, Finance Manager, stated the budget was scheduled for consideration on August 11, 2020, and would need to be adopted by September 1, 2020. He indicated it approval could be tabled at next week’s meeting if necessary to a future date. Councilmember Bush wondered if there had been any online comment forms received. Mr. Knapp responded he had not heard of any that had come in. There was a discussion about the social media messaging done regarding the budget.
Mr. Knapp reviewed the changes in the FY21 budget since the tentative budget was adopted. He asked if there were any questions.
Councilmember Bush wondered if the budget required projects to be specified that would be using the Parks, Arts, Recreation, Aquatics, and Trails (PARAT) tax revenue. Mr. Knapp responded it was not required to itemize individual projects in the budget. He added the contingency for Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act funds did not need to be itemized either. He continued CARES Act funds were divided into thirds but when
8
the second tranche came in there would need to be another discussion about how those funds would be allocated.
Councilmember Peterson recalled the discussion about moving the Arts Supervisor position from part time to full time; however, she had not remembered agreeing to fund it through PARAT tax revenue. Mayor Shepherd believed the Council had agreed to fund it through PARAT tax revenue. Councilmember Phipps recalled the discussion was for the position to be funded by PARAT tax revenue as well, because he was against it. Councilmember Bush commented he was against it as well. Councilmember Peterson stated she was not against the position changing from part time to full time but rather against using PARAT tax revenue as the funding source. Councilmember Bush agreed expressing his feeling that PARAT tax revenue should not be used to fund employee wages.
JJ Allen, City Manager, indicated the minutes from that discussion could be reviewed if needed; however, every member of staff came away with an understanding that the nexus from part time to full time would be funded by PARAT tax revenue. He pointed out it was implemented July 1, 2020 and apologized if there was a misunderstanding of the Council’s direction.
Councilmember Roper said that interpretation was correct and it was what had been decided. Mayor Shepherd agreed but indicated it was not planned for continued funding from PARAT tax revenue. Mr. Allen explained the nature of the discussion was for the funding to come from PARAT tax revenue for FY21 but it was not a commitment to any year beyond. Summer Palmer, Assistant City Manager, reported the offer letter for the position was written as such; meaning the position would remain only if grant funding became available.
Councilmember Peterson stated the Art Supervisor position should be something to revisit during the next year’s budget discussions.
Councilmember Peterson noticed major changes in the out of state travel expenses for police, which appeared to have quadrupled since the last version of the budget she reviewed. Kelly Bennett, Police Chief, stated the increase was because of the training needed for the new Community Resource Officer position which was partially funded by the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) grant program and other trainings offered by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) to aid with sexual assault cases. He mentioned all these trainings would be reimbursed from grant funds but the expenditures had to be reflected in the budget. He reported already several of the trainings had been cancelled because of the COVID-19 pandemic. Councilmember Peterson expressed appreciation for the clarification.
Mr. Knapp asked if there were any other concerns about the changes noted since the tentative budget was approved. Councilmember Bush wondered if the capital project for restrooms at Central Park should have been on the list. Mr. Knapp answered it was included in the FY21 tentative budget and the list only reflected the changes since the tentative budget.
Councilmember Phipps questioned which account in the budget would show the reduction in property revenue since it came in lower than predicted. Mr. Knapp answered the General Fund balance was reflective of the change. He pointed out the net ongoing surplus was originally a
9
positive number, but since the property tax revenue came in lower the operating revenues were had been reduced. He mentioned if everything went according to budget the net ongoing surplus for the City would be in the negative $9,637.
Mayor Shepherd reported requesting and reviewing some of the actual revenues and expenditures to date. He mentioned based on the information he received from Mr. Knapp, the City was doing better than predicted at the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic because of the increase in sales tax revenue. He shared some of the actuals in comparison to numbers budgeted with the Council and described how the net surplus to date was much better than expected. Mayor Shepherd pointed out the CARES Act funding reimbursement for the payroll of the police department also benefited the budget and if the second tranche arrived as expected it would be even more helpful.
Councilmember Bush wondered if the FY21 budget reflected revenues based on maintaining the City’s current tax rate. Mr. Knapp answered yes.
There was a discussion about whether or not Congress would make any changes that would impact the City’s CARES Act funds for tranche two. Mayor Shepherd indicated it was still uncertain whether the City would receive tranche two as expected; however, if it did the budget would be in an even better position. He commented if other revenues continued to remain positive the City could fund the employee wage increases that were included in the FY21 budget.
Councilmember Bush recalled even though wage increases were budgeted it was not to be implemented until January. Mr. Allen clarified no employee wage increases would be implemented until the Council provided direction on the matter. He mentioned staff was planning to hold quarterly reviews of the budget, but the Council had providence to direct staff at any time to move forward with the increases. Mr. Knapp noted the budget included employee wage increases for the full year; therefore, the expenditures for payroll would continue to be less than budgeted because the increases were reflected in the payroll expense beginning July 1, 2020. Councilmember Peterson stated she was encouraged by the numbers, but felt it would be presumptive to pull the trigger on the wage increases at this time. The consensus of the Council was to review the budget quarterly to determine the timing for implementing wages increases.
Mr. Knapp stated the list with items to be cut now and possibly restored later was included with the agenda packet for the Council to review and determine if there were any items that should be added to the FY21 budget before it was formally adopted. Councilmember Peterson wondered if ranking had been done on any of the items that were cut. Mr. Allen responded there had not been a discussion with the Council or internally about ranking the items on the list. Councilmember Bush recommended the Council finish the truth in taxation hearing before determining any of the ranking and then it could allow staff to make recommendations based on priorities.
There was a discussion about how painting of the City building had been cut from the budget, but there was the potential of using CARES Act funding to accomplish that project by having the building painted with antimicrobial paint. Eric Howes, Community Services Director, commented staff was looking into the options, but had not yet received any quotes on the cost.
10
Ms. Palmer reported there was one comment submitted online in regards to the budget, so the process was working. She explained the comment would be shared during the public hearing on Tuesday, August 11, 2020 along with any others received.
Councilmember Thompson moved to adjourn at 8:30 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Bush. The motion carried upon the following vote: Voting AYE – Councilmember Bush, Peterson, Phipps, Roper, and Thompson. Voting NO – None.
11
CLEARFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 7:00 P.M. POLICY SESSION August 11, 2020
City Building 55 South State Street Clearfield City, Utah
The meeting was held electronically via Zoom Meeting address:
Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89868847022 Meeting ID: 898 6884 7022
PRESIDING VIA ZOOM MEETING: Mark Shepherd Mayor
PRESENT VIA ZOOM MEETING: Kent Bush Councilmember Nike Peterson Councilmember Vern Phipps Councilmember Tim Roper Councilmember Karece Thompson Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT VIA ZOOM MEETING: JJ Allen City Manager Summer Palmer Assistant City Manager Stuart Williams City Attorney Kelly Bennett Police Chief Scott Manookin Police Lieutenant Aaron Velasquez Police Officer Adam Favero Public Works Director Braden Felix City Engineer / Deputy PW Director Eric Howes Community Services Director Spencer Brimley Community Development Director Brad McIlrath Senior Planner Rich Knapp Finance Manager Lee Naylor Accountant Trevor Cahoon Communication Coordinator Nancy Dean City Recorder Wendy Page Deputy Recorder
VISITORS: Gaylan Colledge, Mike Arave, Loren Pearce, Nina Wolf, Cheryl, JoHanna Allred, Suz. L,
Mayor Shepherd called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
1
Mayor Shepherd informed those present via the Zoom Meeting if they wanted to comment during the Public Hearings or Open Comment Period they could do so through the Zoom Meeting chat option as outlined on the agenda. He explained all comments would be shared during the meeting after the public had been allowed sufficient time to participate.
Councilmember Roper led the opening ceremonies.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JULY 16, 2020, WORK SESSION; JULY 7, 2020, WORK SESSION; AND THE JULY 14, 2020, POLICY SESSION
Councilmember Bush moved to approve the minutes from the July 16, 2020 work session; July 7, 2020 work session; and July 14, 2020 policy session; as written, seconded by Councilmember Roper. The motion carried upon the following vote: Voting AYE – Councilmembers Bush, Peterson, Phipps, Roper and Thompson. Voting NO – None.
SWEARING-IN OF NEW CLEARFIELD POLICE OFFICER AARON VELASQUEZ
Police Chief Kelly Bennett said Aaron Velasquez was home-grown starting his employment with the City originally in the Public Works department. He noted Officer Velasquez had graduated from the police academy on July 30, 2020. He pointed out the academy took longer than usual because of the COVID-19 pandemic. He stated Officer Velasquez experienced online learning as well as in person learning which was occasionally postponed because of potential exposures. He acknowledged the City was fortunate to have him as a new officer.
Nancy Dean, City Recorder, administered the Oath of Office to the new Clearfield Police Officer Aaron Velasquez.
Mayor Shepherd opened both public hearings and the open comment period at 7:08 p.m.
TRUTH IN TAXATION HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE CERTIFIED TAX RATE AND THE FISCAL YEAR 2021 BUDGET
Rich Knapp, Finance Manager, stated Utah Code required cities to hold a public hearing regarding adoption of the upcoming fiscal year budget. He mentioned staff prepared and submitted to the Council a fiscally responsible and sustainable tentative budget for fiscal year 2021 (FY21) which began July 1, 2020 and ended June 30, 2021. He described the budget process and pointed out the tentative budget was adopted on May 12, 2020. Mr. Knapp mentioned the changes to the budget since the tentative budget was adopted were discussed during work session on August 4, 2020.
He indicated the FY21 budgeting process began in January and when the COVID-19 pamdemic hit the numbers were reworked. Mr. Knapp pointed out all the items in the budget showed a commitment to make Clearfield a place where people wanted to be. He mentioned despite the pandemic the City was financially healthy. He stated the budget included revenues and transfers in the governmental funds of $20,410,091; operating expenditures and transfers out of $17,827,305; capital expenditures of $4,614,802, which left a decrease in available cash of
2
$2,032,016. Mr. Knapp reported the decrease in available cash planned to spend down the General Fund reserves to accomplish one-time capital projects. He highlighted the budget summary of the Enterprise Funds which included Water, Sewer, Storm Water and Garbage revenues, expenses, and changes in available cash.
He reviewed the main sources of the City’s revenues and expenditures. He highlighted the following major changes in the FY21 budget: Decreased sales tax revenue projection by 15 percent – $420,000 o COVID shutdown Increased general property tax projection – $455,000 o Decreased property tax for bond - $345,000 Increase to health insurance premiums of 7 percent Personnel market/merit increases were included but would not take effect July 1 and future date was still to be determined Moved utility billing function from Customer Service to Finance o Results in one new position Since FY20, one part-time position was reduced in the Court Parks, Arts, Recreation, Aquatics, and Trails (PARAT) funded one year for incremental cost from part-time to full-time Arts Supervisor
Mr. Knapp pointed out the following major projects were being funded in the FY21 budget: Street surface treatment – $500,000 Street reconstruction projects set aside – $435,000 Arts Center renovation set aside – $150,000 PARAT tax funded 2nd floor Arts Center renovation – $250,000 PARAT tax funded dog park at Barlow Park – $50,000 Restroom in Central Park – $90,000 Replace Kiwanis Park playground – $65,000 Kiwanis and Fisher Park basketball courts resurface Streetlights added along 1800 South by Island View Park
Mr. Knapp stated the FY21 budget was secure and sustainable. He stated staff recommended the Council approve the FY21 budget and asked if there were any questions.
Councilmember Bush stated the Kiwanis Club would be contributing money to the Kiwanis Park project and asked if the amount would be necessary to include in the budget. Mr. Knapp responded it would be nice to show the donation but it was not necessary because the City was allowed to exceed the budgeted amount of revenues.
Mr. Knapp reviewed last year’s certified tax rates and pointed out the average home value increased 4.2 percent. He explained the City received the calculated tax rate from the County which was 0.001185. He noted the City was proposing to maintain the same tax rate as the prior year of 0.001437. Mr. Knapp mentioned the new rate would result in the average single-family home valued at $246,000 to pay 4.2 percent more in property tax or $7.90 for the year. He reviewed the City’s tax rates since 2016 to compare how the General Operations and General
3
Obligation (GO) Bond portions contributed to the total rate. He acknowledged the proposed rate for FY21 was to maintain last year’s tax rate and utilize the GO Bond portion that would be cut in half and put the amount towards general operations. Mr. Knapp acknowledged the notice required by the State presented what appeared to be a large tax increase; however, the actual tax rate would be the same as FY20. He compared the operations revenue, debt revenue and total dollar revenues for FY21 with the calculated rate for FY21 and the prior year FY20. He acknowledged the total increase to the City revenue over the prior year would be $91,951 if the tax rate was maintained.
Mayor Shepherd summarized how the City received its property tax rate from the County. He said with a growing city new growth could help increase revenues, but Clearfield was almost entirely built out and could not get much additional tax revenue for new growth. He stated the City was redeveloping but there were not many new single family homes to account for new growth. He indicated the City would need to maintain the rate to keep up with inflation. Mayor Shepherd pointed out the Council had not maintained the rate for the past three years, but in his opinion it was good solid policy to maintain the rate so the rates would not have to be raised. He pointed out the wage increase for employees was factored into the budget but the Council planned to make sure the economy stabilized before it was implemented. He acknowledged the budget was tight but it was conservative.
Councilmember Bush noted the City could not continue to cut the tax rate year after year and have enough money to do the things that were needed. He indicated if the tax rate had been maintained since 2016, the City would have had more money to do the projects that ended up being cut from the budget.
Mayor Shepherd pointed out the GO Bond would be paid off and that money would be reallocated towards other needs of the City. JJ Allen, City Manager, mentioned the City was only one of several entities receiving revenues from property taxes and its portion was about ten to twelve percent of the total property tax bill. He commented the larger portion of the property tax went to the school district; the County and fire district were some of the other entities that also received a portion of the property tax revenues.
Once the public hearing was closed Mayor Shepherd asked for the public comments to be shared. Nancy Dean, City Recorder, shared the two public comments which were submitted online prior to the meeting.
IN FAVOR
None.
OPPOSED
Hollyann Bell, resident, completed the online comment form and she wrote “apartments are going up everywhere. We don’t raise the taxes please. We should be receiving enough money from the taxes of the owners of these new great big apartments that the city allowed building. Our city is turning into Ogden number two – apartments going up everywhere.”
4
Loren Edward Pearce, resident, completed two online comments forms and in the first he wrote “against proposed tax rate and tax amount increase on property taxes. Two years in a row taxes are increased due to alleged increase in property values and for other reasons. I am on a fixed income but don’t qualify for the low income exceptions. Reduce services, but don’t increase taxes.” The second form said “against tax rate and tax amount increase. I am on a fixed income but don’t qualify for low income exemption. We should not have to sell our homes to recoup what we lose in tax increases. Mortgage companies increase escrow deductions 3 times more than actual tax increase.”
Trevor Cahoon, Communication Coordinator, read the following comments from the Zoom meeting chat:
Gaylyn Colledge, resident, commented “a 20 percent tax increase, really, why?” He later wrote in the chat “I think you answered my question in the slide presentation.”
Loren Edward Pearce, resident, wrote “Not $7.90 for me on a 160,000 taxable value, my taxes went up $100. Two years in a row, tax increase out of my pocket, not break even but an increase and with COVID 19 I have been hit economically, I had a part time job where now I am not working. I can't force my employer to keep paying me, but you can force me to pay increased taxes for two year in a row, you need to take into consideration the COVID impact, if it means reduced services, then so be it. No $7.90 for me”
Suz. L, resident, commented “most households I know saw a decrease in their income in the last few months. According to all of the economists I have listened to, we are currently in a depression with harder times on the way. It would be wise to cut expenses and decrease spending, not increase.
JoHanna Allred, resident, typed “I feel like you need to listen to the voice of the people. People aren’t getting paid more in their jobs, their families are going to suffer because the city wants to spend more money. Food, housing, insurance, the means to live are all getting more expensive but jobs aren’t paying more. You as a city council have the power to do the right thing and not increase taxes.”
Mr. Knapp indicated someone had commented their taxable value was higher. He reported the example used in the presentation to the Council was based on the City’s average home value which would make the tax increase $7.90 for the average property owner in the City.
PUBLIC HEARING TO RECEIVE PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE PROPOSED TRANSFERS OF RESOURCES FROM THE ENTERPRISE FUNDS TO THE GENERAL FUND FOR WATER USED BY THE CITY’S GENERAL OPERATION AND THE COST OF PROVIDING SERVICES NECESSARY FOR THE FUNDS TO OPERATE IN THE FISCAL YEAR 2021 BUDGET
Rich Knapp, Finance Manager, indicated the City’s Fiscal Year 2021 (FY21) budget included transfers from the Enterprise Funds to the General Fund. He noted the City’s utility bill had
5
included notice of the proposed transfers. He explained one of the transfers recognized the water used by the City’s general operations for which the City’s water fund was not compensated. He noted other transfers compensated the General Fund for the cost of providing services necessary for the funds to operate. Mr. Knapp reviewed the transfers proposed: $202,268 from the Utility Admin Fund, $341,468 from the Water Fund, $340,135 from the Sewer Fund, $220,246 from the Storm Water Fund, and $49,492 from the Solid Waste Fund.
Once the public hearing was closed Mayor Shepherd asked for the public comments to be shared.
There were no public comments.
Following the staff presentations on each of the public hearing items, Mayor Shepherd reported the public comment period had expired.
Councilmember Peterson moved to close both the public hearings at 7:36 p.m. seconded by Councilmember Thompson. The motion carried upon the following vote: Voting AYE – Councilmembers Bush, Peterson, Phipps, Roper and Thompson. Voting NO – None.
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
Mayor Shepherd acknowledged time had been provided for the open comment period and asked if any comments had been submitted. Trevor Cahoon, Communication Coordinator, replied there had been no comments received.
There were no public comments.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2020R-11 SETTING THE TAX RATE FOR ALL REAL AND PERSONAL PROPERTY IN CLEARFIELD AT 0.001437
Mayor Shepherd pointed out comments were made about cutting services. He explained many things were cut from the FY21 budget. He noted setting the tax rate at 0.001437 would be maintaining the rate, and it was not to increase the tax rate. He mentioned the City was not spending frivolously; rather, it was being very conservative. Mayor Shepherd indicated the City was hit by COVID and lost revenues when it shut down the Clearfield Aquatic and Fitness Center (CAFC) and many other areas were hit but maintaining the rate would keep the City moving forward.
Councilmember Thompson stated he was on board to maintain the tax rate last year because the economy was at a high. He suggested the City have a policy in place to go through the truth in taxation process every year or at least every other year. He thanked residents for their comments because it validated his concern that people were hurting right now. Councilmember Thompson agreed with Mayor Shepherd, the City was not going to live high on the hog because it was paying off its bond, the budget was conservative. He commented the CAFC was something the City did to provide an amenity for the City and with that choice incurred debt. He expressed gratitude for the comments which reminded him of his concerns. He pointed out no matter the
6
decisions made by the Council, he understood things were different this year. He mentioned inflation was the ultimate battle worth fighting when determining and setting the tax rates.
Councilmember Phipps commented he was a fiscal conservative and believed in limited government. He felt in general as a state, Utah was careful with those kinds of things. He stated many of the campaign materials he had received expounded on the candidate’s desires to be fiscally conservative and rejected some of the concepts that were talked about during the meeting. He reported being glad that federal, state, and local school districts did not see the need to increase the tax rates every year. Councilmember Phipps mentioned a friend of his was a State employee and his organization took cuts in wages this year and that was more common than not for fiscal frugality. He remarked there was much to be said about the tax rate and felt it was not the important number but the revenues were what was important.
Councilmember Phipps pointed out even though the CAFC lost a considerable amount of money during the pandemic, there was a considerable amount of increase in the City’s sales tax revenue. He reflected that tax rates were not maintained the past few years and yet each year the City was able to use its reserves and still end up with a surplus at the end of the year. He mentioned if it were not for COVID-19, the City would also have had a surplus this year without increasing the rate last year. He would be completely supportive of maintaining the rate if it had been demonstrated the City could not meet its essential services without it, but that was not the case.
Councilmember Phipps stated Mayor Shepherd and others had gone to great lengths to explain what it meant to maintain the tax rate. He acknowledged there were two facets for the City to maintain its tax rate. He noted one was paying off the bond and the City would keep the additional revenues rather than lowering the rate; consequently, it seemed like it was a tax increase. Councilmember Phipps indicated he was supportive of maintaining the rate for the GO Bond portion because he could foresee an impact to the City’s future for the repayment of bonds it would be acquiring. He explained the City might need revenues in the future for bond repayment on the Lotus development or Clearfield Station project, if things did not go according to plan. He commented he did not view that as a tax increase when the same amount of tax was paid as last year for repayment of bonds.
Councilmember Phipps expressed his opinion it was invalid for the City to compare its revenue streams against other entities. He mentioned other entities that were facing significant revenue challenges made impactful decisions, but in order to find out why those decisions were made it would be important to look at all the revenues and spending. He indicated the City’s property tax revenue was a small portion of its revenues and might not have as much impact as that of another entity.
Councilmember Phipps noted one of the compelling reasons for not maintaining the tax rates as proposed was because the City and its residents were in the most unpredictable position economically and socially during the current period of time. He acknowledged the State’s economists were cautioning the legislators to be careful with spending.
He expressed his concerns with including the funding for salary increases in the budget. He pointed out the compensation study had not yet been reviewed by the Council and he was unsure
7
what it constituted or of its relevance having been completed just before the pandemic outbreak. He expressed his opinion it was inappropriate to consider salary increases given the challenges currently being experienced and pointed out he had strong objections with doing it.
Councilmember Roper moved to approve Resolution 2020R-11 setting the tax rate for all real and personal property in Clearfield at 0.001437 and authorize the Mayor’s signature to any necessary documents seconded by Councilmember Peterson. The motion carried upon the following vote: Voting AYE – Councilmembers Bush, Peterson, and Roper. Voting NO – Councilmembers Phipps and Thompson.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2020R-12 ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2021 BUDGET
Councilmember Peterson moved to approve Resolution 2020R-12 adopting the fiscal year budget for 2021 and authorize the Mayor’s signature to any necessary documents seconded by Councilmember Bush. The motion carried upon the following vote: Voting AYE – Councilmembers Bush, Peterson, and Roper. Voting NO – Councilmembers Phipps and Thompson.
COMMUNICATION ITEMS
Mayor Shepherd – reported he would be out of town for the meeting on August 25, 2020.
Councilmember Bush 1. Reported the State’s Uniform Building Code Commission was in the process of adopting the new 2020 electrical code. He pointed out there would be a public meeting and the public comment period would then be open for 30 days. He noted following the comment period and consideration of the public’s comments, the Board would submit its recommendation to the legislature for adoption of the amendments to Utah’s electrical code. 2. Announced he would be attending a meeting on Tuesday, August 18, 2020, because the State’s Board had been invited to attend with the Business Labor Committee to hear about concerns regarding Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs). He stated he would report back to the Council on what was learned.
Councilmember Peterson – nothing to report.
Councilmember Phipps 1. Mentioned he served on the committee for the City that overlooked the disbursement of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) funding. He expressed his opinion the money was being well spent, acted upon, and committed for uses which were a great benefit to the community. 2. Participated in a meeting recently with the Hill Air Force Base Restoration Advisory Board. He acknowledged the Air Force was very conscientious of the environment and when issues were found it worked diligently on mitigation efforts. He mentioned during the meeting there was a lengthy presentation on the contaminants perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS) and perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA).
Councilmember Roper – nothing to report.
Councilmember Thompson – reported Clearfield would be the pilot city working with the State’s unclaimed property division in returning unclaimed property to residents. He noted the City would be collaborating with the State and hoped to be successful in assisting residents with claiming their property.
8
STAFF REPORTS
JJ Allen, City Manager 1. Sent the monthly report out earlier which included the first report of the CARES Act spending. 2. Invited the Council to attend a BBQ with employees on Thursday, August 13, 2020 at the Maintenance Operations Center (MOC). 3. Expressed appreciation to Rich Knapp, the budget committee, and Council for all the work that went into preparation of the FY21 budget. 4. Announced the department heads would be having a “deep breath day” on Monday, August 17, 2020 and be outdoors for the day participating in various activities. He indicated all departments would be encouraged to try to do something similar to help boost morale.
Nancy Dean, City Recorder – reviewed the Council’s schedule: Work session on August 18, 2020. Tour of Wasatch Integrated - Davis Materials Recovery Facility on August 20, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. Work and policy session on August 25, 2020. Work session on September 1, 2020. Joint work session with the Planning Commission and policy session on September 8, 2020.
There being no further business to come before the Council, Councilmember Thompson moved to adjourn as the City Council and reconvene as the CDRA in policy session at 8:04 p.m., seconded by Councilmember . The motion carried upon the following vote: Voting AYE – Councilmembers Bush, Peterson, Phipps, Roper, and Thompson. Voting NO – None.
**The minutes for the CDRA are in a separate location**
9
CLEARFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 6:00 P.M. WORK SESSION August 11, 2020
City Building 55 South State Street Clearfield City, Utah
The meeting was held electronically via Zoom Meeting address:
Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89868847022 Meeting ID: 898 6884 7022
PRESIDING VIA ZOOM MEETING: Mark Shepherd Mayor
PRESENT VIA ZOOM MEETING: Kent Bush Councilmember Nike Peterson Councilmember Vern Phipps Councilmember Tim Roper Councilmember
EXCUSED: Karece Thompson Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT VIA ZOOM MEETING: JJ Allen City Manager Summer Palmer Assistant City Manager Stuart Williams City Attorney Kelly Bennett Police Chief Adam Favero Public Works Director Braden Felix City Engineer / Deputy PW Director Eric Howes Community Services Director Spencer Brimley Community Development Director Brad McIlrath Senior Planner Rich Knapp Finance Manager Lee Naylor Accountant Trevor Cahoon Communication Coordinator Nancy Dean City Recorder Wendy Page Deputy Recorder
Mayor Shepherd called the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m.
1
DISCUSSION ON AN AMENDMENT TO THE MUNICIPAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH MILITARY INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (MIDA)
Rich Knapp, Finance Manager, stated Military Installation Development Authority (MIDA) recently approached the City requesting the City no longer charge the monthly storm water utility fee as set forth in the agreement for services because all storm runoff from the impervious surface was handled by MIDA from within MIDA’s boundaries. He explained all fees charged by the City through the agreement tied to a direct cost, except for the storm sewer utility fee. He indicated staff determined there was no overhead or ongoing and regular costs incurred by the City related to MIDA’s storm water; therefore, recommended discontinuing the fee of $193 per month. Mr. Knapp asked if there were any questions about the proposed amendments.
The Council did not voice any questions or concerns.
DISCUSSION ON THE AWARD OF BID FOR THE WATERLINE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON STATE STREET FROM 700 SOUTH TO 1450 SOUTH
Braden Felix, City Engineer / Public Works Deputy Director, stated the waterline improvement project along the west side of State Street would be between 700 South and 1450 South. He pointed out the upgrades from the current 4-inch line to a 10-inch line would help ensure the City was able to supply water along State Street to support the new growth and development expected in the area. He acknowledged the older pipe had a history of leaking and it would be beneficial to make improvements soon to help reduce continued expense on repairs.
Mr. Felix explained the City received two bids for the project, the low bid was from Paragon Construction Systems at approximately $1.2 million, and the other bid was about $1.7 million. He noted staff did not feel waiting and rebidding the project would produce results that would provide any substantial savings because those costs were likely typical for work done along a main road such as State Street. He mentioned the City had budgeted a total of $973,000 for phases 1 and 2 of the project; consequently, a budget amendment would be necessary to provide sufficient funding to complete the project.
Mr. Felix stated staff recommended approving the bid award to Paragon Construction Systems for $1,273,641.48 with contingency of $258,010.30 for a total project cost of $1,531,651.78. He asked if there were any questions about the budget or the project.
Councilmember Phipps asked if there was a reason not many contractors bid the project. Mr. Felix explained it was likely because the project was on a State road which complicated the project because there would be additional requirements and permitting necessary.
Councilmember Bush stated Paragon Construction was currently doing a construction project for the City. He wondered if Paragon Construction had the necessary staff and resources to do both projects simultaneously. Mr. Felix responded representatives from Paragon Construction assured City staff it had enough personnel and resources to complete the projects plus the other project was fairly short and would not take as much time.
2
Councilmember Bush questioned the timing of the project. Mr. Felix indicated work was planned to commence in the fall of 2020 and be completed in the spring of 2021. He noted Utah’s Department of Transportation (UDOT) would only allow excavation of the roadway prior to October 15, 2020.
Councilmember Peterson wondered if some of the increased costs were related to winter weather conditions that might be affiliated with the project. Mr. Felix responded the contractor attributed the increase from the engineer’s estimate to the fact the work would be along State Street. There was a discussion about timing, costs, and whether or not future infrastructure at Clearfield Station would impact the project.
Mayor Shepherd asked how the City would fund the project. Rich Knapp, Finance Manager, explained the City had funds available in the corresponding enterprise funds but would need to delay other future projects.
Councilmember Phipps questioned if there would be any impacts to the water source by upgrading the area from a 4-inch line to a 10-inch line. Mr. Felix answered the City was working to replace all 4-inch lines in the City because they no longer met the State’s standard. Adam Favero, Public Works Director, indicated the same amount of water would be drawn from the source whether it was a 4-inch or 10-inch line. He noted the only time a greater draw would be used was in the case of a fire or the demand was placed on it from new development areas to help supply a bigger pipe down the line. Councilmember Phipps expressed his concern was to ensure there would be no negative impacts to other areas of the City due to upsizing the line. Mr. Felix mentioned the demand from the water source would not be increased by upsizing the lines.
Councilmember Bush wondered if there would need to be a decision about which projects to delay. JJ Allen, City Manager, responded the project was the priority and top of the list; therefore, the next projects of lower priority would be delayed until funds could be allocated. Mr. Knapp mentioned it would impact those projects that were three or four years out with a delay. Councilmember Peterson confirmed the delay would not impact any projects that might be needed to further development projects coming in the near future. Mr. Felix also mentioned there was the potential of cost savings on other projects that could be put towards the excess needed for the project.
Mr. Knapp stated his understanding was the amount of projects completed each year was more restricted by staffing levels than funds available. Mr. Allen pointed out that was true of any project because the staffing levels controlled the capacity of projects the City was able to manage in a given year.
DISCUSSION ON THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR THE UNION TOWNHOMES SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 305, 315, AND 325 EAST 700 SOUTH
Brad McIlrath, Senior Planner, thanked Councilmember Bush for his questions earlier in the day which had helped him update the presentation to provide more background. He mentioned the developer had initially proposed to call the subdivision Depot Townhomes, but to reduce the number of projects with Depot in the title the name was updated after some encouragement from
3
staff. He mentioned the Union Townhomes Subdivision was located at approximately 305, 315, and 325 East 700 South. Mr. McIlrath indicated originally it was planned for 61 townhomes but in order to comply with Form Based Code standards it had been reduced to 58 townhomes. He stated the site plan and preliminary subdivision plat were approved by the Planning Commission on June 17, 2020. He reviewed the subdivision plat and noted how it complied with Form Based Code standards. Mr. McIlrath highlighted the site plan, demolition plan, landscape plan, and concept renderings of the elevations planned for the project.
He pointed out the detention basin handled some of the detention for the neighboring subdivision Newcastle Greene Townhomes. Mr. McIlrath indicated staff was working with Public Works and the City Engineer in reviewing the detention basin to ensure it would meet the needs for the proposed project’s storm water and not overflow while still meeting the water demands for each project. He highlighted the layout and some of the amenities, materials, and articulations for the project.
Mr. McIlrath noted the Planning Commission reviewed the subdivision plat on August 5, 2020 and recommended approval with the following five conditions. 1) The subdivision plat and improvement drawings shall be revised to address Clearfield City Engineering requirements prior to final approval.
2) The project shall include the creation of a Homeowners Association (HOA) to maintain all of the private common spaces of the project, including but not limited to: landscaping, snow removal, building maintenance, trash collection, and open space areas. The proposed CC&Rs shall be revised to provide the needed information required by City Code and outlined in this report.
3) The project shall comply with all development and design standards of the Downtown Clearfield Form Based Code prior to signature approvals on the final subdivision plat.
4) The applicant is responsible for the replacement or repair of deteriorated, damaged or missing surface improvements surrounding the perimeter of the subdivision. This includes, but is not limited to: curb and gutter, sidewalks, landscaping park strip improvements, driveways, etc.
5) An escrow or cash bond agreement as required by Section 12-9-2 of the Subdivision Ordinance shall be provided and will be subject to approval by the City Engineer and City Attorney. The agreement for the public improvements shall be established prior to obtaining any permits for the properties or plat being recorded.
Councilmember Bush asked if the holding pond would be usable space and designed similar to what was shown in the landscaping plan. Mr. McIlrath responded it would be space the developer could use towards landscaping requirements if desired. He mentioned the developer planned to clean up the detention area and plant sod, trees, and include a sidewalk.
Councilmember Bush reported going by the site earlier in the day and noticing an area to the north that was not part of the project but was overgrown with weeds and needed to be cleaned
4
up. Mr. McIlrath reviewed the map and believed the area described was part of the public right- of-way and it could belong to the City. JJ Allen, City Manager, noted Eric Howes, Community Services Director, would be made aware of the concerns for maintenance on the property. Councilmember Bush recommended the area get cleaned up when staffing resources were available.
Councilmember Peterson asked what the City’s involvement was to ensure the HOA was properly created and registered with the County. Mr. McIlrath answered the City would not record the plat until all the documents were in order for the HOA. He continued City staff would then deliver the final subdivision plat, Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&Rs), and the declaration of the HOA so everything could be recorded at the same time.
Councilmember Roper moved to adjourn at 6:34 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Peterson. The motion carried upon the following vote: Voting AYE – Councilmember Bush, Peterson, Phipps, and Roper. Voting NO – None. Councilmember Thompson was not present for the vote.
5
CLEARFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 6:00 P.M. WORK SESSION August 18, 2020
City Building 55 South State Street Clearfield City, Utah
The meeting was held electronically via Zoom Meeting address:
Zoom Meeting https://us02web.zoom.us/j/85461683774 Meeting ID: 854 6168 3774
PRESIDING VIA ZOOM MEETING: Mark Shepherd Mayor
PRESENT VIA ZOOM MEETING: Kent Bush Councilmember Nike Peterson Councilmember Vern Phipps Councilmember Tim Roper Councilmember Karece Thompson Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT VIA ZOOM MEETING: JJ Allen City Manager Summer Palmer Assistant City Manager Stuart Williams City Attorney Kelly Bennett Police Chief Adam Favero Public Works Director Eric Howes Community Services Director Curtis Dickson Community Services Deputy Dir. Spencer Brimley Community Development Director Rich Knapp Finance Manager Trevor Cahoon Communications Coordinator Nancy Dean City Recorder Wendy Page Deputy Recorder
Mayor Shepherd called the meeting to order at 6:02 p.m.
DISCUSSION ON CITY PRIORITIES
JJ Allen, City Manager, stated the Council held a retreat on February 7, 2020 and a majority of the time was spent discussing the hedgehog concept. He mentioned the allegory of the fox and the hedgehog was discussed along with the following three intersecting circles: What are you deeply passionate about? What can you be the best at?
1
What drives your resource engine? Mr. Allen noted it was decided the City’s hedgehog concept was to be “creating a place where people want to be.” He indicated the current discussion would be spent discussing more about the what.
He asked staff and Council to participate in an exercise of writing the first three ideas that came to mind when they thought about creating a place where people wanted to be. The following ideas were shared and discussed: Gatherings Plaza/Event Safe Inclusive Community Informed Customer Service Beautiful Walkable Connections Responsive to needs of residents Enjoyable Supportive Connectivity Community Fun Activities Variety (something for everyone) Basic Necessities (water, electricity, etc.) Consistent Enduring Friendly Welcoming Adaptable Differentiated Destination Transparent/Open
Mr. Allen mentioned many of the ideas shared were adjectives or intangible. He asked for the group to share ideas that existed in the community that were tangible. The following ideas were shared about tangible things that already existed in the City that contributed to creating a place where people want to be: Low crime rates Pickleball complex Downtown planning Welcoming Parks
2
Recreation programs Resources (domestic violence, housing, and grant funding opportunities) Community Events Fourth of July Diverse housing Inclusiveness Customer Service Center Form Based Code Civic Center North Steed Pond and Park Trails Clearfield Aquatic and Fitness Center Pop Up Events Communication/Marketing and Engagement Arts (band, choir, plays) Schools – Clearfield High School Job Corp Leadership Commissions (Planning Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Youth Commission) Volunteers Mabey Pond
Mr. Allen pointed out those specifics and the intangibles listed were considered the “sacred cows” and would be good to keep at the center or heart of what made Clearfield a great place to be. He stated having those ideas in context would be important as the group began considering which programs or amenities should be eliminated.
He reminded the group of the homework assignment given in the staff report. He asked the group to share what criteria should be used when considering whether or not to do something such as continue a program or provide a service. The following criteria were shared: Necessary government function Benefit to residents (social, financial) Mr. Allen felt it would need to be quantified in some way. Demand / tradition / sacred cow / rituals Cost / benefit (return on investment) Services for general welfare (what if it was absent?) Consistency / flexibility Needs versus wants Reduce burden that allows better focus Does it help the target demographic Effectiveness Efficiency Why (purpose)
3
Resource accountability High value versus low value activities Sustainability
Summer Palmer, Assistant City Manager, stated the City valued those things that created a place where people wanted to be. She shared the following equation that could help bring quantification to what was valued:
Ms. Palmer mentioned the formula could be used to help determine the things with lower values and higher values. Mayor Shepherd pointed out the formula was great from a business standpoint but it might not be the best fit for measurement for a municipality. He mentioned the City might want to break things down into good, better, best categories. There was a discussion about how the criteria list or formula or categories could be helpful in determining how to better use the City’s efforts and resources to improve its programs or services.
Councilmember Peterson recommended all the different services or programs could be categorized in separate groupings and then the best fitting criteria could be used within that set of services or programs for evaluation. Stuart Williams, City Attorney, mentioned using a silo method might be easier to evaluate things, but it might not work because as a City it would be important to find balance between multiple services with limited resources available.
Mr. Allen expressed his opinion there should be some formality used to help make decisions. He mentioned the meeting would not allow adequate time to fully analyze the ideas brought forward and it could take months if not years to complete such a task. He noted the City would not be able to focus on the hedgehog unless it removed those things which were not as important. He wondered if a committee should be formed with a few executive staff and government officials to help with further analysis.
Councilmember Thompson suggested as the criteria was reviewed it would be important to make sure exclusiveness was not an unintended consequence. Ms. Palmer added many criteria should be used to evaluate each activity not just the financial impacts so it did not become exclusionary. There was a discussion about how to move forward and consider which programs or activities the City should eliminate or modify so it could better focus on its hedgehog.
4
Councilmember Peterson commented there were other things to consider during the evaluation process if a program or service ranked lower in value that were tied to the emotional level which could help in the ranking. Does this meet the need of the underserved population? Was this something that could be done regionally? Was this something that related to the core values? What would the impacts be if the City stopped doing this?
Mr. Allen stated the evaluation process would not be easy. Mayor Shepherd agreed it would be like eating an elephant. He wondered if the process of review and evaluation of City programs and services would begin with the Council or at the staff level. There was a discussion on how to best begin the analysis of City programs.
Mayor Shepherd recommended each department start by making lists and analyzing things to determine what should be cut and then after the review recommendations could be made to the Council. There was a discussion about staff beginning the analysis and then providing a recommendation to the Council based on the time and resources available or offering suggestions if there was another option that could provide the same effect which was more efficient or cost saving.
Mayor Shepherd stated the process and analysis would help the City learn what it was good at and allow more focus on creating a place where people wanted to be. Mr. Allen commented the approach of having the department heads begin the process would be good. He expressed his opinion a list of fifteen criteria might be too many so perhaps it could be narrowed.
Mayor Shepherd recommended a committee, as suggested earlier, could help with narrowing the criteria and categorizing things. Mr. Allen pointed out the Community Services Department was in the process of doing something similar with its programs and would be sharing recommendations with the Parks and Recreation Commission at an upcoming meeting. He indicated he could work closely with each department head and determine the relevant criteria for that particular department. Mayor Shepherd expressed his trust in staff to get things started in the right direction. There was a discussion about understanding the vision and putting the resources of the City towards those things that would help in creating a place where people wanted to be.
Mayor Shepherd asked which members of the Council would be willing to participate on the committee. Councilmembers Bush and Phipps committed to serve on the committee.
Mr. Allen stated September 1, 2020 had been planned as a third retreat type discussion; but he did not feel holding it so quickly would give sufficient time to have the criteria narrowed and department analyses completed. Mayor Shepherd expressed his opinion mid-October would be a good goal to have the criteria narrowed and begin discussions during work sessions on any of the recommendations from departments.
Mayor Shepherd announced next week’s meeting on August 25, 2020 would be live rather than a Zoom meeting. He mentioned the public could either attend in person or watch on Facebook
5
Live meetings would still allow individuals not coming in person the opportunity to comment on any public hearing item by using the forms on the City’s website prior to the meeting.
Nancy Dean, City Recorder, mentioned accommodations could be made for any members of the Council that wished to attend remotely rather than in person. She reminded the Council of the tour planned for Thursday, August 20, 2020 at 11:00 a.m. of the Wasatch Integrated Davis Materials Recovery Facility.
Councilmember Thompson moved to adjourn at 7:59 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Bush. The motion carried upon the following vote: Voting AYE – Councilmember Bush, Peterson, Phipps, Roper, and Thompson. Voting NO – None.
6
CLEARFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 11:00 A.M. WORK SESSION August 20, 2020
Wasatch Integrated 3404 North 650 East Layton, Utah 84040
PRESIDING: Mark R. Shepherd Mayor
PRESENT: Kent Bush Councilmember Nike Peterson Councilmember Vern R. Phipps Councilmember
EXCUSED: Tim Roper Councilmember Karece Thompson Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT: JJ Allen City Manager Summer Palmer Assistant City Manager Nancy Dean City Recorder
VISITORS: Nathan Rich – Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District
CITY COUNCIL TOUR OF THE WASATCH INTEGRATED DAVID MATERIALS RECOVERY FACILITY
The City Council toured a new facility opened for operations at Wasatch Integrated. Nathan Rich, Executive Director of the Wasatch Integrated Waste Management District, provided a tour for the Mayor and Council of the new Davis Material Recovery Facility and reported on the types of services Wasatch Integrated provided. The purpose of the tour was for the Council to see the new facility and learn more about the recycling efforts and waste management services available.
The meeting adjourned at 12:00 p.m.
Page 1
CLEARFIELD CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES 7:00 P.M. POLICY SESSION August 25, 2020
City Building 55 South State Street Clearfield City, Utah
PRESIDING: Vern Phipps Mayor Pro Tem
EXCUSED: Mark Shepherd Mayor
PRESENT: Kent Bush Councilmember Nike Peterson Councilmember Tim Roper Councilmember Karece Thompson Councilmember
STAFF PRESENT: JJ Allen City Manager Summer Palmer Assistant City Manager Stuart Williams City Attorney Kelly Bennett Police Chief Adam Favero Public Works Director Braden Felix City Engineer / PW Deputy Director Eric Howes Community Services Director Spencer Brimley Community Development Director Brad McIlrath Senior Planner Rich Knapp Finance Manager Trevor Cahoon Communications Coordinator Nancy Dean City Recorder
Mayor Pro Tem Phipps called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m.
Mayor Pro Tem Phipps informed the audience that if they would like to comment during the Open Comment Period there were forms to fill out by the door.
Councilmember Thompson led the opening ceremonies.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE JULY 28, 2020 WORK SESSION
Councilmember Peterson moved to approve the minutes from the July 28, 2020 work session; as written, seconded by Councilmember Roper. The motion carried upon the following vote: Voting AYE – Councilmembers Bush, Peterson, Phipps, Roper and Thompson. Voting NO – None.
OPEN COMMENT PERIOD
There were no public comments.
1
APPROVAL OF CLEARFIELD CITY’S 2020 ANALYSIS OF IMPEDIMENTS (AI) TO FAIR HOUSING CHOICE
Brad McIlrath, Senior Planner, explained the Analysis of Impediments (AI) to Fair Housing Choice report had been a requirement of the City’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program each time it completed a five-year action plan. He indicated the study should drive the City’s CDBG funding to help remove barriers to the development of housing choices for low and moderate income household. He noted it might be the last time the City prepared an AI because the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) was no longer requiring the study as a qualification for CDBG funding.
Mr. McIlrath mentioned the City had contracted with Resource Consultants to complete the study. He reviewed the following impediments to fair housing in Clearfield that the consultants had identified in the 2020 AI report: Limited English proficiency Large populations of minorities, disabled, low-income and other protected classes found in Clearfield Lack of accessible and visitable housing Job transit connections Lack of familiarity with the Fair Housing Act
He pointed out the Council had an opportunity to review the 2020 AI report at its work session on August 4, 2020. He noted citizens were given the opportunity to review the plan in the Community Development Department from June 9, 2020 to July 14, 2020. Mr. McIlrath recommended the Council approve the adoption of the 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice.
Councilmember Peterson apologized that two concerns she found with another review of the documents were not vetted during the work session discussion. She mentioned the following items should be removed or revised because each was not consistent with the current policy of the City: Page 7 – Additionally, Clearfield has amended its zoning code to grant a density bonus or another financial incentive to developers building single family homes. This bonus would allow developers to build more single-family homes per acre or receive another financial incentive if they make a certain percentage of the newly constructed homes “visitable.” Page 32 section: Quality of Housing Inventory – An analysis of age and value of homes in Clearfield indicates several neighborhoods where there are a large number of homes built prior to 1960 and valued at less than $100,000.
Councilmember Peterson stated she was not aware of any policy where density bonus or other financial incentives were given to developers. She pointed out even the older homes in Clearfield likely commanded a value higher than $100,000. Mr. McIlrath acknowledged having the same concerns when reviewing the document and said he would speak with the consultants about it. Councilmember Peterson expressed her appreciation for the work of the consultants in preparing the document and found it easy to read with great information.
2
Councilmember Thompson stated he felt encouraged that even though the poverty level was 9.5 percent there was only a one percent eviction rate. He expressed how pleased he was these numbers represented the inclusionary nature of the City.
Mayor Pro Tem Phipps commented his observations of the document did not affect the objective usability of it, but he found the numbers were quite dated. Mr. McIlrath stated he asked the consultants about the data used and was assured it was the most recent data available from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) and the State. He indicated being pleased to see data was also included from work done by the Kem C. Gardner Institute to provide local comparison data. He noted most studies were outdated as soon as they were completed so he recognized some limits with data resources.
Mayor Pro Tem Phipps acknowledged the City was driving towards a substantial increase of high density and because the data included in the report was so dated that might not have been accurately reflected. He mentioned if it had been noticed sooner, he might have requested some wording changes to show the City was increasing its density essentially as an objective. Mr. McIlrath pointed out that message could be communicated to the consultants to see if there was a way to address it. Councilmember Phipps responded if changes could be made that did not slow the process he would be supportive of the clarification.
Councilmember Roper moved to approve the 2020 Analysis of Impediments to Fair Housing Choice with the amendments and any clarifications discussed and authorize the Mayor’s signature to any necessary documents, seconded by Councilmember Peterson. The motion carried upon the following vote: Voting AYE – Councilmembers Bush, Peterson, Phipps, Roper, and Thompson. Voting NO – None.
APPROVAL OF THE FINAL SUBDIVISION PLAT FOR THE UNION TOWNHOMES SUBDIVISION LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY 305, 315, AND 325 EAST 700 SOUTH
Brad McIlrath, Senior Planner, stated the Union Townhomes Subdivision was located at approximately 305, 315, and 325 East 700 South. He mentioned the Council reviewed the subdivision plat during its work session on August 11, 2020. He pointed out the site plan and preliminary subdivision plat were approved by the Planning Commission on June 17, 2020.
Mr. McIlrath indicated originally the subdivision was planned for 61 townhomes but in order to comply with Form Based Code standards was reduced to 58 townhomes. He reviewed the subdivision plat and noted the modifications made to comply with Form Based Code standards. He mentioned the detention basin for the project would be shared with the Newcastle Greene Townhomes subdivision to the north and the developers were working with staff and the City Engineer to ensure it would meet the needs for both developments. He reviewed the site plan, demolition plan, landscape drawings, layout, and elevation renderings planned for the project.
Mr. McIlrath reported on August 5, 2020 the Planning Commission reviewed the final subdivision plat and forwarded a recommendation of approval to the Clearfield City Council with the five conditions outlined in the staff report.
3
Councilmember Bush asked if all the townhomes had garages. Mr. McIlrath answered each townhome had a two car garage and they were side by side.
Councilmember Bush wondered if there was visitor parking for the development. Mr. McIlrath responded visitor parking was available in four locations as shown on the landscaping plan. He mentioned during non-winter months parking on the streets would also be an option.
Mayor Pro Tem Phipps recognized the site had formerly been used by an auto repair shop. He questioned if there was any potential for hazardous waste contaminates on the site. Mr. McIlrath answered there certainly could be and it would be up to the developers to get the proper permits and address any contaminants discovered as part of the development process.
Councilmember Bush asked if all the conditions required for approval had been met. Mr. McIlrath explained all of the five conditions either had been met or the developer was working towards compliance. He pointed out condition number two addressed the project needing to have a Homeowners Association (HOA). He indicated the developer was currently working on the necessary documents which would then be reviewed by the City Attorney to make sure it complied with that requirements then, once fully executed, could be recorded along with the subdivision plat at the County. He continued condition number four would be continually reviewed throughout the construction process and condition five would also need to be completed before final recording of the plat.
Councilmember Thompson wondered if there were balconies displayed on the site plan. Mr. McIlrath said the majority had full balconies but others had a balcony concept. Councilmember Thompson asked if the Form Based Code (FBC) required screening for balconies. Mr. McIlrath stated the FBC code did require screening of balconies in certain zones; however, the project was in the TR Zone so it would not apply.
Councilmember Peterson moved to approve the final subdivision plat for the Union Townhomes Subdivision located at approximately 305, 315, and 325 East 700 South with the five conditions recommended by the Planning Commission and authorize the Mayor’s signature to any necessary documents, seconded by Councilmember Thompson. The motion carried upon the following vote: Voting AYE – Councilmembers Bush, Peterson, Phipps, Roper, and Thompson. Voting NO – None.
APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION 2020R-13 AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT WITH THE MILITARY INSTALLATION DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE MUNICIPAL SERVICES ON AN AS NEEDED BASIS AT FALCON HILL
Rich Knapp, Finance Manager, stated the City currently had an Interlocal Agreement with Military Installation Development Authority (MIDA) to provide municipal services on an as needed basis at Falcon Hill. He explained all fees charged by the City through the agreement tied to a direct cost, except for the storm sewer utility fee. He pointed out that fee was based pm the total impervious surface and had been charged at $193.00 per month.
4
Mr. Knapp stated MIDA recently approached the City requesting it no longer charge the monthly storm water utility fee as set forth in the agreement because all the storm runoff from the impervious surface was handled by MIDA from within MIDA’s boundaries. He indicated staff determined there was no overhead or ongoing costs incurred by the City related to MIDA’s storm water; therefore, recommended approving the proposed amendments to the agreement for discontinuing the storm sewer utility fee of $193 per month. Mr. Knapp mentioned any direct costs related to storm would continue to be billed at the rates set forth in the agreement.
Councilmember Thompson moved to approve Resolution 2020R-13 authorizing an amendment to the storm sewer utility fee in the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with the Military Installation Development Authority and authorize the Mayor’s signature to any necessary documents, seconded by Councilmember Peterson. The motion carried upon the following vote: Voting AYE – Councilmembers Bush, Peterson, Phipps, Roper, and Thompson. Voting NO – None.
AWARD OF BID FOR THE WATERLINE IMPROVEMENT PROJECT ON STATE STREET FROM 700 SOUTH TO 1450 SOUTH
Braden Felix, City Engineer / Public Works Deputy Director, stated the waterline improvement project along the west side of State Street would be between 700 South and 1450 South. He pointed out the upgrades from the current 4-inch line to a 10-inch line would help ensure the City was able to better supply its water demand along State Street and better equip the City to meet the demands of any future growth or development. He mentioned the bid award was discussed with the Council during its work session on August 11, 2020.
Mr. Felix explained the City solicited bids and Paragon Construction Systems was the low bidder on the project. He noted that contractor was working with the City on another project on 1100 South and staff had been pleased with its quality of work. He stated staff recommended approving the contract and bid award to Paragon Construction Systems for $1,273,641.48 with contingency of $258,010.30 for a total project cost of $1,531,651.78.
Councilmember Peterson moved to approve the award of bid for the Waterline Improvement Project on State Street from 700 South to 1450 South to Paragon Construction Systems for the bid amount of $1,273,641.48 with contingency and engineering costs of $258,010.30 for a total project cost of $1,531,651.78 and authorized the Mayor’s signature to any necessary documents, seconded by Councilmember Bush. The motion carried upon the following vote: Voting AYE – Councilmembers Bush, Peterson, Phipps, Roper, and Thompson. Voting NO – None.
UPDATE ON THE FISCAL YEAR 2020 YEAR END FINANCIAL STATUS
Rich Knapp, Finance Manager, reviewed the year-end revenues and expenditures for fiscal year 2020. He pointed out the numbers included in the agenda packet were out of date and the summary information included with the presentation was updated but still in draft form because there would still be more changes before the year-end report was completed. He indicated the FY20 budget had projected the City to spend down $3,783,627 of its reserves, but the draft
5
actuals showed a reduction in reserves of only $786,900. He pointed out the available cash or unrestricted fund balance was about 37 percent of the City’s revenues which was $2 million higher than allowed by the State.
Mr. Knapp highlighted the following key revenues: Sales Tax - $573,000 over budget, $425,000 higher than last year Energy Tax projection - $64,000 under budget, $135,000 lower than last year Building permits - $213,000 over budget, $110,000 higher than last year Clearfield Aquatic and Fitness Center (CAFC) - $450,000 under budget, $337,000 less than last year actuals Recreation - $130,000 under budget Fine/Forfeitures - $63,000 under budget Fee/Costs/Contempt - $57,000 under budget Community Service Rentals - $62,000 less than last year
Mr. Knapp highlighted the following key expenditures: Payroll - $980,000 under budget, $45,000 higher than last year o CAFC - $363,000 under budget o Recreation - $193,000 under budget Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Public Safety Personnel - $315,000 expense reimbursement Transfer to Capital Projects Fund for future projects - $582,000 CAFC and Recreation $274,000 less spending than last year
Mr. Knapp reviewed the economy statistics for state and national averages of personal income growth; Utah labor market trends; and he noted the housing prices in Utah increased 6.5 percent since June of 2019. He highlighted historical point of sale data for Clearfield by quarter. He reported in June of 2020 the City received the highest amount of sales tax revenues in history and it was also the second highest month for the State on record. He reviewed the following Clearfield sales tax information: FY20 sales tax was 9.2 percent or $425,000 higher than FY19 o $573,000 higher than budgeted Clearfield’s total point of sales was .46 percent of all State sales o Increased from .44 percent in FY19 or 8 percent Clearfield population as a percent of the State had decreased 3.3 percent in the last five years and was just above one percent of the State’s population
Mr. Knapp highlighted the City’s historical point of sales totals by percent and dollars for each industry. He reported the taxes received for online shopping or those purchases made that were delivered to the City were trending higher each year and almost 40 percent of the City’s total sales tax revenues.
He mentioned tranche two of the CARES Act funding would be coming shortly and be about $946,000. Mr. Knapp noted there would need to be an additional discussion to determine how the funding would be allocated.
6
Councilmember Bush pointed out the City had $2 million to spend in reserves. JJ Allen, City Manager, mentioned some of the excess reserves was due to decreased spending but some would be spent towards capital projects which had not been able to be completed in FY20. Mr. Knapp noted another reason for the excess in reserves was due to conservative budgeting and revenues coming in much higher than expected.
COMMUNICATION ITEMS
Mayor Pro Tem Phipps – attended the tour of the Wasatch Integrated Davis Materials Recovery Facility on August 20, 2020. He mentioned Wasatch Integrated had more details about each of the stations along the tour that could be viewed on its website. He reported the Board had approved its budget and things were going well.
Councilmember Bush 1. Enjoyed the tour of the Wasatch Integrated Davis Materials Recovery Facility. 2. Met with the State’s Uniform Building Commission and the amendments to the Utah Electrical Code were passed so it would be presented to the Legislators for consideration in January. 3. Listened to the discussion about accessory dwelling units (ADUs) during the Business of Labor Committee meeting. He indicated the topic would be one to watch during the legislative session because the proposal might be for cities to mandate ADUs and eliminate all impact fees.
Councilmember Peterson – visited eight schools that served Clearfield residents earlier to welcome students, administrators, and faculty back to school. She expressed appreciation to educator teams at each of the schools.
Councilmember Roper – apologized for not being able to join with the Council on the tour. He reported the North Davis Fire District had passed its budget and would be looking for ways to prepare for future growth, protect residents of the District, and maintain fiscal sustainability.
Councilmember Thompson 1. Attended a webinar about understanding the new state of local businesses which was hosted by the Small Business Administration and Utah Chamber of Commerce. 2. Visited with some of the local businesses to inform each of the City’s CARES Act grant program. He reported on the feedback from business owners about their economic successes or struggles during the past months dealing with the COVID-19 pandemic. He planned to continue meeting with local business owners and learn more stories. 3. Attended the Ogden Branch National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) monthly meeting on August 10, 2020. He mentioned the Davis School District recently joined as a corporate member and he felt it would be great for the School District. He shared highlights of the meeting related to statistics from an assessment on juvenile criminal justice reform in the State. He pointed out the assessment showed minority children were experiencing difficulties. He expressed his desire for an equitable society and hoped as an organization it could attack those issues. He also learned the School District would be moving from a content based assessment to a skills based learning system. He encouraged everyone to be patient with teachers as they applied those changes. 4. Invited to participate on the NAACP Ogden Economic Development Committee. He expressed his excitement for the opportunity to help make a better place for Davis County and Clearfield City.
7
STAFF REPORTS
JJ Allen, City Manager 1. Reported the hedgehog methodology committee was ready to begin holding meetings. 2. Invited the Council to join City employees at the Maintenance Operations Center (MOC) for lunch on August 26, 2020 between 11:00 a.m. until 1:00 p.m. 3. Announced the ribbon cutting ceremony for Pop’s, the new Sinclair station, would be on Friday, August 28, 2020 at 1:00 p.m. He pointed out the Mayor had asked for representation by the Council since he was out of town. 4. Informed the Council his daughter had baked a cake which would be served in the hallway following the meetings.
Nancy Dean, City Recorder –reviewed the Council’s schedule: No meeting on September 1, 2020. Joint work session with Planning Commission; work and policy sessions on September 8, 2020. Work session on September 15, 2020. Policy session on September 22, 2020. Virtual ULCT Annual Convention Sept 21st – 25th; asked the Council to review the email sent out earlier today about registrations.
Eric Howes, Community Services Director – updated the Council about the plans for a modified Boo- nanza event planned for 2020. He explained due to the typical event size the event would be modified to the outdoors and include a movie in the park the night before Boo-nanza, then the next day have a pumpkin drop off to residents similar to the Easter event, and later in the evening hold an outdoor drive up event involving local businesses to decorate for a drive thru spook ally reverse trunk-or-treating activity.
Councilmember Peterson moved to adjourn the policy session and reconvene in work session at 8:07 p.m., seconded by Councilmember Thompson. The motion carried upon the following vote: Voting AYE – Councilmembers Bush, Peterson, Phipps, Roper, and Thompson. Voting NO – None.
8
TO: Mayor Shepherd and City Council Members FROM: Chief Kelly Bennett, Police Department MEETING DATE: September 8, 2020 SUBJECT: Utah Chiefs of Police Association Officer of the Year – Detective Josh Carlson
RECOMMENDED ACTION
A member of the Utah Chiefs of Police Association will present Detective Josh Carlson with the Utah Chiefs of Police Association Officer of the Year for a Mid-sized Agency Award.
DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND
Each year the Utah Chiefs of Police recognizes officers who are involved in outstanding investigations or involved in incidents that represent exceptional police work. There are a variety of reasons that an officer can be nominated. I nominated Detective Josh Carlson for his outstanding dedication relevant to the Clearfield Cold Case investigation. The investigation involved numerous Clearfield City Police Officers as well as officers and detectives from multiple law enforcement agencies. However, in 2018, Detective Carlson was assigned to the investigation as the lead investigator. He worked closely with a genetic genealogist and was able to identify a suspect. After several months of reviewing hundreds of documents, conducting interviews, reviewing evidence, and following up on investigative leads, a suspect was arrested for multiple rapes in Clearfield City. Subsequently, the suspect entered a guilty plea and will serve the remainder of his life in prison. He also confessed to other alleged rapes and homicides in the Western United States.
CORRESPONDING POLICY PRIORITY (IES)
This award corresponds with Improving Clearfield’s Image, Livability and Economy by performing outstanding public safety services. This investigation was the result of nearly six years of investigative work. In addition, the police department worked closely with the victim advocate services and met with the victims in order to provide case updates and ensure victim services were being utilized. In addition, this award represents the City’s priority of Maintaining a Highly Motivated and Well-Trained Workforce. Detective Carlson has demonstrated his desire to seek additional training in order to improve his skillsets as well as become an expert in subjects such as sexual assault investigations, forensic interviews, and undercover “chat” operations. He is known for his expertise and knowledge related to these skillsets. He works with several outside agencies such as the Utah Attorney General’s
Office as well as the FBI. In addition, he serves as a firearms instructor and investigates the majority of the sexual assaults and child abuse cases reported to the Clearfield City Police Department.
FISCAL IMPACT
N/A
ALTERNATIVES
N/A
SCHEDULE / TIME CONSTRAINTS
N/A
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Utah Chiefs of Police Association Officer of the Year Nomination
2
Police Department 55 South State Street Clearfield, UT 84015 Phone: 801.525.2800 Fax: 801.525.2861
Police Chief: Kelly Bennett Assistant Chief: Devin Rogers
Utah Chiefs of Police Association 98 E 5600 S Ogden, UT 84405
RE: Utah Chiefs of Police Officer of the Year Nomination
Agency Size: Midsize (26-75) Name of Nominee: Joshua Carlson Rank: Detective Years of Service: 3.5 Years Division: Investigations
Previous Accomplishments / Awards In May of 2018, Joshua Carlson received the Public Safety Medal for his ability to make split second decisions when pursuing a burglary suspect. Joshua was assigned to the patrol division and responded to a business alarm. Subsequently, Officer Carlson located a suspect who had entered into the business. The suspect began running through the parking lot and Officer Carlson pursued the suspect. Unfortunately, Officer Carlson tripped over a low hanging chain in the parking lot and fell. He immediately recovered from falling and continued to pursue the suspect until other officers arrived. During the foot pursuit, Officer Carlson sustained fractures to both of his hands; however, he continued pursuing the suspect. The following paragraph is from the Public Safety Medal letter:
“You demonstrated the ability to make split second decisions that ultimately prevented further serious injury or death as well as the concern to protect personal property of a business. You also demonstrated your ability to serve the community even though you suffered serious personal injuries. Your actions clearly demonstrated your desire to be a professional and dedicated public servant who exemplifies the Clearfield City CORE Values.”
Utah Chiefs of Police Officer of the Year Nomination
In 2000, the Clearfield Police Department Detective Division began investigating a serial rapist confirmed from DNA collected at several crime scenes from multiple jurisdictions in both Utah and Wyoming. Because the identity of the offender was unknown, a John Doe DNA warrant was obtained so criminal charges could be filed if and when the suspect was located. In 2012, the Clearfield Police Department Detective Division re-opened the cold cases and began meeting with Detectives from Ogden City, Layton City and Laramie Wyoming. In 2015, detectives from multiple agencies collectively initiated a multi- agency investigation and included the television show, Cold Justice. During several weeks of investigation, additional rapes were identified in Wyoming and Utah. The television show was broadcasted and no additional leads were obtained. As technology advanced, the Clearfield Police
Department contacted a genetic genealogist, Dr. Barbara Rae-Venter, who was able to study the previously collected DNA evidence to discover a potential familial DNA relationship. In 2018, Detective Josh Carlson was assigned as the lead investigator and he began sifting through countless documents, evidence, interviews and police reports in order to assist the DNA Genealogist. Detective Carlson investigated several viable leads that were the result of the work performed by Dr. Rae-Venter. Many leads ended in a frustrating fashion; including trying to find a family tree of the suspect through potential DNA similarities of distant family members only to learn the family member had been adopted, orphanage records being burnt in a fire, and family lines that included polygamist members that created many family tree branches. These dead ends caused some to wonder if this case would ever be solved. Despite the roadblocks in these frustrating leads Detective Carlson continued his aggressive investigation of this case and worked with Dr. Rae-Venter and exhausted every potential investigative method in order to identify or eliminate suspects. After several months of investigative work and in conjunction of Dr. Rae-Venters efforts, a possible suspect was identified. In the fall of 2019, Detective Carlson conducted an interview and obtained a consensual DNA swab from the person of interest. Subsequently, the DNA did not match; however, Dr. Rae-Venter examined the profile and came to the conclusion that the person of interest was in fact the half-brother of the rapist. Detective Carlson quickly began building a profile of the suspect and eventually obtained a DNA sample from trash found in the suspect’s outside garbage can. The DNA was examined and entered into CODIS which returned with a positive identification. In September of 2019, the suspect was identified and an arrest warrant and search warrant was obtained. The suspect was arrested and charged with multiple counts of aggravated sexual assault and other violent felonies. Several search warrants were executed and Detective Carlson spent countless hours documenting new evidence, following up on new leads, and eventually met with the Utah victims. His ability to articulate his investigation and speak with the victims provided comfort and reassurance that the offender had been identified and the victims could finally find closure because of the arrest.
The offender subsequently has begun cooperating with law enforcement and other violent crimes including multi-state homicides are being investigated. Although there were multiple detectives assigned to the case, Detective Carlson’s lead efforts in 2018 and 2019 demonstrated, leadership, compassion, dedication and professionalism. In addition, his ability to meticulously examine prior evidence, police reports, interviews, and other miscellaneous documentation, led to the overall successful investigation of this decades old cold case. Additionally, he demonstrated the importance of collectively working with other law enforcement agencies in order to share information and work as a team in order to best serve the public not only in Clearfield City, but in multiple cities and states.
Detective Carlson has quickly progressed since being hired in 2016 and also participates on the Utah Attorney General’s ICAC Task Force as well as the FBI’s Child Exploitation Task Force. He has been instrumental in several sexual assault investigations and is able to effectively communicate with victims, officers, victim advocates and prosecutors. His overall dedication and professionalism demonstrates what is expected from law enforcement officers. He demonstrates the qualities that all investigators as well as officers should have. He is also trained in computer forensic examinations and is one of the department’s firearms instructors.
Detective Carlson’s work not just on this cold case but his contribution to the law enforcement profession make him a worthy recipient of the Officer of the Year recognition. Please accept this letter as an official nomination for the Utah Chiefs of Police Officer of the Year for a mid-sized agency.
Attachment: Clearfield Police Department Press Release regarding the arrest of Mark Douglas Burns
TO: Mayor Shepherd and City Council Members FROM: Brad McIlrath, Senior Planner/CDBG Coordinator MEETING DATE: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 SUBJECT: Review Amendments of 2020‐2021 CDBG One Year Action Plan to Support COVID‐19 Efforts and Needs with Open Doors and Safe Harbor
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council approve the amendments to the 2020‐2021 One Year Action Plan to outline the proposed CARES Act CDBG funding for Open Doors and Safe Harbor as reviewed in this report.
DESCRIPTION / BACKGROUND
As part of the CARES Act, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development has been allocated funding to distribute to entitlement communities through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program. The CARES Act made available $5 billion in CDBG funds with $2 billion of that to be allocated based on the 2020 CDBG allocation formula. The remaining $3 billion will later be allocated based upon needs and available data. This funding must be allocated specifically for services and activities that address impacts of COVID‐19. As an entitlement community Clearfield City has been allocated $129,178. After exploring multiple program options, staff recognized the need to partner with Open Doors and Safe Harbor to address housing and food needs that are the result of COVID‐19 impacts. Open Doors and Safe Harbor submitted a funding request letter which is attached to this report. The letters outline each organizations funding needs to assist Clearfield residents impacted by COVID‐19. Each organization asked for similar funding amounts but different services. Staff has evaluated each request and is proposing the following funding options:
Open Doors – Requested $79,826 / Funding Proposal of $65,178. This funding request is intended to provide rent for up to 10 families, salary for a food bank warehouse worker at $12.00 an hour, salary for one FTE case manager at $18.00 an hour, part‐time Circles Coach at $15.00 an hour, and to cover the cost of benefits for those positions. Safe Harbor – Requested $80,000 / Funding Proposal of $64,000. This funding request is intended to provide additional counseling, rental and flexible assistance, additional supplies for families, and cover staff supportive services. The bulk of the request is to cover rental and flexible assistance. New chairs for the conference room that can be cleaned to meet COVID
restrictions are also included in the request, but staff does not support funding that portion of the request. To address the CARES Act CDBG funding HUD requires an amendment to the most recently adopted action plan, which is the 2020‐2021 One Year Action Plan.
IMPACT a. FISCAL – The proposed allocations are based on funding granted by the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development through the CARES Act. No local funds are required to provide the assistance.
b. OPERATIONS / SERVICE DELIVERY‐ The CARES Act CDBG funding as proposed for Open Doors and Safe Harbor will require additional staff oversight and administration. Staff time to evaluate this funding, review proposals and process changes to the 2020‐2021 Action Plan have increased the amount of time required for CDGB administration. That increase of time will continue to be necessary until the funds are expended and HUD has fully closed out the projects.
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council may choose to fund these organizations different amounts or use the CARES Act CDBG funding in a different way, although no other alternatives are being proposed by staff.
SCHEDULE / TIME CONSTRAINTS
As part of HUD noticing requirements for amendments for COVID‐19 response, the traditional 30‐day comment and notice period has been waived and can be replaced with a 5‐day noticing and comment period. That notice will be prepared and published prior to the public hearing for these amendments.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
Open Doors Funding Request Letter Safe Harbor Funding Request Letter
2
July 14, 2020 The severe economic impact of COVID-19 has created a tremendous need for housing assistance for low-income people. Open Doors has created a prevention program that is both effective and efficient. Prevention programs reduce homelessness with effective interventions to help people who are at risk to find and maintain stable housing and avoid homelessness. Interventions include people receiving rental assistance are encouraged to enroll in Circles to assist them in gaining skills to increase income and achieve housing stability. Open Doors is implementing Circles classes geared specifically towards individuals who suffered job loss due to COVID-19. Due to COVID-19 more families than ever are experiencing hardships in making rent payments (up 36% from March 2019). Finding resources to address homelessness and affordable housing is a recurring theme among human service providers in Clearfield City due to high rent which attributes to families “doubling up” due to high rent cost. Even though Davis County has a strong economy, homelessness is on the rise. This was evident with a 13% increase in our Homeless Point in Time Count for 2020. Open Doors is requesting funding in the amount of $79,826 to provide rental assistance with supportive services for: • 10 families up to $1,500 rent $10,000 • Salary for food bank warehouse worker 1040 at $12.00 per hour $12,480 • Salary for one FTE case manager at $18.00 based on 2080 hours $37,440 • Circles Coach PTE $15.00 based on 1040 hours $15,600 • Benefits for positions $ 4,306 $79, 826 Outcomes: 100% individuals following a Housing First practice and are placed in housing 82% receive case management support services 54% enroll in Circles 22% Increase income through Circles
July 21, 2020
I am pleased to write this letter explaining Safe Harbor’s intent to collaborate with Clearfield City regarding funding for covid related issues within our organization. Safe Harbor is a nonprofit organization that provides shelter, supportive services, and advocacy to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault in Kaysville City.
We are respectfully requesting $80,000 and it is our intent to utilize the funds for the following:
● Conference room and office chairs- current chairs are cloth and are not able to be cleaned per covid restrictions ○ $5,000 ● Counseling program services ○ $15,000 ● Rental and flexible assistance ○ $50,000 ● Supplies ○ $5,000 ● Staff supportive services ○ $5,000
I am available for any questions you may have. Thank you for your consideration.
Warm Regards,
Kristen Floyd, CPM, CMHC Executive Director
Mission: Safe Harbor, a nonprofit organization, provides shelter, supportive services and advocacy to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, as well as education, awareness and resources to our community. Mailing Address: PO Box 772 • Kaysville • UT • 84037 Outreach Center: 280 N Union Ave • Farmington • UT • 84025
I use she, her, hers pronouns. Phone: 801-660-6101 Safe Harbor Crisis Center "Offering Hope, Ending the Silence"
Business: 801.444.3191 www.safeharborhope.org
Mission: Safe Harbor, a nonprofit organization, provides shelter, supportive services and advocacy to survivors of domestic violence and sexual assault, as well as education, awareness and resources to our community. Mailing Address: PO Box 772 • Kaysville • UT • 84037 Outreach Center: 280 N Union Ave • Farmington • UT • 84025
TO: Mayor Shepherd and City Council Members FROM: Brad McIlrath, Senior Planner MEETING DATE: Tuesday, September 8, 2020 SUBJECT: Public Hearing, Discussion and Possible Action on ZTA 2020-070026, for proposed amendments to the Downtown Clearfield Form-Based Code to allow indoor temperature controlled self-service storage in the Gateway Corridor Commerce (C-C) Zone subject to proposed development standards. Planner: Brad McIlrath (Legislative Matter).
RECOMMENDED ACTION
RECOMMENDATION OPTIONS 1. Move to recommend approve ZTA 2020-070026 to the City Council, zoning text amendment for proposed amendments to the Downtown Clearfield Form-Based Code to allow self-service storage in the Gateway Corridor Commerce (C-C) Zone subject to proposed development standards. 2. Move to recommend deny ZTA 2020-070026 to the City Council, a zoning text amendment for proposed amendments to the Downtown Clearfield Form-Based Code to allow self-service storage in the Gateway Corridor Commerce (C-C) Zone subject to proposed development standards. 3. Move to table ZTA 2020-070026 to request additional information for consideration. If the City Council wishes to table the item, this will allow staff further time to rework the proposed standards to be what the City Council would like. PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION: On August 19, 2020, the Clearfield City Planning Commission, following a public hearing and discussion, took action to forward a recommendation of approval to the City Council for ZTA 2020- 070026 for the zoning text amendment for proposed amendments to the Downtown Clearfield Form- Based Code to allow indoor temperature controlled self-service storage in the Gateway Corridor Commerce (C-C) Zone subject to proposed development standards. This recommendation includes changes made by the Planning Commission on that date and as outlined in this report.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO PLANNING COMMISSION:
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission forward a recommendation of DENIAL for ZTA 2020-070026 to the City Council, a zoning text amendment for proposed amendments to the
Downtown Clearfield Form-Based Code to allow indoor temperature controlled self-service storage in the Gateway Corridor Commerce (C-C) Zone subject to proposed development standards.
BACKGROUND & ANALYSIS
The applicant would like to add “Indoor Temperature Controlled Storage Facilities” as a permitted use to the Gateway Corridor Commerce (C-C) Zone with specific development standards to encourage high quality design and development. Commercial Storage Facilities were removed as an allowed use in the manufacturing zone in November 2009 and from the commercial zones prior to that. With increased residential development within Clearfield City and the surrounding communities, there is a strong market for self-storage facilities. The applicant recognizes this demand and they believe that in the C-C zone that self-service storage would be appropriate for a downtown area. As part of this request, the applicant proposes development standards and has included a market demand analysis and pictures of existing or proposed temperature controlled storage facilities throughout the country. Each are included as attachments to this report. General Plan Analysis In reviewing any ordinance amendment or rezone, it is important to consult with the current General Plan to review the guidelines, goals, and policies for land use decisions. The following land use guidelines can be used to guide the City Council’s decision regarding the proposed ordinance amendment:
Land Use Guideline Staff Analysis 2. The relationship of planned land uses should This guideline could be used to argue that reflect consideration of existing development, certain properties in the C-C Zone may not be environmental conditions, service and very well situated for commercial retail or office transportation needs, and fiscal impacts. use and would be better suited for other commercial uses. With the proposed standards, this type of use would only be allowed on few properties in the C-C Zone due to their site limitations and characteristics. 11. The remaining vacant properties in the City With few vacant properties still available, self- should be developed at their highest and best storage may not be considered the highest and use to maximize their value to the landowner best use in this zone; a zone that is intended to and the City. be a gateway to the community. It could also be argued that for the few C-C Zone properties that this would apply to, it is seen as the highest and
2
best use for development or redevelopment of those vacant properties. 13. Manufacturing and industrial activities Although not a manufacturing use, self-service should be limited to those areas already zoned storage could be viewed as a light industrial use for such uses. or activity and may not be appropriate for any of the Downtown Form-Based Code Zones. With the proposed standards and compliance with FBC design standards, this use would look more like a commercial or office use and less like a manufacturing or light industrial property. Those type of uses would also be expressly prohibited for this type of building. ORDINANCE STANDARD PROPOSALS The following ordinance language was proposed by the applicant with changes made by the Planning Commission. Red and underlined text is new language and text that has a strikethrough has been removed by the Planning Commission. This new language if approved would change Sections 3.3.4 and 3.4.1 of the FBC and necessitate changes to Tables 3.3 (1) “Permitted Uses by Zone” and 3.3 (2) “Permitted Uses by Building Type” to add indoor temperature controlled self-storage to each table with “D” indicating the applicable development standards that apply.
Section 3.3.4 Service
• Indoor Temperature Controlled Self-Storage (Subject to Clearfield City Downtown Form-Based Code (FBC) 6.14 Self-Storage Building)
Section 3.4.1 Development Standards by Use Category
(3) Service Uses
(c) Indoor Temperature Controlled Self-Storage
A. (i) Indoor Temperature Controlled Self-Storage facilities shall only be permitted in the Gateway Corridor Commerce (C-C) Zone.
B. (ii) Indoor Temperature Controlled Self-Storage facilities shall not be permitted to front a Gateway Corridor Arterial. Indoor Temperature Controlled Self-Storage fronting on secondary streets is discouraged and will only be considered on a case by case basis.
3
C. (iii) Indoor Temperature Controlled Self-Storage facilities are permitted only within multi-story structures that conform to the commercial building type (6.8).
D. (iv) The only activities permitted in individual storage units shall be the rental of the unit and the pickup and deposit of goods and/or property in storage. Storage units shall not be used for activities such as: residences, offices, workshops, studios, retail, hobby or rehearsal areas.
E. (v) Manufacturing, fabrication, or processing of goods, service or repair of vehicles, engines, appliances or other electrical equipment, or any other industrial activity are prohibited.
F. (vi) Storage of flammable, perishable or hazardous materials or the keeping of animals is prohibited.
G. Accessory Uses. Accessory uses such as the sale of boxes or packing materials are permitted only if they are otherwise permitted in the zone in which the facility is located, and shall meet all use and development standards of the zone.
H. (vii) Indoor Temperature Controlled Self-Storage facilities located in commercial zones shall not operate or allow tenant access between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
I. (viii) Outdoor Storage Prohibited. Within the Gateway Corridor Commerce (C-C) Zone, aAll goods and property stored in an indoor self-storage facility shall be stored in an enclosed building. No outdoor storage of boats, RVs, vehicles, etc., or storage in outdoor storage pods or shipping containers in permitted.
J. (ix) All storage units shall gain access from the interior of the building(s) or site.
K. If the facility abuts residentially zoned property, the facility loading bays, docks or doors shall not be visible from the residential property.
L. (x) Loading docks, entrances or bays shall be screened from residential uses and rights-of-way, either through design or high quality and aesthetic screening application (landscaping etc. that meets the required high look for the area) to be impervious to sight in a manner that is consistent with the FBC.
M. (xi) Electrical service to storage units shall be for lighting and temperature control only. No electrical outlets are permitted inside individual storage units. Lighting
4
fixtures and switches shall be of a secure design that will not allow tapping the fixtures for other purposes.
N. (xii) Fences and walls including entry gates shall be constructed of a high quality materials and shall be compatible with the design and materials of the building(s) and site. Decorative metal walls made of precast concrete are preferred. Fences or walls are not allowed between the main or front building on the site and the street. Landscape areas required by the design guidelines or elsewhere in the FBC shall not be fenced.
O. A minimum window are shall be consistent with that called in the FBC of each floor above the ground floor of a self-service storage facility building that is visible from a street or from a residentially zoned area.
P. Materials uses in Climate Controlled Storage facility buildings shall be surfaced in high-quality materials and consistent with the FBC.
Q. Exterior colors, including any internal corridors or doors visible through windows, shall be consistent with the FBC.
R. Elevated truck loading docks shall not be located on building elevations that face streets or abutting residential areas.
S. Cladding Materials. Buildings shall be clad with a mix of durable, low maintenance materials that convey an appearance of quality and consistent with the FBC.
T. Façade Variation. Temperature controlled self-storage shall have exterior vertical surfaces with at least fifty (50) percent of the area covered by a material or combination or materials such as decorative brick veneer, stone, stucco, textured block or similar decorative materials with no one material exceeding fifty (50) percent of said area.
GENERAL FINDINGS
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment Clearfield Land Use Ordinance Section 11-6-3 establishes the following findings the Planning Commission shall make to approve Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments. The findings and staff’s evaluation are outlined below:
Review Consideration Staff Analysis
5
The proposed amendment is not contradictory to the The proposed amendment is in General Plan. The General Plan encourages continual 1) accordance with the General Plan and evaluation and modifications to adopted ordinances Map; or as circumstances require. Increasing housing and a growing population necessitates the construction of self-service storage. Changed conditions make the There is an increased need for this use as the city 2) proposed amendment necessary to continues to grow and add more residents. Although fulfill the purposes of this Title. the need is apparent, Clearfield City has several properties utilized as storage and has more per capita than some adjacent communities.
PUBLIC COMMENT
Public notice was placed in the newspaper on March 1, 2020, on the State of Utah public notice website, and on the City’s website. Although the applicant is requesting the ZTA for a specific property, it would apply to any area where a C-C zone exists and thus no on-site notice or signage was posted. No public comment has been received to date.
CORRESPONDING POLICY PRIORITY (IES)
Improving Clearfield’s Image, Livability and Economy
The proposed ordinance changes align with this priority by requiring this type of storage space in the C-C Zone to have increased development standards while better aligning with similar development standards found in other communities along the Wasatch Front. This change will allow for greater flexibility in the use of self-storage while providing standards that accommodate the needs of the facility and improve the image, livability and economy by encouraging higher quality design, storage within closer proximity of new residential, and provide an additional opportunity to develop or redevelop a few properties in the C-C Zone that are underutilized.
FISCAL IMPACT
None
ALTERNATIVES
The City Council has discretion to modify the proposed ordinance language to include additional standards or fewer standards than proposed.
SCHEDULE / TIME CONSTRAINTS
6
If the City Council chooses to table the item to direct staff to perform research for further information on this item, the item will need to be tabled to a date specific so as to comply with public hearing notice requirements.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS
• Market Demand Analysis
7
CLEARFIELD CITY ORDINANCE 2020-13
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING TITLE 11 OF THE CLEARFIELD CITY CODE
PREAMBLE: This Ordinance amends Title 11, Chapter 19 – Form Based Code of the Clearfield City Code. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CLEARFIELD CITY COUNCIL: Section 1. Enactment: Title 11, Chapter19, Section 3.4, Subsection 1, Paragraph 3, Subparagraph c - Form Based Code, Use Development Standards, Development Standards by Use, Service Uses is hereby enacted to read as follows: Section 3.4.1 Development Standards by Use Category
(3) Service Uses
(c) Indoor Temperature Controlled Self-Storage
(i) Indoor Temperature Controlled Self-Storage facilities shall only be permitted in the Gateway Corridor Commerce (C-C) Zone.
(ii) Indoor Temperature Controlled Self-Storage facilities shall not be permitted to front a Gateway Corridor Arterial. Indoor Temperature Controlled Self-Storage fronting on secondary streets is discouraged and will only be considered on a case by case basis.
(iii) Indoor Temperature Controlled Self-Storage facilities are permitted only within multi-story structures that conform to the commercial building type (6.8).
(iv) The only activities permitted in individual storage units shall be the rental of the unit and the pickup and deposit of goods and/or property in storage. Storage units shall not be used for activities such as: residences, offices, workshops, studios, retail, hobby or rehearsal areas.
(v) Manufacturing, fabrication, or processing of goods, service or repair of vehicles, engines, appliances or other electrical equipment, or any other industrial activity are prohibited.
(vi) Storage of flammable, perishable or hazardous materials or the keeping of animals is prohibited.
(vii) Indoor Temperature Controlled Self-Storage facilities shall not operate or allow tenant access between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
(viii) Outdoor Storage Prohibited. All goods and property stored in an indoor self- storage facility shall be stored in an enclosed building. No outdoor storage of boats, RVs, vehicles, etc., or storage in outdoor storage pods or shipping containers in permitted.
(ix) All storage units shall gain access from the interior of the building(s) or site. If the facility abuts residentially zoned property, the facility loading bays, docks or doors shall not be visible from the residential property.
(x) Loading docks, entrances or bays shall be screened from residential uses and rights-of-way to be impervious to sight in a manner that is consistent with the FBC.
(xi) Electrical service to storage units shall be for lighting and temperature control only. No electrical outlets are permitted inside individual storage units. Lighting fixtures and switches shall be of a secure design that will not allow tapping the fixtures for other purposes.
(xii) Fences and walls including entry gates shall be constructed of a high quality materials and shall be compatible with the design and materials of the building(s) and site. Fences or walls are not allowed between the main or front building on the site and the street. Landscape areas required by the design guidelines or elsewhere in the FBC shall not be fenced.
Section 2. Repealer: Any provision or ordinances that are in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 3. Effective Date: These amendments shall become effective immediately upon passage and posting.
Passed and adopted by the Clearfield City Council this 8th day of September, 2020.
CLEARFIELD CITY CORPORATION
______Mark R. Shepherd, Mayor
ATTEST:
______Nancy R. Dean, City Recorder
VOTE OF THE COUNCIL
AYE:
NAY: