city council meeting agenda august 25, …...invocation, thought or pledge of allegiance: council...

*Please see notes regarding Public Comments rules and procedure

Public meetings will be held electronically in accordance with Utah Code Ann. §§ 52-4-210 et. seq., Open and Public Meetings Act. Pursuant to a written determination by the Mayor/Council finding that conducting the meeting with an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present due to infectious and potentially dangerous nature of COVID-19 virus, public

meetings with be held electronically until further notice. The Council at its discretion may rearrange the order of any item(s) on the agenda. Final action may be taken on any item on the agenda. In

compliance with the American with Disabilities Act, needing special accommodation (including auxiliary communicative aids and service) during the meeting should notify Annette Spendlove, City Recorder at 782-7211 at least 48 hours prior to the meeting. In accordance with State Statute, City Ordinance, and Council Policy, one or more Council Members may be connected via speakerphone or may by two-

thirds vote to go into a closed meeting. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING The undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was posted within the North

Ogden City limits on this 20th day of August, 2020 at North Ogden City Hall, on the City Hall Notice Board, on the Utah State Public Notice Website, at http://www.northogdencity.com, and faxed to the

Standard Examiner. The 2020 meeting schedule was also provided to the Standard Examiner on December 22, 2019 S. Annette Spendlove, MMC, City Recorder

CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA AUGUST 25, 2020 AT 6:00 PM NORTH OGDEN, UT 84414

PUBLIC CAN ATTEND BY:

Click the link to join the webinar: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82620486626 Webinar ID: 82620486626

or Telephone Dial: US: +1 346 248 7799 or +1 669 900 9128 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 301 715 8592 Or Youtube: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCriqbePBxTucXEzRr6fclhQ/videos

Welcome: Mayor Berube

Invocation, Thought or Pledge of Allegiance: Council Member Cevering

CONSENT AGENDA

1. Discussion and/or action to consider, June 23, 2020 City Council meeting minutes

ACTIVE AGENDA

2. Public Comments*

3. Discussion and/or action to consider an agreement for the sale of a portion of the Public Works Property located on Pleasant View Drive Presenter: Jon Call, City Manager/Attorney a. Public Hearing b. Action to consider an agreement for the sale

4. Discussion and/or action to consider an agreement with Rod Barker for the purpose of using City property Presenter: Jon Call, City Manager/Attorney

5. Discussion and/or action to consider an agreement on the Barker Park conservation easement Presenter: Jon Call, City Manager/Attorney

6. Discussion on crosswalk signs on 2000 North Presenter: Jon Call, City Manager/Attorney

7. Discussion on the C.A.R.E.S Act funding Presenter: Evan Nelson, Finance Director

8. Council Reports: a. Council Member Stoker – Police b. Council Member Cevering – Public Works c. Council Member Ekstrom – Parks and Recreation

9. Public Comments*

10. Council/Mayor/Staff Comments

11. Adjournment

http://www.northogdencity.com/

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82620486626

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCriqbePBxTucXEzRr6fclhQ/videos

Public Comments/Questions

a. Time is made available for anyone in the audience to address the Council and/or Mayor concerning matters pertaining to City business.

b. When a member of the audience addresses the Mayor and/or Council, he or she will come to the podium and state his or her name and address.

c. Citizens will be asked to limit their remarks/questions to five (5) minutes each.

d. The Mayor shall have discretion as to who will respond to a comment/question.

e. In all cases the criteria for response will be that comments/questions must be pertinent to City business, that there are no argumentative questions and no personal attacks.

f. Some comments/questions may have to wait for a response until the next Regular Council Meeting.

g. The Mayor will inform a citizen when he or she has used the allotted time.

City Council Meeting Minutes June 23, 2020

Page 1

NORTH OGDEN CITY COUNCIL

MEETING MINUTES

June 23, 2020

The North Ogden City Council convened in a virtual meeting on June 23, 2020 at 6:03 p.m. at

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86465872063 or by Telephone: US: +1 669 900 9128 or +1 253 215

8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 301 715 8592 or

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCriqbePBxTucXEzRr6fclhQ/videos Notice of time, place,

and agenda of the meeting was posted on the bulletin board at the municipal office and posted to

the Utah State Website on June 18, 2020. Notice of the annual meeting schedule was published

in the Standard-Examiner on December 22, 2019.

PRESENT: S. Neal Berube Mayor

Ryan Barker Council Member

Blake Cevering Council Member Excused

Charlotte Ekstrom Council Member

Cheryl Stoker Council Member

Phillip Swanson Council Member

STAFF PRESENT: Jon Call City Manager/Attorney

Joyce Pierson Deputy City Recorder

Brandon Bell Associate Planner

Evan Nelson Finance Director

Tiffany Staheli Parks & Recreation Director

VISITORS: John Arrington Jennifer Hunsaker Stefanie Casey

Jay Dalpias Hyrum Siebers John Hansen

Ryan Forsythe Jack Barrett

Mayor Berube called the meeting to order. Hyrum Siebers offered the thought and led the

audience in the Pledge of Allegiance.

CONSENT AGENDA

1. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION TO CONSIDER MAY 5, 2020 CITY COUNCIL

MEETING MINUTES

Council Member Ekstrom motioned to approve the May 5, 2020 City Council

Meeting Minutes. Council Member Swanson seconded the motion.

Voting on the motion:

1.

https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86465872063

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCriqbePBxTucXEzRr6fclhQ/videos


Page 2

Council Member Barker aye

Council Member Ekstrom aye

Council Member Stoker aye

Council Member Swanson aye

The motion passed unanimously.

ACTIVE AGENDA

2. PUBLIC COMMENTS

John Arrington, 1054 E. 2900 N., offered comments regarding the Pheasant Landing

subdivision project. It is his understanding the developer of the project is requesting that

the City participate in utility infrastructure costs. He stated he lives in the vicinity of the

subject property and he has followed the entire discussion of this project and it is his

opinion the utility costs should be the developers. He is generally in favor of a developer

covering all costs of a project.

Jennifer Hunsaker, 3162 N. 700 E., stated she is the owner of the BeUtahFul Productions,

LLC. She expressed her support for a rental agreement for the Barker Park Amphitheater;

with the impact that the COVID-19 pandemic is having on the event planning realm, she

feels that having an additional outdoor venue for special events will be an asset for the

community. The State of Utah has produced guidelines allowing businesses to account

for contact tracing, social distancing, and contactless services and when these guidelines

are followed it is possible to coordinate a safe outdoor event. The pageant events that her

business conducts are being displaced as they are not permitted at school district

properties until Utah enters the ‘green phase’ of recovery from the pandemic and she

feels that the amphitheater would be an ideal venue for her business and the types of

events it produced. She feels the same would be true for other businesses and events.

Stephanie Casey, 2444 Barker Parkway, used the Zoom chat feature to ask why the City

did not form a committee to discuss and build the amphitheater agreement. Mayor Berube

stated the City Council is operating as the committee for that function. Ms. Casey asked

if the City Council developed the agreement that is being considered tonight. Mayor

Berube stated it was created by City Manager/Attorney Call and the City’s Parks and

Recreation Director, and reviewed by him. He stated it is being brought before the

Council to see if they have concerns or suggested adjustments. Ms. Casey stated that the

public was told the Arts and Amphitheater Committee would build the rental agreement,

but that committee was disbanded and no citizen input has been accepted since. Mr. Call

stated that the Arts and Amphitheater Committee allows for the creation of an Arts Guild;

however, that has not happened yet and he feels that may be the matter that Ms. Casey is

referencing. Mayor Berube added that he welcomes public input and a willingness of the

public to participate in different advisory committees in the City.

1.


Page 3

3. DISCUSSION ON A RENTAL AGREEMENT FOR THE AMPHITHEATER

Parks and Recreation Director Staheli referenced the draft rental agreement for the Barker

Park Amphitheater, which was included in the Council’s meeting packet. She discussed

the highlights of the agreement, such as rental rates, which are much lower – by almost

half than comparable facilities; the application form that she has drafted; amphitheater

regulations included in the City Code; and allowed event sizes and associated insurance

requirements. She noted that the restroom facility at the amphitheater is not fully built

out, so the City would require temporary restroom facilities for events exceeding a certain

number of attendees. She then provided an example of rate calculations for three different

types of events, after which she concluded staff is looking for direction from the Council

regarding appropriate rental guidelines and if/when the Council would like to offer the

facility available for rent.

Council discussion centered on the manner in which staff will monitor the number of

event attendees as a means of enforcing the terms of a rental agreement. Discussion for

the timing of making the facility available for rent centered on the number of days in

advance of an event that a person or group renting the facility must enter into an

agreement and pay a security deposit.

Council Member Barker noted there is only enough parking to accommodate

approximately 500 attendees and he asked how the City will rent the facility for events

with attendance estimated above 500. Ms. Staheli stated that when tickets are sold for an

event, ticket sales are limited to 500. Mayor Berube asked for information about the

differences in attendance restrictions for events where tickets are sold versus non-ticketed

events. Ms. Staheli stated the limitation on numbers for ticketed events are based upon

ordinances that have been put in place by the Council which limit parking to four tickets

per parking stalls. Non-ticketed events are not limited based upon that same ordinance.

Mayor Berube then referenced curfew regulations in the ordinance; non-City events must

conclude by 10:00 p.m., but the City’s own Cherry Days fireworks show lasts until after

10:00 p.m. He wondered why the City would impose regulations upon residents or

private entities that are not being imposed on City events. City Manager/Attorney Call

stated that is a policy decision for the Council and this led to high level philosophical

discussion and debate among the Council regarding existing policies that apply to the

amphitheater. Council Member Swanson stated he is comfortable imposing the 10:00

p.m. curfew on City events, and there were no objections voiced from other Council

Members.

Mayor Berube then noted he has discussed the current sound ordinance with City staff;

and the current ordinance is outdated and it is necessary for staff to work on

comprehensive updates to those regulations. He indicated that Mr. Call has been

dialoguing with a citizen, Sean Casey, who has expertise in that area and once they have

drafted updated language, it will be presented to the Council for consideration.

1.


Page 4

Mayor Berube then facilitated discussion among the Council regarding other appropriate

adjustments to the ordinances regarding insurance requirements; Ms. Staheli noted that

other cities require insurance coverage for any event that will be open to the public, but if

an event will be private, the organizer is not required to secure liability insurance

coverage. Council Member Ekstrom suggested that event organizers be given the ability

to indemnify the City against any liability claim. Mr. Call stated that those types of

waivers are not always legal and binding if legal recourse is pursued following an

accident on City property. Mayor Berube asked that the sponsor of each event held on

City property be well defined and publicized so there is a clear path to who has liability

when it comes to insurance coverage.

Mayor Berube then referenced past discussions about making City facilities available for

any type of event to ensure inclusiveness and fairness; the City has allowed a live nativity

scene at a City facility in the past and residents have indicated this means the City should

require events that recognize other faiths or belief systems. Mr. Call noted that when a

facility is made available for the purpose of artistic expression, it must be made available

for all types of artistic expression. While event organizers cannot violate State public

decency laws, the City cannot regulate matters such as language, art/music genres, and

other forms of expression. Any group/event seeking to use the facility would have the

same protection of the first amendment of the constitution. Holiday displays must

welcome to different faiths and religions. There was brief discussion regarding situations

that have occurred in other jurisdictions that have led to discrimination claims; Mr. Call

noted that he would recommend defaulting to a ‘wide-open’ viewpoint to avoid a

challenge or claim that the City has discriminated against a certain group or individual.

Mayor Berube stated the inclusion is very important to him; he wants to make City

facilities open and accessible while adhering to decency standards enacted by the State of

Utah. The Council agreed and supported Mayor Berube’s statement regarding open City

facilities to all types of groups and individuals so long as each event complies with basic

rules regarding noise, curfew, and maintenance of the facility.

Mayor Berube advised staff to proceed with securing final occupancy approval, drafting

language for an updated noise ordinance, and adjusting the amphitheater rental agreement

according to the feedback provided by staff tonight. Council Member Swanson stated that

he is comfortable approving the rental agreement tonight with a few minor adjustments

relative to insurance requirements and a curfew for events. He wants to proceed with

making the facility available for rent as soon as possible.

Council Member Swanson motioned to approve the rental agreement for the

amphitheater with adjustments relating to insurance for any event that is open to

the public and to impose a curfew according to existing City ordinances. Council

Member Ekstrom seconded the motion.

Council Member Barker asked that the Council have an opportunity to evaluate the

effectiveness of the rental agreement this fall after the facility has been rented for several

events. Mayor Berube stated that he will add this to an agenda this fall.

1.


Page 5







4. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION TO CONSIDER A RESOLUTION AMENDING

THE CONSOLIDATED FEE SCHEDULE

Finance Director Nelson explained staff has performed an annual review of the

Consolidated Fee Schedule and is proposing several amendments, including:

Administration:

o Added “GRAMA” to the fee description for records requests.

o Moved the Annexation fee from Planning to Administration and proposed

an increase.

o Eliminated the fee for audio tapes, since recordings are available for free

online.

Planning:

o The Planning Department performed a thorough review of the staff time

and costs associated with various planning, zoning, and subdivision

applications. An effort has been made to more appropriately allocate the

costs of development to applicants.

Parks:

o A schedule of fees for use of the Amphitheater has been added to the

schedule.

Sewer:

o Central Weber Sewer District has increased their impact fee. The City

collects this fee and forwards it on to the District.

Solid Waste

o The fee for additional blue cans has been eliminated.

City Manager/Attorney Call added that in the near future he will bring an additional

ordinance to the City Council to update civil penalties/citations responsive to updated

regulations that the Council approved last week regarding the timing of issuing citations.

Council Member Barker motioned to approve Resolution 11-2020 amending the

Consolidated Fee Schedule. Council Member Stoker seconded the motion.

1.


Page 6







5. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION TO CONSIDER UTILITIES FOR PHEASANT

LANDING

City Manager/Attorney Call explained that the City has been approached about entering

into a development agreement for the Pheasant Landing subdivision. The agreement

would center around the City participating in the relocation of utilities which are

currently along the western edge of the property and putting them into the road which

will be constructed as part of the subdivision. The total estimated cost for these

improvements are $111,489. The developer has asked the City to cover 30 percent of the

costs which would total $33,446.70. There are some benefits to having the utilities in the

roadway, but the current storm and sewer lines are also operating well and in good repair

so there is not an immediate need to move them, or replace them; therefore, City staff is

not currently recommending the Council enter into this agreement, because it is not a

vital infrastructure need. However, there are sufficient funds available to cover these

additional costs and in the long run it would make line maintenance and replacement

easier on the City. This is a policy consideration and the Council has absolute discretion

on whether or not to participate. He presented the plat map for the Pheasant Landing

subdivision to orient the Council to the location of the current utility infrastructure as

well as the area of the proposed relocation of the utilities.

Mayor Berube inquired as to the recommendation of the City Engineer. City Engineer

Gardner stated that the number of manholes along the west boundary of the subject

property is very low; one will be located at the trailhead access point, which means the

City will have access to it for ongoing maintenance of the infrastructure. The existing

lines along the west property line are in good condition and it is not necessary to relocate

the lines to the roadway. He would recommend approval of the development project with

the present location of the utility lines. Mayor Berube noted that the developer has

indicated that the utility lines are located outside the City’s easement and he inquired as

to legal ramifications of that situation. Mr. Call stated that on the south end of the project,

the storm drain line is located outside the easement; while this is not an ideal situation, it

is acceptable and it is not necessary to relocate the lines based on that fact. Discussion

centered on how the current location of the infrastructure lines impact drainage of the

area and the value of certain lots included in the project area.

1.


Page 7

Mayor Berube invited input from the developer.

John Hansen, 1165 W. 4000 N., Pleasant View, stated that he appreciates the Council’s

consideration of his application and the proposal to share in the costs associated with

relocating the utility lines. The current location essentially bisects a few lots in the project

area and will impact the building envelope capacity for those lots. The retention basin for

the project has been relocated to handle drainage from the lines in their current location,

but he would rather locate it at the lowest part of the property to allow for gravity fed

drainage, but relocation of the lines are necessary. He noted that some people believe that

developers only propose things that benefit them, but that is not the case in this situation;

the proposal he has made will not result in financial savings for him and even with the

cost sharing with the City, he will be spending more than he would if he accepted the

location of the current infrastructure. He then noted the sewer lines were installed in

1979; staff has indicated it is in good shape, but they are old and he can see that they may

need to be accessed in the future for repair or replacement. He stated it would not be ideal

for the lines to be located in backyards of residential properties for this reason. He added

the City has adopted an ordinance indicating that utilities should not be located in rear

yards; rather, they must be located in roadways. Leaving the utilities in the rear yards in

this project would render that area unusable because residents cannot build accessory

buildings or make permanent improvements on property under which the utility lines are

located. He concluded that the amount that he has proposed the City cover is minimal

when considering utility construction costs at present. He also noted he feels that it is not

good planning on the part of the City to allow the utility lines to remain in their present

location.

Mayor Berube then facilitated discussion among the Council regarding their sentiments

about the proposal. There was a focus on the funding source for the City’s contribution to

the project. Mr. Call stated that the funding source identified is the fund balance in the

City’s storm and sewer funds. Mr. Nelson noted the sewer fund has a $1.3 million cash

balance and the storm water fund has a $683,000 cash balance.

Council Member Barker asked if the City’s Public Works Director shares the same

opinion as City Engineer Gardner. Mr. Gardner stated that he has discussed this matter

with Public Works Director Espinoza and he has indicated he is comfortable leaving the

lines in their present location; the City has maintained the lines over the years and they

are in good working order.

Council Member Swanson asked if the fact that the lines are located outside the City’s

existing easement creates any liability for the City. Mr. Call answered no; the City has

essentially acquired the line due to boundary by acquiescence laws and any person

buying the properties will do so with the knowledge that City utility lines are located in

their rear yard. Mr. Gardner stated that a new easement will be recorded along with the

plat for this project to inform property owners of the areas of their property that are

impacted. Mayor Berube agreed with the developer that the presence of the utility lines in

1.


Page 8

the rear yard will reduce the value of the lots. Council Member Swanson asked if the City

would be responsible to repair damage to a private property if the sewer line in a rear

yard were to break. Mr. Call answered yes. Council Member Swanson stated that for that

reason he is in favor of entering into a cost sharing agreement with the developer as he

believes the City would pay as much – if not more – than the proposed cost if the sewer

line is left in its present location and breaks in the future, causing damage to private

property. Council Member Ekstrom agreed; she is supportive of moving the lines to

where they should be located in the roadway. She is not opposed to negotiating the cost

sharing arrangement with the developer. Council Member Stoker agreed and proposed

negotiating away from the proposed 70/30 split of costs.

Council Member Swanson motioned to approve an 85/15 split for utilities for

Pheasant Landing. Council Member Ekstrom seconded the motion.







Mayor Berube stated that Administration will present Council’s authorization of an 85/15

split of costs to relocate utility lines to the roadway to Mr. Hansen for his consideration.

6. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION TO CONSIDER THE PROPOSED BUILDING

ELEVATION FOR A 7-ELEVEN IN THE VILLAGE AT PROMINENCE POINT

PROJECT LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 1700 NORTH AND

WASHINGTON BLVD

Associate Planner Bell presented and reviewed his staff memo.

BACKGROUND. An application was received to consider approval of a 7-Eleven

convenience store at the northwest corner of 1700 North and Washington Boulevard,

with several elevations being viewed by the Planning Commission at the January 8th,

April 1st and May 20th Planning Commission meetings. In the process of meeting with

the Planning Commission, the applicant made adjustments to the proposed elevation and

added a proposed monument sign. The currently proposed elevation is based on

discussion with the Planning Commission.

1.


Page 9

The land use authority for commercial site plans in the MPC-VPP zone is the City

Council with a recommendation from the Planning Commission. An amendment to the

development agreement states as follows:

“The City Council shall approve all setbacks, lot coverages, building

orientations, and all other site development standards for commercial site plans

after a review and recommendation by the Planning Commission. Variations from

the MPC standard zoning are to be limited, and designed to enhance the goals of

the MPC zone.”

A companion subdivision application has yet to be received. Additionally, it should be

noted that this is not a full site plan review due to the lack of a landscape plan, etc. An

amendment to the Village at Prominence Point added gas stations as an allowed use. Per

the development agreement (and as a legislative item), however, the City Council has full

discretion regarding approval or denial of building elevations; this applies regardless of

whether an approved use is proposed.

Given, however, this potential use of a gas station and convenience store, it also needs to

be mentioned that the number of apartments agreed to in the development agreement was

based on the uses along Washington Boulevard sharing parking with the apartments to

meet the parking requirements for those apartments. Given that a car wash has been built

along Washington Boulevard, and a convenience store is being proposed, if approved, it

is very unlikely that these uses would share parking with the apartments.

If this gas station and convenience store is approved, Staff anticipates that the number of

apartment units would need to be reduced to reflect that parking stalls from this use are

not being shared to meet the parking requirements of the apartments. There has already

been a reduction in apartments proposed to accommodate the increased number of

townhomes on the site, so staff is hoping this ends up not being an issue, but wants to

make sure everybody involved is aware of this (see Exhibit H; a signed statement from

the property owner regarding parking).

The relevant portion of the development agreement states that the building in this area of

the development needs to be a prominent ‘gateway building’ (see Exhibit B for the

development agreement, and Exhibit C for the drawing illustrating an illustration of a

potential ‘gateway’ building from the development agreement).

The applicant has submitted an elevation design with a clock tower on the southeast

portion of the building with a ‘garden wall’ extending from the building, and running

along Washington Boulevard (see Exhibit D for a site plan drawing, and Exhibit E for the

building elevation). The applicant has also added a monument sign to the proposal (see

Exhibit F).

The primary question before the Council is whether this building meets the conditions of

the development agreement, particularly whether this building qualifies as a gateway

building or not. If the Council determines that the building does qualify as a gateway

1.


Page 10

building the details later in this report, are relevant. If the Council decides the building

does not qualify as a gateway building, then the later details are moot.

Associate Planner Bell continued to summarize his staff memo, including a review of

issues in the Development Agreement.

The memo concluded the City Council should determine whether or not this proposal is a

gateway building. If it is determined by the Council that this building qualifies as a

gateway building, the Council should consider the Planning Commission

recommendations regarding design.

The City Council should evaluate the issues in regard to compatibility with the

development agreement and the General Plan to determine if the building design is

acceptable. The City Council has the options of denying the application, approving it,

approving the application with conditions, or to approve the application, while delegating

the remaining details of, or adjustments to, the site plan to be reviewed and considered by

the Planning Commission.

Mr. Bell reviewed his memo and facilitated discussion among the Council regarding

historical amendments to the development agreement for the Village at Prominence Point

Project and allowed land uses in the project area. There was a focus on site plans that

have been presented in the past that have included a gas station on the site and whether

that type of use can meet the definition of a ‘gateway building’. Council Member

Swanson stated that while the elevations that have been designed for this proposed

project are very nice, he does not feel it can be defined as a ‘gateway building’, which

was a requirement included in the development agreement that was agreed upon by the

original developer, Jack Barrett, and the City Council. Deviation from the terms of that

agreement should not be considered as those are the terms that the Council relied upon in

order to grant approval for the Master Planned Community (MPC) project in this area of

the City. He stated he feels the proposal does not align with the historical negotiations of

the development agreement. Council Member Stoker agreed; a significant amount of time

and effort was spent negotiating the agreement, but it seems as if Mr. Barrett has sought

to secure amendments to that agreement at every opportunity. The project has

dramatically changed and that is frustrating. She agrees that the current design does not

conform with the idea of a ‘gateway building’ that was discussed at the time the

development agreement was discussed.

Mayor Berube agreed that the terms ‘gateway building’ and ‘gas station’ are not one in

the same; it would be difficult for a developer to build a true gateway building, but

operate it as a gas station and turn a profit. Council Member Ekstrom agreed.

Mayor Berube then facilitated discussion among the Council regarding opportunities for

securing a ‘gateway building’ type of development on the site. He referenced the car

wash use located north of the subject property and indicated that was not envisioned in

the original development agreement, but was likely approved because the types of uses

1.


Page 11

that were envisioned never came to fruition. He wondered if there will be a market for a

use that would typically occupy a ‘gateway building’. He noted that the applicant for the

7-Eleven business has been working with the City for seven to eight months on this

project and that fact can send the message to the development community that it is

difficult to develop in North Ogden. Council Member Swanson stated that the terms of

the agreement were negotiated in good faith and it should not be the City’s problem to

ensure that the developer can build something on the site that meets the terms of the

agreement while turning a profit; that should have been a matter that was discussed or

negotiated by the developer at the time he was seeking to secure this agreement. The

developer understood what the City envisioned when placing the term ‘gateway building’

in the agreement.

Council Member Barker stated he understands the frustration that Council Members

Swanson and Stoker share relative to deviations from the originally development

agreement that they were party to negotiating; however, he was a member of the Council

last year when the applicant for the 7-Eleven project came to the body and asked if they

would consider this proposed use. The Council and Planning Commission, in a joint

meeting, told him that if he adjusted the design of the building, they may consider it as

meeting the definition of a gateway building. He stated that the applicant has done what

he was told and now, a year later, the Council is telling him that they no longer want it.

This is the reason that developers have a concern about the difficulty in pursing

development projects in North Ogden. Council Member Swanson disagreed; the Council

offered suggestions for the types of design elements that may make the building a

‘gateway building’; however, they in no way said that if the applicant did certain things,

he would get approval of the project as a ‘gateway building’. The Council simply

consented to considering an application, but he does not believe the current proposal can

be defined as a ‘gateway building’. Council Member Stoker added that she was not in

favor of the idea of a 7-Eleven on the corner property at the time it was initially

presented. Mayor Berube stated that this discussion is helpful, but the Planning

Commission has defined the current application as a ‘gateway building’ and that can

create frustration for applicants. Council Member Swanson stated that he has watched the

Planning Commission’s deliberations regarding this project and it is his opinion that the

Planning Commission was trying to get this building as close to a ‘gateway building’ as it

could be; however, they had the understanding that the applicant would likely not be

willing to spend the money it would take to make this project a ‘gateway building’.

Several comments were made that the building is a really nice convenience store, but

they never said it was definitely a ‘gateway building’. Mayor Berube agreed, but noted

that the Planning Commission has provided a unanimous recommendation of approval of

the 7-Eleven project in the Village at Prominence Point project, based upon certain

conditions.

Mayor Berube then invited input from the applicant.

Ryan Forsythe stated that he appreciates the discussion, but he is taken off guard by its

direction. He has spent a great deal of money on design of this project responsive to the

1.


Page 12

feedback he received from the Council and Planning Commission last year. He stated that

the renderings included in the development agreement are hand drawn and are not

realistic given the constrictions of the site, such as preservation of the sight triangle,

setbacks, and allowing for walkability. He emphasized that the renderings are not

representative of the type of project that could even be constructed on the site while

complying with City development ordinances. A ‘gateway building’ that the Council is

envisioned would not even be allowed; however, he has spent a great deal of time and

effort trying to develop a proposal that will work on the site while meeting the definition

of ‘gateway building’. His site plan is tailored to the actual conditions on the property;

the agreement negotiated by the original developer are not realistic regardless of the

expectations of the City Council at the time of its negotiation. He understood that

pursuing this project would be difficult, but he has done his best to be responsive to

feedback from staff and the Planning Commission while meeting requirements imposed

by North Ogden City and even the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) given the

properties frontage onto a State road. He stated that the development climate changes all

the time and it may not be realistic for the City to rely upon certain terms that were

negotiated nearly a decade ago. He stated that the original developer, Jack Barrett, is also

present and he hoped the Council would accept input from him.

Mr. Barrett discussed the history of negotiations of the Village at Prominence Point

project; he feels a huge responsibility to develop the site appropriately and he would love

to see a ‘gateway building’ on the site. However, that concept is no longer realistic given

the current commercial development market. The City wanted big retail on the site, but

the retail market is not the same as it was when this agreement was developed or even as

it was just six-months ago. He is sensitive to the Council’s desire for this area of the

community, but it is not realistic or possible in the current market and climate. He

believes the Council needs to listen to what the development community is telling them;

Mr. Forsythe is an experienced and knowledgeable developer and he has done an

amazing job at securing a high-quality design for the proposed 7-Eleven convenience

store. He feels that the Council is being resistant to the current design simply because it

does not entirely conform with the Council’s original ideas for a ‘gateway building’.

Mayor Berube stated that he and Mr. Call have met with Mr. Barrett at this site. He

understands the concerns of the community that a certain project was sold to them, but

something entirely different is being developed. This is a problem the City is facing, but

he understands the Council’s desire to preserve certain requirements of the development

agreement.

Council Member Swanson stated that when any party enters into a contract, they do so

without an understanding of what the future will hold; things change and that is a risk,

but the Council has already approved numerous changes to the project as a result. He

stated that retail and other commercial users may not be actively moving right now, but

that will not be the case forever as there are currently many unknown factors associated

with the COVID-19 pandemic.

1.


Page 13

Council Member Swanson motioned to deny proposed building elevation for a 7-

Eleven in the Village at Prominence Point project located at the northwest corner of

1700 North and Washington Blvd. Council Member Stoker seconded the motion.


Council Member Barker nay




The motion passed 3-1.

Mayor Berube thanked Mr. Forsythe for all he has done in an effort to respond to the

directives of the City’s Planning Commission and Council. He hopes this discussion will

open the door for the possibility of considering adjustments to development requirements

to make the type of project the Council has envisioned a possibility on the subject

property.

7. DISCUSSION ON AMENDMENTS TO FISCAL YEAR 2020 BUDGET

AMENDMENTS

Finance Director Nelson stated staff has proposed several amendments to the City Budget

for Fiscal Year 2020 as follows:

Employee Education Assistance – Expenses in this account exceeded budget

due to the timing of approved tuition reimbursement requests. Sales tax revenue is

proposed to cover the $4,600 increase.

Cherry Days – Expenditure and revenue budgets are proposed to be eliminated

due to the cancellation of the Cherry Days celebration. A corresponding decrease

in sales tax revenue is also proposed.

CARES Grant – The City has received a first disbursement of CARES grant

funding. It is anticipated that the City will expend a small portion of this funding

in the current fiscal year. The remaining amount, along with possible future

disbursements, will be budgeted next fiscal year.

Amphitheater Curtains – The purchase of amphitheater curtains was delayed,

due to COVID. It is proposed that the remaining Amphitheater budget be

eliminated in the current fiscal year and be rolled into the next fiscal year.

400/450 East Rentals – Management and maintenance expenses related to the

rental homes on 400/450 East were higher than anticipated. This amendment

increases the budget to cover those expenses using excess rental revenue.

New Solid Waste Employees – Two new positions were added to the Solid

Waste Department effective June 1, 2020 in preparation for moving garbage

collection services in-house.

1.


Page 14

Three New Garbage Trucks – As discussed, the City has purchased three

garbage trucks to be able to begin garbage collection in July.

a. Public Hearing to receive comments on an Ordinance amending Fiscal Year

2020 Budget Amendments.

Mayor Berube opened the public hearing at 9:00 p.m. There were no persons

appearing to be heard.

Council Member Stoker motioned to close the public hearing. Council Member

Swanson seconded the motion.







The public hearing was closed at 9:03 p.m.

b. Discussion and/or action to consider an Ordinance amending Fiscal Year

2020 Budget.

Council Member Ekstrom motioned to approve Ordinance 2020-14 amending Fiscal

Year 2020 Budget. Council Member Stoker seconded the motion.







8. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ON THE FRAUD RISK ASSESSMENT

Finance Director Nelson explained the State Auditor's Office has implemented a new

Fraud Risk Assessment Program. Local governments are now required to perform an

assessment each fiscal year utilizing a scoring matrix created by the Auditor's Office.

1.


Page 15

This assessment is a requirement in addition to the review performed during the annual

audit. In order to meet the requirements for Fiscal Year 2020, City staff have performed

the audit and identified areas for improvement. With some minor procedural adjustments

recently implemented, the City received a score of 280, which translates to the

“Moderate" risk category. Staff will work during the coming year to review policies and

procedures and make recommendations for improvement to the City Council. Some areas

for improvement include:

Review and update policies as outlined in the assessment.

Create a code of ethics and establish a requirement for employees and elected

officials to annually commit to living by the code.

Ensure that all Council members receive the training provided by the State

Auditor's Office.

Create and promote a fraud hotline.

Establish a formal audit committee.

Consider creating a formal internal audit function.

Evaluate internal controls and separation of duties to better align with guidelines

and reduce reliance on mitigating controls.

Mayor Berube stated he is supportive of the recommendations of staff as summarized by

Mr. Nelson and he asked Council Member Swanson to select a few Council Members to

work with Mr. Nelson on evaluating the options for implementing the recommendations.

9. DISCUSSION ON THE EMPLOYEE SURVEY RESULTS

Mayor Berube stated he feels it is important for he and the Council, as well as City

Administration, to know the state of the team of employees in North Ogden City. He

conducted a survey shortly after being sworn in as Mayor to find out how employees feel

about various things. He and City Manager/Attorney Call presented the survey questions

that were asked and noted employees were given the ability to respond and give their

sentiments about the City. Overall, the City has a very good ‘net promoter’ score, but

there was a large variance between different Departments in the City. Some Departments

have high scores, but some have lower scores and it is necessary for those Departments to

evaluate the reason for the low scores and determine the best way to respond. Mayor

Berube stated that employees were given the ability to provide anonymous comments

about their employment experience with the City, but he has not shared that with Mr. Call

or other Department Heads; he feels the leadership of the City has done a great job, but

there are some opportunities for improvement. The survey results will give

Administration a good starting point for addressing certain weaknesses in the City and he

will conduct similar surveys in the future to determine what progress is being made.

Council Member Ekstrom stated she was sad to see that such a high number of City

employees do not feel their work is appreciated and she would be happy to work on

measures that will help employees to feel differently or to be recognized for their work.

1.


Page 16

Mayor Berube stated he feels City leaders are working to recognize employees, but other

types of recognition measures may be more impactful. He will continue to support City

Department Heads and other leaders to explore other ways to recognize employees and

the service they provide to the community.

10. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION TO CONSIDER AN AGREEMENT FOR A

MEETING MINUTE SPECIALIST WITH D&Z

City Manager/Attorney Call reported D&Z was selected as the transcriber for the City

Council Minutes. D&Z has been the City’s minute transcriber for several years and the

selection committee felt that their experience with us was valuable; this is the first time in

7 years that their pricing has increased and it is minimal. D&Z has been transcribing all

of our meeting minutes, but in this new agreement they will only be doing City Council.

The proposed agreement is for (1) one-year term and may be renewed for up to (4)

additional annual (1) one-year terms.

Council Member Ekstrom motioned to approve Agreement A11-2020 for a meeting

minute specialist with D&Z. Council Member Barker seconded the motion.







11. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION TO CONSIDER AN AGREEMENT FOR A

MEETING MINUTE SPECIALIST WITH CHRISTINA JONES MCBRIDE

City Manager/Attorney Call reported Christina Jones McBride was the other person

selected to transcribe the Planning Commission, General Steering Plan Committee,

Economic Development Committee, and Public Safety Building Committee meeting

minutes. Ms. McBride used to work for North Ogden City in the administration

department and does have some experience with minutes. Her pricing was reasonable and

the committee felt it appropriate to be conscientious of the cost. The proposed agreement

is for (1) one-year term and may be renewed for up to (4) additional annual (1) one-year

terms. He noted the pricing for this service is different than for the contractor considered

under the previous agenda item; Ms. McBride has proposed to charge an hourly rate for

her services, whereas D&Z proposed a flat fee regardless of the length of a meeting.

1.


Page 17

Council Member Ekstrom motioned to approve Agreement A12-2020 for a meeting

minute specialist with Christina Jones McBride. Council Member Barker seconded

the motion.







12. DISCUSSION AND/OR ACTION ON COMBINING C.A.R.E.S. ACT FUNDING

WITH THE WEBER COUNTY MONEY TO STREAMLINE PROCESS FOR

GRANT APPROVALS AND FUNDING

City Manager/Attorney Call provided an overview of the restrictions that have been

placed on the use of C.A.R.E.S. Act funding in local municipalities; the City will have

$54,000 to use in responding to COVID internally as a City and the remainder of the

funding will be used for supporting businesses that have been directly impacted by the

pandemic. Applicants can submit for grant funding in July, with funding to be allocated

at the end of the month. Receiving this federal grant will require the City to undergo a

single audit. All funding awards will be based upon the terms of an interlocal agreement

with Weber County that is still in the negotiation phase.

Finance Director Nelson stated that if it is possible to assign management of the funding

to Weber County, the City may not be required to perform a single audit, which can be

costly for the City. He will have more information regarding that matter as negotiation of

the interlocal agreement with Weber County proceeds.

Council Member Swanson stated he is reluctant to assign the authority to oversee the

grants directly to Weber County because he is concerned that businesses located in North

Ogden City may not be given fair consideration for C.A.R.E.S. funding. Mayor Berube

agreed; it is his understanding that if the City does not use the funding allocated to North

Ogden, it will be returned to the State of Utah, rather than the County. He would like to

know that funding decisions made by the County will have a direct correlation to city

sizes throughout the County. He noted North Ogden is the third largest City in the County

and should receive funding representative of that. Mr. Call stated that the City has 680

businesses on the Weber County business listing and if the allocation given to the City is

divided between that number of businesses, each business would be getting more money

than the average amount that is being distributed by Weber County. Mayor Berube stated

there are several other factors for the City to consider in regard to management of

C.A.R.E.. Act funding, but combining with Weber County will provide for streamlining

the grant process. He suggested that Council Members Swanson serve as representation

1.


Page 18

of the City relative to the grant program. He asked if other Council Members are

interested in working in that role. Council Members Barker and Ekstrom both expressed

their willingness to serve in that role.

Council Member Swanson motioned to approve combining C.A.R.E.S. Act Funding

with the Weber County money to streamline process for grant approvals and

funding, with retention of the 10% of the funding for City needs, as discussed.

Council Member Ekstrom seconded the motion.







13. PUBLIC COMMENTS

Jay Dalpias, 734 E. 2700 N., commented on the employee survey; he is concerned that

City employees do not recognize the value of the benefits they receive. At least 50

percent of the employees who responded to the survey were either neutral or a detractor

as far as being satisfied with their benefit package. He stated employee health care is

reasonably priced and employees have access to 401(k) contributions. He stated

employees do not truly understand how great they have it.

John Arrington, 1054 E. 2900 N., referenced item five and stated it was a good decision

to reduce the contribution to the project when compared to the applicant’s proposal. He

was surprised there was no recommendation from the Planning Commission; he listened

to the meeting where they discussed the project and they recommended support for

option two, which eliminated the concern of the old utility lines. He stated he feels the

Council has gone along with what the Planning Commission recommended.

14. COUNCIL/MAYOR/STAFF COMMENTS

Council Members briefly discussed their desire for future agenda items. Individual

members also commented on things that have occurred in the City recently that have been

brought to their attention by public or City staff. They voiced their support for City

employees – specifically those in the public safety realm. Mayor Berube stated that he

feels all Department Heads and their employees are very dedicated and want to do what

is right for the City and the residents. Council Member Swanson added he is grateful to

1.


Page 19

serve with his fellow Council Members and the Mayor; each of them have the best

interest of the City in mind and he is grateful for the leadership that the City currently

enjoys. Council Member Ekstrom echoed Council Member Swanson’s comments. She

also responded to Mr. Dalpias’s comments and agreed that the employees do have a great

benefit package; namely the defined contribution fund managed by the State of Utah is a

rare benefit that many private sector employees do not enjoy.

Mayor Berube then reported the City will be enforcing ordinances that regulate

construction activities in the City; this is responsive to the recent public feedback the City

has received regarding several construction project issues. He added the City has also

received several requests for centralized recycling in the City and Administration is

working with Public Works Director Espinoza to explore opportunities for providing that

service.

Mr. Call reported it is necessary to advertise a meeting location for the upcoming Truth in

Taxation hearing; options include City Hall, the Senior Center, or a City Park. It may be

hard to observe social distancing guidelines in City Hall and he asked the Council to

determine where the meeting should be held. The Council briefly discussed the matter

and supported holding the meeting at the Senior Center if it is possible to ensure social

distancing opportunities and access to electronic tools needed to conduct and record the

meeting.

15. ADJOURNMENT

Council Member Stoker motioned to adjourn the meeting. Council Member

Ekstrom seconded the motion.







The meeting adjourned at 10:24 p.m.

1.


Page 20

_____________________________

S. Neal Berube, Mayor

_____________________________

S. Annette Spendlove, MMC

City Recorder

_____________________________

Date Approved

1.

NORTH OGDEN CITY

STAFF REPORT

TO: City Council

FROM: Jonathan Call, North Ogden City Manager

DATE: 8/18/2020

RE: Sale of .12 acres of property from Old Public Works Site

We are talking about selling .12 acres of property off the old public works property site. This

property is located at 346 E. Pleasant View Drive. The Council has to hold a public hearing to

declare this portion of the property as surplus. This image is seen below.

The offered price for this property is $19,500 and includes a cross access easement so that at a

future point the City will be allowed to utilize the same access point for a parking lot should the

old public work site redevelop.

The Council should review the information and determine if selling the property is in the best

interest of the City.

3.

AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF REAL PROPERTY

A_____________

THIS AGREEMENT, for the Purchase and Sale of Real Property and Title Instructions

(Hereinafter referred to as "Agreement to Purchase") is made and entered into this _____ day of

______________, 2020, by and between North Ogden City Municipal Corporation (hereinafter

referred to as "SELLER"), and _______________________ (hereinafter referred to as

"BUYER"),

R E C I T A L S

(1) The BUYER desires to acquire the real property owned by SELLER more particularly

described herein.

(2) The SELLER and BUYER have agreed the property will be sold to the BUYER on the terms

and conditions herein contained.

NOW, THEREFORE, BUYER AND SELLER mutually agree as follows:

Section (1): Sale of Property. SELLER agrees to sell, transfer and convey, and the BUYER

agrees to purchase, subject to the terms and conditions herein contained, the real property

described as __________________________________________________________ North

Ogden, Weber County, Utah as identified on Exhibit A. Hereinafter referred to collectively as

the "Property," for the total price set forth in Section 2 below.

Section (2): Terms and Conditions of Sale.

(a) Purchase Price. The total purchase price for the Property to be purchased by the

BUYER shall be Nineteen Thousand Five Hundred ($19,500).

(b) Payment. The purchase price shall be paid at closing.

(c) Survey. All survey and boundary adjustment costs shall be paid by the BUYER.

(d) Parking Easement. The parties shall execute a cross access easement for ingress and

egress across the Property.

Section (3): Condition of Title. Upon execution of this agreement SELLER shall, by warranty

deed in the form attached hereto, convey to the BUYER marketable fee simple title to the

Property subject to any easements, rights of way, or other restrictions of record.

Section (4): Possession. The SELLER shall deliver possession of the Property to the BUYER at

closing.

Section (5): Title and Closing.

3.

(b) Escrow shall be opened by delivering a copy of this Agreement to the Title Company

not later than ten (10) days after such Agreement has been signed by both parties. The

provisions of this Agreement shall constitute the Title Instructions.

(c) Closing shall take place in a mutually convenient location for all parties, the deed and

other documents, duly executed by the respective parties.

.

(1) By SELLER. SELLER shall deliver a warranty deed to the Title Company,

fully executed in such form as to qualify for recording.

(2) By BUYER. The BUYER shall deliver to the Title Company all monies owed

to complete the transaction in a form acceptable to the Title Company.

(3) Closing.

(A) The Title Company is authorized and directed to use, disburse, deliver and record all

such documents and funds at such time as the Title Company can procure.

(B) Title Company is instructed to pay all liens and encumbrances of record against the

Property on statement of the holder, or holder’s representative, and to issue net proceeds

to SELLER, less the costs to be paid by SELLER as specified in (c) below.

(C) Taxes and Closing costs shall be paid by the parties as follows:

(1) Taxes. The SELLER is responsible for delinquent real property taxes; BUYER

is responsible for any taxes from the date of closing.

(2) Other Charges and Expenses.

(i) Recording Fees

(ii) Title Fees

The BUYER shall pay all (100%) closing costs and charges, including items (I) and (ii)

above.

Section (6): Notice. Any notice, demand, request, consent, approval, or other communication that

either party desires or is required to give to the other party or any other person shall be in writing

and either served personally or sent by prepaid, first-class, certified or registered mail at the

addresses set forth below. Either party may change its address by notifying the other party of its

change of address in writing. Notice shall be deemed to have been duly made and given when

delivered if served personally, or upon the expiration of twenty-four (24) hours after the time of

mailing if mailed as provided in this section.

SELLER: North Ogden City Recorder, 505 E. 2600 N. North Ogden, UT 84414

3.

BUYER: _____________________ ______________________ ______________________

TITLE COMPANY: Mountain View Title Company, 2120 N. Washington Blvd. North Ogden,

UT 84414

Section (7): Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement.

Section (8): Miscellaneous Provisions.

(a) Terminology. Whenever herein the singular number is used, the same shall include

the plural, and the masculine gender shall include the feminine and neuter genders.

(b) Non-waiver. No delay or omission of the right to exercise any power by either party

shall impair any such right or power, or be construed as a waiver of any default or as acquiescent

therein. One or more waivers of any covenant, term or condition of this Agreement by either

party shall not be construed by the other party as a waiver of subsequent breach of the same

covenant, term or condition. The consent or approval by either party to any act by the other party

of a nature requiring consent or approval shall not be deemed to waive or render unnecessary

consent to or approval of any subsequent similar act.

(c) Laws Applicable. The laws of the Utah shall govern the construction, validity,

performance and enforcement of this agreement. Venue as to any action, claim, or proceeding

arising out of, or based upon this Agreement, including, but not limited to, any action for

declaratory or injunctive relief, shall be the appropriate court sitting in the County of Weber,

State of Utah.

(d) Paragraph Headings. The headings of several sections and subsections contained

herein are for convenience only and do not define, limit or construe the contents of such sections

and subsections.

(e) Successors and Assigns. Except as otherwise provided herein, the covenants,

agreements and obligations herein contained shall extend to bind and inure to the benefit not

only of the parties hereto but their respective personal representatives, heirs, successors and

assigns.

(f) Terms Constructed as Covenants and Conditions. Every term and each provision of

this Agreement performable by the SELLER or BUYER shall be construed to be both a covenant

and a condition.

(g) Entire Agreement. This Agreement and any schedules, or exhibits attached hereto, set

forth all the covenants, promises, agreements, conditions or understandings, either oral or

written, and there are no other agreements between them other than as set forth. No

contemporaneous or subsequent Agreement, understanding, alteration, amendment, change or

addition to this Agreement, or any schedule, appendix, exhibit or attachment hereto, shall be

binding upon the parties hereto unless reduced to writing and signed by both parties.

3.

WHEREFORE, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the dates specified

below.

SELLER: North Ogden City Municipal Corporation DATE: _______

Signed: _____________________________

Its: _________________________________

BUYER: _____________________________ DATE: _______

Signed: ____________________________

Its: _______________________________

STATE OF UTAH )

: ss.

COUNTY OF WEBER )

On this _____ day of ______________, 2020, personally appeared before me the

undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Utah, S. Neal Berube, signer of the foregoing

instrument, and acknowledged he executed the same. Witness my hand and official seal.

NOTARY PUBLIC

STATE OF UTAH )

: ss.

COUNTY OF WEBER )

On this _____ day of ______________, 2020, personally appeared before me the

undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Utah, ______________________, signer of the

foregoing instrument, and acknowledged she executed the same. Witness my hand and official

seal.

NOTARY PUBLIC

3.

NORTH OGDEN CITY

STAFF REPORT

TO: City Council


DATE: 8/18/2020

RE: Barker Garden Agreement

Over the past several months the Council has been discussing the possibility of continuing the

permission for the continued use of some property the City owns off Barker Parkway to allow for

the Rod and Melanie Barker family to continue to maintain their garden.

The attached agreement allows for the Barkers to maintain their garden as long as Rod or

Melanie resides in the home. In my discussion with the Barkers it was brought up the possibility

of one of their kids purchasing the property and possibly wanting to continue the garden at that

time. The Council will need to discuss this along with any other provisions to determine which

path they would like to go down.

Staff recommends the Council review the Agreement and be prepared with questions for staff

and the Barkers.

4.

of 6 Barker Garden Agreement

AGREEMENT _____________

AGREEMENT FOR MAINTENANCE OF GARDEN

This Agreement for Maintenance of a Garden (hereinafter “Agreement”) is entered into

by and between North Ogden City (the “City”), and Rod and Melanie Barker (the “Barkers”).

The City and the Barkers are sometimes referred to individually as a “Party” and collectively as

the “Parties”. This Agreement will be approved by the City and the Barkers.

Recitals

WHEREAS, The City, owns a parcel of land (“Parcel”), tax number 17-259-0002,

which borders the property owned by the Barkers (17-259-0001); and

WHEREAS, The Barkers desire to utilize a portion of the Parcel where they have

historically had a family garden with permission of the City; and

WHEREAS, the City desires to formalize the permission to utilize the property as well

as establish the conditions upon which the permission will end; and

WHEREAS, it will be to the advantage of The City and the Barkers to enter into this

Agreement.

NOW THEREFORE, The City and the Barkers agree as follows:

Terms of Understanding

1. Incorporation of Recitals. Each of the recitals set forth above are hereby

incorporated into this Agreement by this reference, and are made a part hereof.

2. Obligations of the City. As consideration hereof, the Barkers and The City

mutually agree as follows:

a. The City agrees to allow for the installation of certain improvements

associated with a private garden, including sprinklers, landscaping, plants

and other similar items.

b. The City shall allow for the continued use of the property as a private

garden until such time as Rod and Melanie Barker no longer occupy the

home on parcel 17-259-0001.

c. The City shall not terminate this Agreement for any reason unless the

Barkers fail to maintain the property in a condition similar to the current

condition. (See attached Photos).

d. The City may terminate this agreement at any time upon 6 months notice

after the home is no longer occupied by Rod or Melanie Barker.

4.


3. Obligations of Barkers.

a. The Barkers shall maintain the portion of the Parcel south of the hollow

free of noxious weeds, but allow for natural growth in areas not regularly

mowed and irrigated.

b. This Agreement is only for that portion of the Parcel which is south of the

hollow.

c. The City shall not install any permanent improvements or structures

except for irrigation systems, which are not currently existing on the

Parcel.

d. The City has no ownership rights in the installed improvements.

e. The Barkers agree that they are being given permission to use the City’s

property. Because this permission is not the grant of an easement but is

intended to provide the appropriate written permission for the utilization

of the Parcel.

f. The Barkers agree that the City is not required to reimburse the Barkers

for any expenses associated with the maintenance of the Parcel.

g. The Barkers may at any time provide the City with 12 months notice of an

intent to terminate their use of the Parcel to allow for City maintenance of

the Parcel.

4. Amendments and Waivers. This Agreement may not be modified, amended or

terminated except by an instrument in writing, signed by each of the Parties

affected thereby. No failure to exercise and no delay in exercising any right,

remedy or power under this Agreement shall operate as a waiver thereof, nor shall

any single or partial exercise of any right, remedy or power under this Agreement

preclude any other or further exercise thereof, or the exercise of any other right,

remedy or power provided herein or by law or in equity.

5. Drafting and Voluntary Execution. The drafting and negotiation of this

Agreement have been participated in by all of the Parties hereto, and for all

purposes this Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted jointly by all such

Parties. The Parties acknowledge that they have been represented by legal

counsel of their choice in all matters connected with the negotiation and

preparation of this Agreement, or that they have had the opportunity to be

represented by counsel, and that they have reviewed this Agreement with their

counsel, or that they have had the opportunity to review this Agreement with their

counsel, and that they fully understand the terms of this Agreement and the

consequences thereof. Furthermore, the Parties hereto have been afforded the

opportunity to negotiate as to all terms of this Agreement, and that they are

executing this Agreement voluntarily and free of any undue influence, duress, or

4.


coercion. The Parties hereto further acknowledge that they have relied on their

own judgment, belief, knowledge, and advice from their affiliates and agents, as

well as any other representative or consultant, as to the extent and effect of the

terms and conditions contained herein without any reliance upon any statement or

representation of any other party or any officer, director, employee, agent,

servant, adjustor, or attorney on acting on behalf of the other party. Moreover, the

headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and shall not be interpreted

to limit or affect in any way the meaning of the language contained herein.

6. Entire Agreement. The complete understanding of the parties is contained herein.

No other Agreements, covenants, representations or warranties, express or

implied, oral or written, have been made by any party to any other party

concerning the subject matter hereof. All prior and contemporaneous

conversations, negotiations, possible and alleged Agreements, representations,

covenants, and warranties concerning the subject matter hereof are merged herein.

This is an integrated Agreement. The provisions of this Agreement are solely for

the benefit of the Parties and will not be construed as benefiting any third party.

7. Successors and Assigns. The rights and obligations of the Parties to this

Agreement will be binding on, and will be of benefit to, each of the Parties’. No

rights may be transferred to other entities, without written permission of the other

Party, which may be withheld for any reason.

8. General Terms and Conditions.

a. No Joint Venture, Partnership or Third Party Rights. This Agreement

does not create any joint venture, partnership, undertaking or business

arrangement between the parties hereto, nor any rights or benefits to third

parties. Property Owner is not an agent, contractor, or in any way

connected to the Barkers which would incur additional liability or

responsibility to or for Property Owner.

b. Severability. If any part or provision of this Agreement shall be

determined to be unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable by a court of

competent jurisdiction, then such a decision shall not affect any other

part or provision of this Agreement except that specific provision

determined to be unconstitutional, invalid or unenforceable. If any

condition, covenant or other provision of this Agreement shall be deemed

invalid due its scope or breadth, such provision shall be deemed valid to

the extent of the scope or breadth permitted by law.

c. Attorney’s Fees. If this Agreement or any of the exhibits hereto are

breached, each party shall pay their own attorney’s fees.

d. Counterparts. This Agreement and any originals of exhibits referred to

herein may be executed in any number of duplicate originals or

counterparts, each of which (when the original signatures are affixed)

4.


shall be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same

instrument.

e. Indemnification. Barkers agrees to indemnify the City from all claims

for damages cause by the improvements installed by the Barkers,

whether the damage be incurred by the City, or third party. The Barkers

further agrees to indemnify the City from any claims for damages

resulting from the ongoing maintenance performed by the Barkers on the

Parcel.

9. Other Terms and Conditions.

a. State/Federal Law. The parties agree, intend and understand that the

obligations imposed by this Agreement are only such as are consistent

with state and federal law. The parties further agree that if any provision

of this Agreement becomes, in its performance, inconsistent with state or

federal law or is declared invalid, this Agreement shall be amended in

writing by both parties. Should the parties be unable to agree upon a

modification of the condition, covenant, or provision the contract

becomes voidable by either party.

b. Integration. This Agreement contains the entire agreement between the

parties with respect to the subject matter hereof and integrates all prior

conversations, discussions or understandings of whatever kind or nature

and may only be modified by a subsequent writing duly executed and

approved by the parties hereto.

c. Applicable Law. This Agreement is entered into under and pursuant to

and is to be construed and enforceable in accordance with the laws of the

State of Utah.

d. Arbitration. All disputes under this Agreement shall be resolved through

binding Arbitration. If the Barkers and The City are unable to resolve an

issue through discussions, the parties shall attempt within ten (10)

business days to appoint a mutually acceptable expert in the professional

discipline(s) of the issue in question. If the parties are unable to agree on

a single acceptable arbitrator they shall each, within ten (10) business

days, appoint their own individual appropriate expert. These two experts

shall, between them, choose the single arbitrator. Each Party shall pay

one half the fees of the chosen arbitrator. The chosen arbitrator shall

within fifteen (15) business days, review the positions of the parties

regarding the arbitration issue and render a decision. The arbitrator shall

ask the prevailing party to draft a proposed order for consideration and

objection by the other side. Upon adoption by the arbitrator, and

consideration of any objections, the arbitrator's decision shall be final and

binding upon both parties. If the arbitrator determines as a part of the

decision that either Party’s position was not only incorrect but was also

maintained unreasonably and not in good faith then the arbitrator may

order the Party to pay the arbitrator’s fees.

e. Notices. Any notices, requests or demands required or desired to be

4.


given hereunder shall be in writing and shall either be delivered

personally or by certified mail or express courier delivery to the parties at

the following addresses:

If to the Barkers:

Rod and Melanie Barker

2524 N. Barker Parkway

North Ogden, Utah 84414

If to the City

City Recorder

505 E. 2600 N.

North Ogden, UT 84414

4.


WHEREFORE, The City and the Barkers voluntarily enter into this Agreement as of the

date(s) set forth below.

NORTH OGDEN CITY

Date:_________________________

By: S. Neal Berube, Mayor

Date:_________________________

Attest: S. Annette Spendlove, MMC

City Recorder

The Barkers

Date:_________________________

By: Rod Barker

Date:_________________________

By: Melanie Barker

4.

NORTH OGDEN CITY

STAFF REPORT

TO: City Council


DATE: 8/18/2020

RE: Barker Park Conservation Easement

The City in the past couple years has placed a conservation easement on all the property

purchased back in 2000 to keep development and construction off those properties which do not

relate directly to parks usage. Most of those properties were owned by the Municipal Building

Authority. In that transaction staff realized that we missed placing the conservation easement on

Parcel 17-259-0002.

The Council held a public hearing on declaring this property as surplus several weeks ago. Staff

recommends the Council declare the development rights as surplus and enter into a conservation

easement for this property to maintain it as parks space in perpetuity. An attached agreement

outlines the terms of the conservation easement, which is the same as the rest of the Barker Park

property.

5.

THIS DEED RESTRICTION is made this ______day of ___________, ____, by The Municipal

Building Authority of North Ogden City, North Ogden, Weber County, Utah, Grantor and

hereby imposes the following deed restrictions on the parcels identified on the Weber County

property records as parcels 17-259-0002 as follows:

That within the above listed parcels the following restrictions apply:

1. No residential buildings shall be constructed; and

2. No new above ground public utility facilities shall be constructed.

This deed restriction shall run with the land and shall be binding upon the Grantor, tenants and

any subsequent owners and tenants, their successors, heirs or assigns. This deed restriction shall

not be read to limit any buildings which are related to the parks and recreation department. Any

lease of said specific parcels shall be subject to this restriction. The above represent enforceable

conditions established under Utah Law and shall benefit and be enforceable by the then current

property owner of parcels 17-259-0001, 17-258-0007, 17-073-0019, and 17-073-0018. These

conditions are intended to be complied with in perpetuity. Should this restriction be seen as

violating the rule against perpetuities the restriction shall continue until the death of the last

surviving descendant of Ray and Fern Barker who is alive at the time of death of Ryan Barker.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I hereby set my hand this ______ day of ____________, 2020.

GRANTOR: ___________________________

By: S. Neal Berube, Mayor

STATE OF UTAH )

:SS

County of Weber )

On __________________, _____, 2020, personally appeared before me

_________________, the signer of the within instrument, who duly acknowledged to me that he

executed the same on behalf of the North Ogden City Municipal Corporation.

_________________________________________

Notary Public

5.

NORTH OGDEN CITY

STAFF REPORT

TO: City Council


DATE: 8/18/2020

RE: 2000 N. Crosswalk Discussion

The City has been approached about installing a flashing crosswalk sign on 2000 N. and 150 E.

for kids who are walking to Elementary and Junior High School. There is not enough foot traffic

at this intersection to warrant the hiring of a crossing guard. Normally, the City would simply not

hire a crossing guard and it would be up to the students to carefully cross the roadway. We have

been asked to provide information about the cost of the flashing crosswalk and seek the Councils

direction on what they would like to do.

The cost of the sign is around $5,000 and is not currently included in the budget. If Council

would like to have this sign installed we would need to undertake a budget amendment, as well

as provide some guidelines for when we install these flashing signs. We receive numerous

requests for these signs and several have been granted, but we are unable to put them at every

intersection. From the staff perspective I believe at minimum we should be focusing on these

signs along arterials and collector streets.

Staff need direction on this request for a flashing crosswalk sign.

6.

NORTH OGDEN CITY

STAFF REPORT

TO: City Council


DATE: 8/18/2020

RE: 2000 N. Crosswalk Discussion

The City has been approached about installing a flashing crosswalk sign on 2000 N. and 150 E.

for kids who are walking to Elementary and Junior High School. There is not enough foot traffic

at this intersection to warrant the hiring of a crossing guard. Normally, the City would simply not

hire a crossing guard and it would be up to the students to carefully cross the roadway. We have

been asked to provide information about the cost of the flashing crosswalk and seek the Councils

direction on what they would like to do.

The cost of the sign is around $5,000 and is not currently included in the budget. If Council

would like to have this sign installed we would need to undertake a budget amendment, as well

as provide some guidelines for when we install these flashing signs. We receive numerous

requests for these signs and several have been granted, but we are unable to put them at every

intersection. From the staff perspective I believe at minimum we should be focusing on these

signs along arterials and collector streets.

Staff need direction on this request for a flashing crosswalk sign.

7.

city council meeting agenda august 25, …...invocation, thought or pledge of allegiance: council...

Documents