HEBER CITY CORPORATION - utah.gov · HEBER CITY CORPORATION 75 North Main Street Heber City, UT...

HEBER CITY CORPORATION 75 North Main Street Heber City, UT 84032

City Council Regular Meeting May 4, 2017

5:00 p.m. Regular Meeting

TIME AND ORDER OF ITEMS ARE APPROXIMATE AND MAY BE CHANGED AS

TIME PERMITS

I. Call to Order

II. Pledge of Allegiance: Council Member Ronald Crittenden

III. Prayer/Thought: By Invitation (Default Council Member Jeffrey Smith)

IV. Minutes for Approval: Draft January 19, 2017 Regular Meeting; January 21, 2017 StrategicPlanning Meeting; February 2, 2017 Regular Meeting; March 15, 2017 Budget Meeting; andApril 11, 2017 Budget Meeting

V. Open Period for Public Comments

1. Public Hearing - Ordinance 2017-15, an Ordinance Annexing Property Known as the ThreeString Holdings, Highway 189 Annexation Located at 1568 South Highway 189, Heber City,Wasatch County, State of Utah; and Approval of the Associated Annexation Agreement

2. Mark Fischer, Blakeslee Group, Update on Heber City’s Branding

3. Marci Harvey, Presentation to Heber City from Wasatch Chevys

4. Ordinance No. 2017-16, an Ordinance Amending the Section 18.108.115 Two-Family Dwelling Special Exception in Chapter 18.108 Conditional Uses of the Heber City MunicipalCode

5. Ordinance No. 2017-17, an Ordinance Vacating Lot 20 of Valley Height Subdivision, Plat A

6. Alan M. Anderson, Final Plat Approval for a Small Subdivision, Valley Heights Plat "C",Located at 1267 North Valley Heights Circle

7. Blake Allen, Final Plat Approval for a Small Subdivision, the Montgomery Lot Split,Located at 200 North 400 West

8. Approval of the Cooperative Agreement Between the Utah Division of Forestry, Fire andState Lands Regarding Protecting Non-Federal Land from Wildland Fire

9. Consideration of the Airport Advisory Board’s Recommendation to Rescind the AirportManager’s Directive Banning Vehicles from the FBO Ramp; have an Assessment Done fora Vehicle Lane Along the FBO Ramp; and Amend the Rules and Regulations in Section 7

10. Discussion Regarding Heber City’s Airport Template Lease

11. Adoption of the 2017/2018 Tentative Operating Budget

12. Consideration of Closed Meeting Pursuant to Utah Code Annotated §52-4-205 Annotated §52-4-205 (c) Strategy Session to Discuss Pending or Reasonably Imminent Litigation

13. Discuss Daniel #2 Airport Hangar Lease

VI. Adjournment Ordinance 2006-05 allows Heber City Council Members to participate in meetings via telecommunications media. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those needing special accommodations during this meeting or who are non-English speaking should contact Michelle Vest at the Heber City Offices (435) 654-0757 at least eight hours prior to the meeting.

Posted on April 27, 2017, in the Heber City Municipal Building located at 75 North Main, Wasatch County Building, Wasatch County Community Development Building, Wasatch County Library, on the Heber City Website at www.ci.heber.ut.us, and on the Utah Public Notice Website at http://pmn.utah.gov. Notice provided to the Wasatch Wave on April 27, 2017.

of 24

Heber City Corporation 1 City Council Meeting 2

January 19, 2017 3 4:02 p.m. 4

5 REGULAR MEETING 6

7 The Council of Heber City, Wasatch County, Utah, met in Regular Meeting on January 19, 8 2017, in the City Council Chambers in Heber City, Utah 9 10 I. Call to Order 11 City Manager's Memo 12 13 Present: Mayor Alan McDonald

Council Member Jeffery Bradshaw Council Member Heidi Franco Council Member Kelleen Potter – arrived at 4:06 Council Member Jeffrey Smith – arrived at 4:04 Council Member Ronald Crittenden

Excused: None

Also Present: City Manager Mark Anderson – excused at 4:09 City Attorney Mark Smedley City Recorder Michelle Eldredge Airport Consultant Attorney Peter Kirsch – via Skype Airport Consultant Attorney Steven Osit – via Skype

Mayor McDonald called the meeting to order at 4:02 p.m. He welcomed all those in attendance 14 and acknowledged that all Council Member were in attendance with the exception of Council 15 Members Smith and Potter who should be in attendance shortly. He noted they were going to start 16 immediately with Agenda Item 1, which was a Closed Meeting for the purpose of pending or 17 reasonably imminent litigation 18 19 1. Consideration of Closed Meeting Pursuant to Utah Code Annotated §52-4-205 (c) 20

Strategy Sessions to Discuss Pending or Reasonably Imminent Litigation 21 22 Motion: Council Member Crittenden moved to go into Closed Meeting Pursuant to Utah Code 23

Annotated §52-4-205 (c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent 24 litigation relative to legal action taken against the City and legal matters with our outside 25 legal counsel, with the FAA action that had been taken, and our legal needs relative to 26 our outside legal counsel and the recent actions taken against the City. That the meeting 27 to be closed to everyone except Legal Counsel, Mr. Godfrey, and the City Recorder. 28 Council Member Franco made the second. Council Members Voting Aye: Council 29 Members Franco and Crittenden. Council Members Voting Nay: Council Member 30 Bradshaw. The motion failed two to one. 31

of 24

1 Council Member Smith arrived at the meeting at 4:04 p.m. 2 3 Motion: Council Member Crittenden moved to go into Closes Meeting Pursuant to Utah Code 4

Annotated §52-4-205 (c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent 5 litigation relative to a recent action taken against the City and with the FAA; to discuss 6 with the City Attorney and our consulting attorney regarding legal matters relative to this, 7 and related issues with our outside counsel and that the meeting be closed to our City 8 Recorder, City Legal Counsel, City Airport Manager and City Council. Council Member 9 Franco made the second. Council Members Voting Aye: Council Members Franco and 10 Crittenden. Council Members Voting Nay: Council Members Smith and Bradshaw. The 11 motion failed for lack of a two-thirds vote. 12

13 Council Member Potter arrived at the meeting at 4:06 p.m. 14 15 Motion: Council Member Crittenden moved to go into Closed Meeting Pursuant to Utah Code 16

Annotated §52-4-205 (c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent 17 litigation to discuss legal matters relative to FAA protests, a recent filing against the City 18 from our hangar owners and other matters related with our attorney and outside counsel 19 matters and the meeting be closed to the City Council, City Recorder, City Manager, 20 Airport Manager, and Legal Counsel only. Council Member Franco made the second. 21 Council Members Voting Aye: Council Members Bradshaw, Franco, Potter, Smith, and 22 Crittenden. The motion passed unanimously. 23

24 Discussion followed regarding the motion. Mayor McDonald indicated that Mr. Anderson could 25 stay during the Closed Meeting. Council Member Franco disagreed. She stated the motion was 26 the same motion Council Member Crittenden gave prior. It was pointed out it was not. The 27 motion included to have the City Manager stay during the Closed Meeting. 28 29 Motion: Council Member Franco moved to disregard the prior motion. She moved to go into 30

Closed Meeting Pursuant to Utah Code Annotated §52-4-205 (c) strategy sessions to 31 discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation for the purpose of looking at the 32 Airport litigation issues, and they close the session to the City Attorney, the Airport 33 Manager, the City Recorder and the City Council. Council Member Crittenden made the 34 second. Council Members Voting Aye: Council Members Franco, Crittenden, and Potter. 35 Council Members Voting Nay: Council Members Bradshaw and Smith. The motion 36 carried with a two-thirds vote in the affirmative. 37

38 Mr. Anderson was excused from the meeting at 4:09 p.m. 39 40

Closed Meeting Minutes of the Heber City Council, of Heber City, Wasatch 41 County, Utah on January 19, 2017 at 4:09 p.m., in the City Council Chambers in 42 Heber City, Utah. 43

44 Present: Mayor Alan McDonald 45 Council Member Jeffery Bradshaw 46

of 24

Council Member Heidi Franco 1 Council Member Kelleen Potter 2 Council Member Jeffrey Smith 3 Council Member Ronald Crittenden 4 5 Excused: None 6 7 Also Present: City Attorney Mark Smedley 8 Airport Manager Denis Godfrey 9 City Recorder Michelle Eldredge 10 Airport Advisory Attorney Peter Kirsch – via Skype 11 Airport Advisory Attorney Steven Otis – via Skype 12 13

Those present discussed pending or reasonably imminent litigation pursuant to 14 Utah Code, Section 52-4-205 (1)(c). 15 16 Motion: Council Member Franco moved to reconvene back into the Regular 17 meeting at 5:25 p.m. Council Member Crittenden made the second. The motion 18 passed unanimously. 19

20 Mayor McDonald called the meeting back to order at 5:33 p.m. He welcomed all those in 21 attendance. He acknowledges that all members were in attendance with the exception of Council 22 Member Potter who was excused for a few minutes. 23 24 Present: Mayor Alan McDonald

Council Member Jeffery Bradshaw Council Member Heidi Franco Council Member Kelleen Potter – arrived at 6:26 p.m. Council Member Jeffrey Smith Council Member Ronald Crittenden

Excused: None

Also Present: City Manager Mark Anderson City Attorney Mark Smedley City Engineer Bart Mumford Russell Funk, Assistant City Engineer Planning Director Tony Kohler Jamie Baron, City Planner Chief of Police Dave Booth Denis Godfrey, Airport Manager Stephen B Tozier, Public Works Director Wesley Bingham, Sr. Accountant City Recorder Michelle Eldredge

of 24

Others in Attendance: F.J. Slyfield, DiAnn Duke Turner, Bruce Kirchenheiter, Lisa 1 Kirchenheiter, Paul Berg, Brian Balls, Brian Baker, Pat Morley, Randy Larsen, Scott Holmes, 2 Corey Simpson, Kayden Davis, Chris Pedersen, Candace Bufton, Buck Bufton, Nancy Nebeker, 3 Mark Olpin, Darrel Glissmeyer, Dave Hansen, Tracy Taylor, Rance Echols, and others whose 4 names were illegible. 5 6 II. Pledge of Allegiance: Council Member Jeffrey Smith 7 8 III. Prayer/Thought: By Invitation (Default Council Member Jeffery Bradshaw) 9

10 IV. Open Period for Public Comments 11 12 DiAnn Duke-Turner 13 Ms. Turner Complimented Public Works for their efforts during the last snow storm. She said they 14 carried the snow away from the irrigation ditch; in addition, she thanked them for plowing the 15 snow out of their driveway. 16 17 2. Linda Dix, Request for Fee Waiver for a Special Needs 5K Run for the Wasatch County 18

School District on April 29, 2017 19 Letter 20 21 Linda Dix and Betty Phillips 22 Ms. Linda Dix and Betty Phillips were present at the meeting to request a fee waiver for a 5K Run 23 to help make people aware of children with special needs. Ms. Dix informed the Council there 24 was another 5K run on the same day they were proposing, which was April 29th' therefore, they 25 may need to move the 5K to May 6th. 26 27 Mr. Anderson noted she would still need to fill out the application, which would not have a fee if 28 approved. 29 30 Motion: Council Member Franco moved to grant the fee waiver for the 5K run for April 29, 31 2017/May 6, 2017, for Linda Dix. Council Member Bradshaw made the second. The motion 32 passed unanimously. 33 34 3. Public Hearing - Discuss Potential Funding Application to the Community Impact Board 35

(CIB) for a Public Works Facility Expansion 36 Public Hearing Presentation 37 Public Works Phasing Options 38 Public Works Space Needs Analysis 39 40 Mayor McDonald indicated they would be having a public hearing to consider application to the 41 Community Impact Board (CIB) for a Public Works facility expansion. He went on to say before 42 the public hearing, they would have Mr. Russell Funk, Assistant City Engineer, give a 43 presentation regarding the Public Works facility expansion. 44 45 Mr. Funk, proceeded with his presentation regarding the Heber City Public Works facility 46

of 24

expansion. He noted that he wanted to give everyone the opportunity to see what they were 1 doing and what the impact would be. He started with the roles of Municipal 2 Government. He highlighted some of the services provided by Public Works; he wanted to bring 3 up the emphases of what Public Works plays in everyone's lives. 4 5 Mr. Funk explained there were currently 20 employees in the Public Works Department, which 6 was broke down into five divisions: Water and Streets, Sewer and Utilities, Tech/SCADA, 7 Shop/Mechanics, and Administration. 8 9 Mr. Funk noted the existing Public Works facility was constructed in 2005 and the total 10 construction cost of that facility was 1.7 million dollars. He went on to explain that facility was 11 projected to meet the needs of the City for the next ten years. 12 13 Mr. Funk stated Heber City had grown by approximately 60 percent since that time. In addition, 14 Wasatch County was and had been the fastest growing County in Utah and third fastest growing 15 city of its size in the United States. He noted that as they received this assignment, it was 16 projected there would be potentially 40 employees in the Public Works Department over the next 17 20 years. 18 19 Mr. Funk continued with his PowerPoint Presentation. 20 21 Mr. Funk addressed the deficiencies of the Administration/Office Space of the current facility. 22 23 The lunch room doesn't accommodate current staff 24 There are only 13 lockers for 18 staff 25 The restroom facilities are not sufficient for current staff - there is only one restroom 26 The current facility does not provide private office space for supervisors 27 Secure space is needed for the SCADA System and Controls 28 There is no conference room 29 There is limited ability to accommodate public/visitors 30 31 Mr. Funk addressed the deficiencies of the Equipment Storage and Maintenance Areas of the 32 current facility. 33 34 45 Pieces of Equipment/Vehicle vs. Conditioned Indoor Storage Space for 10 Vehicles 35 The City has $3 million dollars of equipment that needed to be taken care of 36 Covering equipment will reduce costs associated with dry rot and replacement of hydraulic hoses 37 and tires 38 There are 10 Snow Plows loaded with salt, which required indoor storage 39 The City had Hydro-Excavator and Sewage Combo Trucks, which required indoor storage 40 The service life of maintainers, high tech equipment, and specialty equipment is being decreased 41 due to exposure to the elements 42 Response time increases significantly for equipment stored outdoors in the winter months 43 Existing vehicle maintenance bay does not accommodate heavy duty equipment 44 45 Due to insufficient storage, a portion of the existing vehicle wash bay is currently serving as a 46

of 24

material storage 1 2 A dedicated efficient wash bay is necessary to maintain fleet and extend service life. 3 4 Mr. Funk addressed Site Improvements/Storage for the facility. 5 6 The Salt Storage Shed needed to be expanded 7 Due to growth, the shed now accommodates only two salting events 8 Storm patterns in this area often include more than two successive events requiring salt 9 Access to Heber City for delivery is limited and can be challenging during weather events 10 There was often a 24-hour delay between salt order and delivery. 11 12 Mr. Funk went on to say, the outside covered parking is not adequate for existing equipment. 13 Due to site constraints, some improvements needed to be relocated, and additional parking stalls 14 need to be added. 15 16 Mr. Funk addressed the Public Works facility expansion process to date. 17 18 From May to July, 2016, they went through a Request for Proposal (RFP) Process, and the 19 City received seven proposals. The City awarded the Architectural Services to JRCA in August 20 2016. In September 2016 to current, the Schematic Design and Programming Phase has been 21 ongoing. 22 23 Mr. Funk addressed the key assumption and objectives. 24 25 There are no future reduction of services to be provided by the Public Works Department 26 It was to be determined if the site was adequate for the ultimate need of the Public Works 27 Department, and based on the findings (assumptions and preliminary work), the site appeared to 28 be adequate. However, the cost was a higher than anticipated. 29 30 Mr. Funk discussed there were comments made that there needed to be efforts to scale back the 31 site plan and facility expansion. He noted in that process, they started with the things that would 32 be nice to have and then to bring down the site plan. 33 34 Mr. Funk explained as they went through the needs analysis phase, they looked at what 35 equipment had to be covered and what equipment could be outside. He stated what they had 36 presented, was the base needs of the facility. He went on to say, if they eliminate anything, they 37 are eliminating a base need. If scaling back was needed, they needed to change growth 38 assumptions or base services. 39 40 Mr. Funk addressed phasing options and costs. 41 42 Mr. Funks stated this slide was a copy of the needs space analysis. The slide was broke up into 43 the common areas, shop, vehicle and equipment area, covered parking, outside parking, etc. with 44 the square footage requirements. 45 46

of 24

Mr. Funk wanted to go to the next slide, which was the Phasing Options. He stated the ultimate 1 plan for this site, which was to construct the entire expansion. The existing buildings was in the 2 red color and everything in the blue color was future improvements. 3 4 Mr. Funk said the cost of doing the expansion at once would be $8,065,000. He continued, we 5 are considering a $6 million loan/grant of that project, 51 percent would be impact fee eligible. 6 Mr. Funk noted that they had a breakdown of which department would be responsible for each 7 space. Mr. Funk pointed out, it would increase the City's impact fee by approximately $1,500. 8 9 Mr. Funk addressed the Phasing Approach. 10 11 Mr. Funk stated there would be a few changes, and it would change the layout of the expansion a 12 little bit. If they were to move forward with just Phase 1, the cost of the expansion would cost 13 roughly $5.5 million and the impact fee eligibility would go down to roughly 29 percent, and the 14 increase would be approximately $573. In addition, there would still be some needs in the 15 future. 16 17 Mr. Funk addressed Phase 2 of the expansion project. 18 19 Mr. Funk showed a diagram of what would be required in Phase 2, which would be a future 20 phase in approximately ten years. He noted they would have to start collecting impact fee 21 money now, and he presented a breakdown of impact fees. 22 23 Mr. Funk informed the Council it would cost an additional $1,500 of impact fee money, and the 24 reason for that was because if they phased the project and take into account inflation, it would 25 cost approximately $1.7 million dollars more if they do the expansion project in phases. 26 27 Mr. Anderson addressed the Council. He indicated that Mr. Funk had put a lot of energy into the 28 project and what was in the best interest of the public. He explained what the public hearing was 29 for, was for the Council to take public input regarding if the City should apply for a Community 30 Impact Board Application and apply for a grant for the Public Works Facility expansion. 31 32 Mr. Anderson stated the City may even be able to get a lower loan rate at 1.5 percent than what 33 they are currently offering now, which was at 2.5 percent. He inquired if the Council was 34 interested in getting a CIB loan or a current market rate loan. He noted that the current market 35 rate loans, depending on the finance period was anywhere between 3.34 percent and 3.64 36 percent. 37 38 Mr. Anderson indicated if they were inclined to move forward with the project, the Council 39 could see an interest savings for the City to do a 20-year loan at 1.5 percent rate or a 30-year loan 40 at a 1.5 percent loan with the CIB. 41 42 Mr. Anderson pointed out the payment ranges, which were $249,000 to $414,000 dependent on 43 the term and interest rate. 44 45 Mr. Anderson stated based on the assumptions, which Mr. Funk made, as to what department 46

of 24

should be paying for the improvements, they broke it into operating funds vs. impact fees 1 funds. It makes the assumption the City would update its Capital Facilities Plan to include this 2 as an impact fee eligible project. So, it is broken out between water, roads, sewer and utility 3 fees; therefore, you can see how it is spread out between the different departments. 4 Mr. Anderson explained the reason they are talking about a $6 million loan was because they 5 have $2 million cash available on hand to help pay for a portion of the project; however, in 6 talking with Mr. Mumford, they could probably double the increase a water and road impact fee 7 contribution. 8 9 Mr. Anderson mentioned as they talked about this, they have not shown a utility impact fee 10 of $168. They would need to fund that out of General Fund resources or look to raise some of 11 those fees. 12 13 Mr. Anderson went on to say, this sheet makes the assumption if we enact new impact fees for 14 the portion of new growth, this was what we would have to come up with from an operating 15 stand point. He assumed the average water bill was $48 a month for residential use. How much 16 would they have to increase rates to satisfy the debt service payments if they were not able to 17 cover that debt service with existing resources. For example, in the Water Fund, they would 18 have to raise rates from 2.5 to 3.6 percent depending on what type of financing and terms the 19 City had. In the Road Fund, they don't have a revenue source like the Water and 20 Sewer Fund. With the Road Fund, they fund that with General Fund monies. He said he would 21 have to equate that to, what would we would have to increase property taxes to satisfy the 22 additional debt service, which would be 1.7 to 2.4 percent. In addition, Sewer Operating rates 23 would have to be raised anywhere from 3. 2 to 4.6 percent. 24 25 Mr. Anderson noted the assumption was, the new impact fees would be paid by those moving 26 into the community; they would not have an impact on existing residents. The worst case 27 scenario would be an increase of rates and/or taxes on the average resident of $39 to $57 a year. 28 He stated he did not see a need for the City to enact those fee, but he wanted to put it in 29 prospective if the City did have to raise those rates to fund the project. 30 31 Council Member Crittenden inquired how the additional $1.7 million would affect the City 32 in doing the project in 2 phases. Mr. Anderson explained it would require the City to adopt a 33 $2,000 increase in impact fees instead of $1,500. He reiterated all the impact fees would apply 34 to new growth; however, the challenge was they already get comments that their impact fees are 35 high, and as they try to attract new businesses, they have to be sensitive that it may be an impact 36 on businesses that may want to relocate to Heber City. 37 38 Discussion followed regarding what the impact fees could be on potential businesses. Council 39 Member Bradshaw stated if they don't grow, they won't have any impact fees. 40 41 Council Member Potter arrived at the Council Meeting at 6:26 p.m. 42 43 Mr. Anderson stated, in closing, what they were looking for as Staff, after the public comment 44 period, was should the City considering submitting an application to the CIB for project funding 45 and if so, what amount and what funding allocation should be applied for: loan vs. grant; and 46

of 24

what terms should be applied for: 20 years or 30 years. 1 2 Mr. Anderson said in talking with Steve Farrell on the CIB Board, I think the City has his 3 support. It does appear they have money to lend. It is a matter of what terms the City might want 4 and what our capabilities are. We are doing our part to make sure we are not just asking for a 5 gift. If we make an application, we want to make sure it's not too aggressive. 6 7 Mr. Anderson said I think this was something that was needed. There was value in trying to do 8 the whole project at once; there was some potential savings. In addition, we can do something 9 similar as the Public Safety Building without having to do a significant impact on the citizens. 10 He concluded by say I appreciate your support, and I appreciate those that got the information 11 together for the public. 12 13 Council Member Franco stated over the last three years, they have raised water and sewer rates 14 in the double digits. She went on to say, it was her perception that the rate increase was going 15 toward fund depreciation. In addition, the City got money in the water, road and sewer 16 funds from the sale of the Industrial Park property and that was to go toward that building; 17 however, they had to spend it on other things. 18 19 Council Member Franco stated her question was, according to the Zion's Bank study, those 20 double digit rate increases in water and sewer funds, would continue for another five years just to 21 break even on the depreciation. This new proposal, to borrow up to $6 million, was additional 22 increases on top of the already future increases they are looking at. Was that correct? 23 24 Mr. Anderson indicated that he did not think this project would require any additional rate 25 increases. Council Member Franco pointed out that Mr. Anderson just showed the Council the 26 slides that showed those increases. Mr. Anderson stated that would be the worst case scenario if 27 they couldn't absorb the debt service payments with the existing operating revenues. 28 29 Council Member Franco pointed out the City already have $7.9 million in debt - that was in the 30 audited report. Now they were looking at doubling their debt. She expressed concern under 31 State law; there are caps about how much the City could borrow under the General Revenue 32 Fund. 33 34 Council Member Franco went on to say, it was her understanding if they went to the CIB, this 35 would be a General Revenue sales tax bond; however, it's a water, sewer, utility, and road funds 36 that are separate from the General Revenue fund that would be making the payment. She 37 questioned why the bond be tied to the Enterprise Fund. 38 39 Mr. Anderson addressed Council Member Franco's concerns. He indicated that Mr. Brian Baker, 40 Zion's Bank, was present as well to address any concerns. He noted that he had shown where the 41 sources of revenue should come from to pay the debt. 42 43 Currently, the Public Safety Building is a sales tax revenue bond, but the way they really 44 financed it was with an increase in property taxes. He went on to explain, if they use sale tax 45 again on this issue, it would make the transaction less complicated, but the sources of how the 46

of 24

debt would be repaid would really come from all those different areas he suggested. 1 2 Council Member Franco inquired if the CIB would require a higher interest rate if they utilized 3 the Enterprise Fund as the collateral instead of the sale tax. Mr. Baker indicated a lot of the 4 times the easiest thing to do is the City could design a bond that pledge three or four collaterals 5 in separate incremental amounts relative to the total financing. He went on to say if you already 6 have some bonds related to water, and now you want to do another bond associated with water, 7 sewer, utilities and road funds, you would have legal complications making that bond just as 8 secure. 9 10 Council Member Franco inquired if that was because of the State caps. Mr. Baker stated the 11 State has a bonding cap on City general obligation bonding, which is voted on by the public. It is 12 subject to 4 percent of the taxable value of all property in the City. 13 14 Discussion followed regarding State Bonding capacity. 15 16 Mr. Baker informed the Council that in regards to sales tax bonds, a lot of people use sales tax 17 bonds for funding general city services because it's a very easy thing to use. The only limit the 18 City would run into would be 80 percent of the City's sale tax, and in his opinion, they 19 would never get close to that. 20 21 Council Member Franco stated if the City was able to borrow this money, and pay for it even 22 with impact fees, and increasing water and sewer rate, then any future increases based 23 on depreciation needs alone, it would be magnified even more because of the amount of 24 borrowing. She reiterated her concern. 25 26 Mr. Anderson acknowledged her concern. With the increases they imposed this year, they are 27 significant, and he did not see the same demands for replacement now that they have some of the 28 projects completed. 29 30 Mayor McDonald opened the Public Hearing to the public for public comment regarding 31 discussion for potential funding application to the Community Impact Board (CIB) for a Public 32 Works Facility Expansion. The Public Hearing opened at 6:40 p.m. 33 34 Diane Turner - Resident 35 Ms. Turner stated her water bill was getting out of sight. The City was taxing the people of 36 Heber. She commented that just because something doesn't work, they didn't have to build 37 another facility. She pointed out the City only works four days a week; it had always been a 38 thorn in her side the City only worked four days a week. If they were open on Fridays, the trucks 39 would be available. 40 41 Ms. Turner went on to say that other people work graveyard shifts, and they repair the equipment 42 at night. It was her opinion that they didn't need a conference room; the employees needed to 43 make use of the facilities they had. As for the bathroom, she didn't think they needed to spend 44 the money to have bathrooms. 45 46

of 24

Ms. Turner stated there were ways to utilize the existing things they had. She agreed that they do 1 need to cover the things that needed to be covered. However, if they don't have the money to 2 build the expansion, they should work around it and think outside the box. She questioned, have 3 you ever asked yourself, can we utilize things better and our money better. 4 5 Buck Bufton - Resident 6 Mr. Bufton stated over the past four years, this community has grown significantly. In his 7 opinion, the Public Works facility was ridiculous. He went on to say they had to build with the 8 way the community was growing. They (Public Works) get complaints on a daily basis on what 9 the community wants done. They don't have the manpower or the equipment. They have to take 10 an hour to just thaw out their equipment just to start plowing. 11 12 The City was going to have to pay to get their needs met. He continued, if you don't want to pay 13 for it, you will have to stop your community from growing. Mr. Bufton went on to say, if I have 14 to pay the extra $50, I will. He added, in his opinion, if the other residents don't like it, they 15 could move somewhere else. 16 17 Mr. Bufton reiterated, having seen the building, and how they have to work was ridiculous. The 18 City was wanting the Public Works employees to work more days, and if you want them to work 19 more, you have to pay them to work more hours. He questioned, are you going to make them 20 work six to seven days or are you going to hire more employees. He added they may work four 21 days a week, but they work 10 hours a day. In addition, they come in after hours to plow. 22 23 Mr. Bufton continued, if this community will continue to grow, they have to work out of proper 24 facilities. He added that plowing snow was a secondary duty for the Public Works employees, 25 and some people seem to be under the impression they need to work more. Mr. Bufton stated 26 they have other jobs duties to attend to. 27 28 Mr. Bufton acknowledged that it sucked they had to pay more for their water, but that was the 29 way it was. They need to grow with it. Public Works takes care of everything in this 30 community. If they want it done, in a timely manner, they would have to grow with it. If they 31 didn't, the complaints were going to come in when they didn't grow with the community. 32 33 Mr. Bufton said I get it; we don't want to pay for it. If you don't want to pay for it, stop the 34 community from growing. 35 36 Jake Anderson - Resident 37 Mr. Anderson stated that he worked for the Public Works Department. He went on to say, as he 38 looked at the equipment that was outside in the elements, it was bothersome to him. In addition, 39 when they had to spend an hour to an hour and a half to get the equipment going, it was money 40 wasted. If the equipment was coverd, they could go and get it going. 41 42 Mr. Anderson continued, residents complain that we work 4/10’s. He pointed out that they 43 actually work seven days a week. The work on Thanksgiving day and Christmas. He was out 44 keeping the roads clear. They are a 24/7 group of guys. He said that he tends to get called out 45 when there were problems, and he was not the only one; it takes multiple guys to fix a 46

of 24

problem. He stated that it killed him that there were millions of dollars’ worth of equipment out 1 in the elements, and it was not being properly taken cared for. 2 3 Tracy Taylor - Resident 4 Tracy Taylor stated that she listened to the Council's last meeting, and there were Council 5 members that were adamant for public notice, she questioned what the public notice was and did 6 it go out with the newsletter? 7 8 Mr. Anderson stated it was posted on Facebook, it was published on the front page of the 9 Wasatch Wage, it was on the City's website, and it was put on the State's Public Notice Website. 10 11 Ms. Taylor stated she was concerned about spending $8 million with only a handful of citizens 12 present. She went on to say she was not saying the City's Public Works Department did not need 13 a renovation; however, what she was trying to do was caution the Council. She said our growth 14 will keep on booming. 15 16 Ms. Taylor indicated that she would tell the Council that in 2009, they could have done a lot for 17 half the price. They don't know what the market would do. She referred to the market downturn 18 in 2008/2009, and went on to say they might have another year or two of good growth. She 19 questioned what the plan was if there was another downturn. 20 21 Ms. Taylor said when people say if you don't want to live here, move, they don't know who they 22 are talking about. They are talking about older people who are on a fixed income. They are 23 talking about our businesses on Main Street. She stated in her opinion, the City was burdening 24 businesses. She reiterated that she would caution the Council on what their Plan B was. 25 26 Ms. Taylor pointed out the City was encouraging more annexations and growth, and then the 27 next meeting, they say they don't want more growth. She stated they were encouraging it, and 28 she inquired how they were going to pay for the building expansion. 29 30 Ms. Taylor stated what she wanted to hear was, what is Plan B? 31 32 Ms. Taylor said growth would slow down if the interest rates go up. She would like the Council 33 to talk about what was the most prudent thing to do. She pointed out at the State level, they put 34 money in a rainy day fund for when the market has a downturn. She questioned if the City had 35 the same practice. 36 37 Ms. Taylor pointed out the Public Safety Building had a community room. She inquired why 38 the Public Works employees couldn't utilize that room. 39 40 Ms. Taylor stated that was what she would like the Council to talk about. She would like to know 41 how the City was going to pay for the Public Works expansion. 42 43 With no more public comments forth coming, Mayor McDonald closed the Public Hearing 44 at 7:04 p.m. 45 46

of 24

Council Member Crittenden stated he needed to understand more about the CIB application. He 1 said even though there is an increased cost to phase the project, I want to build what we need in 2 the future, in the future. He reiterated that he knew there would be an additional cost; however, if 3 they don't come, they wouldn't need it. 4 5 Council Member Crittenden went on to say, his concern was what do they go to CIB with. He 6 was not prepared to go to them with a $8 million building expansion. He noted that it seemed 7 rational to go to the CIB. However, if the City went with an $8 million project and decided to do 8 a $4 million project, what would that do to their application? 9 10 Council Member Crittenden stated that he would like to see a public hearing when they could 11 give them more real numbers. 12 13 Mr. Anderson stated I think the thought was this was what the project was, and this was what 14 funding the City needed. The CIB would have a hearing in March, April, or May, and they 15 would determine if they would support the City’s project; in June they would approve/deny 16 it. Mr. Anderson went on to say, I think we could reduce our request, or we could turn down any 17 grant or loan that was offered if the Council felt it didn't make sense to continue down that road. 18 19 Mr. Baker indicated that his understanding of how the CIB functioned, in the past, was there was 20 a public hearing, which was when they made application to the CIB, and the citizens could come 21 and make public comment. If the City received approval, the City would have to publish a 22 notice of intent to issue bonds and a notice of another public hearing related to any bond 23 issuances with all the specifics. His understanding was if you ask for a larger amount, then 24 decided you wanted a smaller amount, they could say they would give you the whole amount, 25 or he had worked with many cities that have turned back monies because they didn't need the full 26 amount or because they cut the scope of the work back. He added that if they didn't apply for the 27 whole amount and decided they wanted the whole amount, they would have to reapply, and go 28 through the process again for re-approval. 29 30 Council Member Crittenden inquired if we go to them, and we ask for a $8 million project, and 31 then we scale it back to a $5 million project, do they scale it proportionately. I am concerned 32 with Tracy Taylor's comments. He stated he did not think they did an adequate job noticing the 33 public. They talked about putting out a pamphlet; however, it was said there wasn't enough time 34 to put it out. I think we are shooting ourselves in the foot if we aren't prepared. 35 36 Council Member Crittenden said if we have to look at an $8 million project, he would 37 rather split it. 38 39 Mayor McDonald stated his question for the Council was do you want to apply for the CIB 40 application or not? 41 42 Mr. Baker informed the Council the way the application worked was you have the total cost of 43 the project; you list various sources, such as: if you are asking for some grant money, if you are 44 asking for some loan money, or if you have some equity that you are contributing from City 45 funds. Those would all be listed and they would total up to the total project. Historically, if you 46

of 24

said you didn't need $4 million, and you wanted $3 million, they would take the pro-rated 1 share and parse it out listed by percentages that you said would fund the project. 2 3 Mr. Funk clarified that generally an organization would utilize the loan amount first then they 4 would get the grant money. He didn't know if it was a different process with this application. 5 6 Council Member Crittenden stated he wanted to go to CIB; he just didn’t want to go for the full 7 $8 million project. He just didn't know the amount he wanted to apply for. He thought they 8 needed to decided what they wanted to do. 9 10 Motion: Council Member Smith moved to make application to the Community Impact Board 11 (CIB) for a Public Works Facility Expansion. Council Member Potter made the second. 12 13 Discussion followed regarding the motion. 14 15 Council Member Franco indicated she was not comfortable going to CIB before they had more 16 public input, that people had an opportunity to view the different options that are being offered, 17 and they get more public weigh in. she thought they were getting the cart before the horse. In 18 addition, she thought the application needed to be more precise. She reiterated the public had not 19 had time to weigh in on the project. She went on to say the public was paying for it. They need to 20 give them time to think it through, and they could delay it; they could make application to the 21 CIB later in the year. They do not have to push it. She thought the public would appreciate it 22 given the history with the Public Safety Building. 23 24 Council Member Bradshaw inquired if the motion was for the full $8 million. It was noted that it 25 was not; it was just to make application to the CIB. 26 27 Council Member Crittenden said it was not that simple. They had to apply for a project with an 28 amount. 29 30 Mayor McDonald stated if they were not going to do the expansion; tell him now. If they were 31 going to make application, then they could go back and see what we want to do with it. He just 32 wanted to find out if the Council wanted to apply. Council Member Franco suggested the 33 motion could include the timing of the application, whether they applied now or later in the year. 34 35 Wes Bingham, Senior Accountant, inquired if he could address the Council. He referenced the 36 amount of debt the City had. He stated $6-7 million seemed like a large amount of debt. The 37 City's legal debt margin for the General Fund margin was $36 million; they have plenty of 38 margin. He noted that he was not suggesting they do that; however, as a City, their debt was 39 conservative. 40 41 Council Member Bradshaw pointed out the City's debt was very conservative overall. He added 42 that in their budgeting process, they had been conservative with revenues. They had collect 43 more and their expenses were less than what they had budgeted for, which was a good indication 44 they are conservative. Council Member Bradshaw went on to say, I think we have been very 45 good in that respect, and I think we are not looking at the possibility of downturns. We are we 46

of 24

are conservatively budgeting the way we should. 1 2 Council Member Crittenden stated he was in favor of getting impact fees for new 3 residents. However, he was concerned about building the City's needs around impact fees. He 4 did not want to grow, and he shared Council Member Franco's concern. He added that he was 5 already hearing about the second 20 percent water increase. 6 7 Council Member Potter inquired if the CIB met annually. Mr. Anderson indicated they met three 8 times a year. They accepted applications in February, June, or October. 9 10 Council Member Potter suggested they could have another public hearing and still withdraw 11 their application. It was noted that going into the application, they would need to say this is the 12 project, and this is the amount they would like to apply for in grant money and this is the amount 13 they would like to borrow for a loan. 14 15 Council Member Franco expressed her concerned. She indicated she was not sure February was 16 the right time. She questioned if the architect would have to redo plans if they did not have the 17 right amount budgeted. 18 19 Mr. Anderson stated they City would not give the architect the go ahead to move forward with 20 plans. Mr. Funk added the contract with the architect was a three-phase contract, and they are not 21 at that phase as of yet. Council Member Crittenden inquired if they go to the CIB, wouldn't they 22 have to have more information from architect. It was said the City would not have to have more 23 information from the architect to go before the CIB Board. 24 25 Mr. Funk stated that historically the CIB was not fond of approving growth. He went on to 26 explain the project and how it was associated with growth. 27 28 Council Member Franco stated they needed to wait until they are certain on what it was they 29 wanted to build. They need to have public support. They did not handle the Public Safety 30 Building well; this was even coming at them faster. I am not comfortable with proceeding 31 forward until we get more public input at another public hearing with several notices and letting 32 them see the map and site plan; otherwise, I do not think I am showing good faith to the City. 33 34 Call the Question: Council Members Voting Aye: Council Members Bradshaw, Potter, and 35 Smith. Council Member Voting Nay: Council Members Franco and Crittenden. The motion 36 carried with three votes in the affirmative. 37 38 Motion: Council Member Franco moved to go to the public and have at least two more public 39 hearings on this, send out a brochure with the current options; we try to get those public 40 hearings with input and have them at the senior citizen center. I think it is important to show 41 good faith to the public, and then we apply for the CIB in June. The motion failed for lack of a 42 lack of second. 43 44 Motion: Council Member Potter moved to do all of the things mentioned in the previous 45 motion, have the public hearings, including this PowerPoint, have a brochure, and continue to do 46

of 24

every kind of outreach we can do, but more forward with an application so we have a better 1 handle so we can get better funding. But continue to actively seek the public input in every way 2 that we can. Council Member Smith made the second. Council Member Voting 3 Aye: Council Members Bradshaw, Potter, Smith, and Crittenden. Council Members Voting 4 Nay: Council Member Franco. The motion passed with four votes in the affirmative 5 6 Council Member Franco clarified when the application date was. It was indicated the application 7 date was February 1, 2107. Mayor McDonald indicated the City would be submitting an 8 application in February; he inquired what the Council wanted to submit the application for. 9 10 Council Member Crittenden questioned how much the cost of Phase 1 was. Mr. Funk indicated 11 that Phase 1 was $5,500,000. Mayor McDonald added what Mr. Anderson said is if the City 12 went for the whole amount, the City would be looking at $6 million. Mr. Anderson indicated 13 what he was saying was they could probably decrease it by another $1 million if they utilized 14 water and road impact fees that were available to reducing the bonding. That would be assuming 15 the Council would amend the impact fee Capital Facility Plan to include this as an eligible 16 project. 17 18 Motion: Council Member Crittenden moved that the City approach the CIB Board with a $5.5-19 million-dollar project, which the City was asking for funding of $3.5 million dollars, and the 20 City would come up with the rest of the project funding. Council Member Potter made the 21 second. 22 23 Discussion followed regarding the motion. Council Member Franco inquired if the $1 million 24 impact fees would come out of this year's fiscal year budget; next year's fiscal year budget or a 25 combination. Mr. Anderson indicated it would be next year's fiscal year budget. The City would 26 not get funding authorization until June. They would have to get construction drawings done 27 before they could even start construction. 28 29 Council Member Franco questioned if the $1 million he was talking about for next year, was that 30 also taking into account the deficits or the close to deficits that they are running currently and 31 projected to continue without the 20 percent rate increases. Mr. Anderson stated they were 32 impact fee monies and there was no relationship to operating. 33 34 Discussion followed regarding funding of the Phase 1 Project at $5.5 million and eligible impact 35 fee money. 36 37 Call the Question: Council Members Voting Aye: Council Members Bradshaw, Potter, Smith 38 and Crittenden. Council Members Voting Nay: Council Member Franco. 39 40 Mayor McDonald indicated the Council now needed to decide on the terms of the application. 41 Mr. Anderson inquired if he could made a recommendation based on some of his conversations 42 with CIB Staff and Steve Farrell. He would recommend they asked for 15 percent of the funding 43 in grant and the remaining in loan at 1.5 percent interest. If they, the CIB, were not willing to 44 provide any grant funding, he would recommend that the City request a 0 percent interest rate, 45 which they have funded some. 46

of 24

1 Council Member Franco stated she was going to ask the Council if they wanted a 20 year or a 2 30-year loan. Mayor McDonald stated the terms were part of the motion. 3 4 Motion: Council Member Crittenden moved to request a 15 percent grant, with a 1.5 percent 5 interest rate, with a term of 30 years if the City could get the 1.5 percent interest rate. Council 6 Member Smith made the second. 7 8 Discussion followed regard the motion. Council Member Franco inquired what the 15 percent 9 grant would be that the City would be asking for. Mr. Funk indicated that it would be $525,000. 10 11 Call the Question: Council Members Voting Aye: Council Members Bradshaw, Potter, Smith, 12 and Crittenden. Council Members Voting Nay: Council Member Franco. 13 14 Council Member Potter inquired if they needed to make a motion on any specific plan for public 15 outreach; how would they make sure this happened in a very thorough way. 16 17 Mr. Anderson suggested once they go to the Board, and they get some understanding of what 18 they are willing to do. In addition, what was available to the City, and what potential impacts 19 there would be to the individual resident. 20 21 Council Member Potter stated because it was so complex, she would like to start immediately 22 educating people; why they need a building and expansion. She would like to talk about the 23 equipment and why it is getting ruined and start educating people. Then as time goes on, they 24 could refine the numbers a little better. She thought it would be helpful. 25 26 Council Member Potter reinterred that she wanted to start the education process before they had 27 the numbers and why they agreed they need to do this building, and how it could impact the 28 City's services if they don't do this building, and how they got to this point. Mayor McDonald 29 suggested the public could go take a tour and see what the Public Works facility was like. 30 31 Council Member Crittenden encouraged Public Works to make sure what $5.5 million was their 32 top priorities. He inquired if there was a way to share some facilities with the County. He went 33 on to say, he thought there was a way to change the conference room into something else; there 34 were conference rooms everywhere in the County. It was his opinion there were ways to share 35 facilities. 36 37 4. Accept/Reject the E.S.A.D. Annexation Petition, a Request to Annex 5.01 Acres of Land 38

Located at Approximately 2211 South Airport Road 39 ESAD Annexation Petition 40 ESAD Annexation Plat 41 42 Mr. Berg and Mr. Kohler addressed the Council regarding the E.S.A.D. annexation petition. Mr. 43 Berg informed the Council that Mr. Dunn owned a small piece of property by the Airport on East 44 Airport Road, which had a small recycling center on the property. He noted the main reason he 45 would like to annex the property was because he was trying to decide what to do with the property. 46

of 24

1 Discussion followed regarding zoning. Mr. Dunn would be trading County Industrial zoning for 2 City Industrial zoning. Council Member Franco inquired if Mr. Dunn was expecting the City to 3 do any road improvements for him if he came into the City. Mr. Berg indicated they had not 4 discussed that. Council Member Franco expressed concern with that. 5 6 Council Member Franco indicated she was looking at the plat, and there was a 60-foot easement. 7 She didn't know if that was a County easement or if that was included with the annexation. She 8 inquired if it would affect the annexation. Mr. Berg noted it was an easement that showed up when 9 the property survey was completed, and it was not on the property it just said access easement. He 10 would assume it provided access to the house next to the Anderson property. Council Member 11 Franco pointed out it was being utilized then. Mr. Berg noted that was why it was a recorded 12 easement. 13 14 Council Member Franco pointed out, in this case, we wouldn't have any road or easement in the 15 City. She questioned if it would be County. 16 17 Mr. Berg stated during the annexation process, they could talk about an access easement and 18 whether Mr. Dunn had to dedicate some portion of the property as a City road. Council Member 19 Franco said she didn't know if it needed to be that way; she was trying to figure out what the 20 easement was. Mr. Berg indicated that was why they start this process to discuss those items. He 21 went on to say tonight was to determine whether the City would accept the petition or not; not 22 debate every issue on the annexation. 23 24 Motion: Council Member Potter moved to Accept the E.S.A.D. Annexation Petition, a Request to 25 Annex 5.01 Acres of Land Located at Approximately 2211 South Airport Road. Council Member 26 Bradshaw made the second. Council Members Voting Aye: Council Member Bradshaw, Franco, 27 Potter, Smith, and Crittenden. The motion passed unanimously. 28 29 5. Consideration for Adoption of a Resolution of the City Council of Heber City, Utah 30

Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Not More than $22,000,000 Aggregate Principal 31 Amount of the City's Facility Revenue Bonds, Series 2017 (Rocky Mountain Care - 32 Heber, LLC Project); and Related Matters. 33

Resolution 2017-2 34 35 Randy Larsen addressed the Council. He explained the project was for a skilled nursing facility, 36 which the City would act as a conduit issuer of the bonds, and then the project could have a tax 37 exempt rate based on the City's 501(c)(3) status. He went on to say State law prohibited any 38 liability from the City to make any payment on the bonds. 39 40 Mr. Larsen indicated that the plans for the project had been approved, and they didn’t allow any 41 construction loans. 42 43 Mr. Larsen referred to the Resolution, and he pointed out that a notice would go into the paper, 44 which would explain the parameters and objectives of the project. Mr. Larsen explained the 45 parameters and objectives. In addition, it indicated there will be a public hearing on February 16, 46

of 24

2017. He emphasized the bonds and the interest thereof would not be a debt to the City, the State 1 of Utah, or any political subdivision thereof. 2 3 Mr. Larsen pointed out there would be an arbitrage rebate requirement for tax exempt debt, which 4 would be placed upon the borrower. The City would not have any responsibility for arbitrage 5 rebate or calculation. In addition, the fees for completing the bonds would be paid by the borrower 6 and the proceeds would not be any bill to the City for its services. This resolution does not bind 7 the City to do anything; however, it would initiate a publication, a public hearing and resolutions. 8 9 Council Member Franco asked Mr. Larsen to explain the timeline of the entire process. Mr. Larsen 10 provided the Council with a timeline of the process. 11 12 Council Member Crittenden inquired if this process would have any effect on the City's credit if 13 the City went forward on financing the Public Works facility. 14 15 Mr. Larsen explained it would not; it was a pure conduit. He noted, if the City, in the future, had 16 a couple of 501(c)(3) loans go bad, future lenders my express some concern. 17 18 Mr. Larsen explained if the City issued less than 10 million dollars in tax exempt debt in a 19 calendar year, then banks could offer the City a little bit of a break on their interest rate. 20 21 Council Member Franco inquired if there was any reimbursement to the City since the City was 22 the conduit and for the time it took to prepare the materials. Mr. Larsen said whatever it cost the 23 City, the City Attorney would have to sign a straight-forward opinion. Then the City would have 24 to submit the fee to the borrower as a part of the final package, and they would pay the 25 fees. Council Member Crittenden stated he thought the City didn't want to make money on it; 26 however, they would want the City's costs covered. 27 28 Motion: Council Member Smith moved to adopt Resolution 2017-2 of the City Council of Heber 29 City, Utah Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Not More than $22,000,000 Aggregate Principal 30 Amount of the City's Facility Revenue Bonds, Series 2017 (Rocky Mountain Care - Heber, LLC 31 Project); and Related Matters with the change of the address from 500 West to 500 East. Council 32 Member Potter made the second. Council Member Voting Aye: Council Member Bradshaw, 33 Franco, Potter, Smith, and Crittenden. The motion passed unanimously. 34 35 6. Ordinance 2017-4, An Ordinance Amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule "Appendix 36

A" (Consolidated Fee Schedule) Associated with and Pertaining to the Airport Fees, Title 37 3.15, Heber City Municipal Code, Revenue and Finance 38

Staff Report 39 Ordinance 2017-4 40 41 Mr. Godfrey, Airport Manager, addressed the Council. He indicated the Airport Advisory 42 Board (AAB) made a recommendation to increase the Airport Landing Fee for transient 43 aircraft. He stated he was proposing a slightly lower fee than the AAB. His suggestion was to 44 increase the landing fee from $1.66 for 1,000 pounds to $4.00 starting at a maximum takeoff 45 weight (MTOW) of 8,000 pounds. 46

of 24

1 He noted received an 8-page comprehensive staff report complied with legal counsel that 2 addressed legal requirements set forth in the FAA compliance manual and concerns set forth by 3 the FBO. Mr. Godfrey indicated he would like to address one omission in his first Airport staff 4 report, which spoke about the impact upon small general aviators. This change would affect 5 transient aircraft perhaps in a negative way. 6 7 Mayor McDonald stated there was some e-mails sent out regarding the definition of transient 8 aircraft. He questioned if it was clear enough that they would understand what it meant. He 9 indicated there was some concern with the Airport hangar owners about transient aircraft. Mr. 10 Godfrey explained in this application, it would be any aircraft that was not based at the Airport 11 and based meaning not paying a ground lease or some other direct payment to the City. Mayor 12 McDonald inquired if a renter would be considered a transient aircraft. Mr. Godfrey stated they 13 would not be exempt from a landing fee based upon the grant assurances of the FAA. 14 15 Council Member Franco pointed out, based on the FAA, the City had to charge everyone that 16 landed at the Airport; it was non-discriminatory. Mr. Godfrey indicated that was correct unless 17 they were investing in the Airport, which was the one exception. 18 19 Council Member Franco inquired if the FAA had a transient aircraft definition? Mr. Godfrey said 20 the definition he was utilizing was based upon the input from legal counsel, and it is on Exhibit 21 "A" as well. 22 23 Dave Hansen 24 Mr. Hansen addressed the Council. He said in some cases, it was not a matter of someone that had 25 purchased a hangar, and they initially go out to sublease. He explained some of the hangars hold 26 more than one aircraft. He noted some individuals are trying to defraying their cost because they 27 want their aircraft under cover. He said you do have the argument that each person that is paying 28 a sublease, is actually paying it to the City because it allows the person who bought the hangar to 29 be able to buy the hangar and pay for the lease. 30 31 Mr. Hansen went on to say, in all fairness, we collected transient fees for the past three to four 32 years now, and there had not been any complications with it and now there seems to be a 33 problem. He said the bottom line was, whether you pay the lease or a sublease, the money still 34 goes toward maintaining the hangar and the operation of the aircraft on the field. In his opinion, if 35 they were there, they were not transient; they belong there at the Airport. They should not have 36 to pay that fee. He stated very few airports charge locals a landing fee. Council Member 37 Crittenden said he did not think they were proposing to charge locals. Mr. Hansen said they were 38 unless they are saying someone was subletting a spot. Mr. Hansen pointed out it was done 39 everywhere throughout the country. 40 41 Mayor McDonald questioned if a copy of the Ordinance had been sent to the FAA for review. Mr. 42 Godfrey indicated it had not. Council Member Crittenden indicated that Mr. Godfrey and legal 43 counsel looked at the rules. 44 45

of 24

Mr. Godfrey referred to Page 4, which addressed exemptions. He added that the City's aviation 1 legal was very clear on the exemptions. 2 3 Mayor McDonald said he was in favor of increasing the landing fees, but not to $7.00. Mr. 4 Godfrey agreed and indicated that was an overreach. The Airport stakeholders brought that to their 5 attention, and they listened. Mayor McDonald stated he appreciated Mr. Godfrey doing that, and 6 it was a good suggestion. 7 8 Council Member Franco inquired if it was possible to lower the transient landing fee under $4.00 9 for aircraft below 8,000 pounds. Mr. Godfrey indicated that he thought it went back to fair and 10 reasonable and not being unjustly discriminatory toward different classes of aircraft. Council 11 Member Franco said if they are taking off and landing a lot in one day, it could add up. She 12 wondered if it would be reasonable for it to be one-dollar a day no matter how much they took off 13 or landed in one day; or was that discriminatory in favoring them? 14 15 Council Member Smith inquired if this had not been hashed out between Mr. Godfrey and Peter 16 Kirsch. It was noted that Mr. Godfrey had gone through a lot of analysis. They could stay where 17 they were; raise it and include the transient part; or have no landing fee at all. 18 19 Motion: Council Member Crittenden moved to adopt Ordinance 2017-4, An Ordinance Amending 20 the Consolidated Fee Schedule "Appendix A" (Consolidated Fee Schedule) Associated with and 21 Pertaining to the Airport Fees, Title 3.15, Heber City Municipal Code, Revenue and Finance. 22 Council Member Franco made the second. Council Members Voting Aye: Council Member 23 Bradshaw, Franco, Potter, Smith, and Crittenden. The motion passed unanimously. 24 25 7. Ordinance 2017-5, An Ordinance Amending Section 18.22.080 Exceptions to COSZ 26

Standards for Highway Bypass Right of Way Chapter 18.22 of the Clustered Open Space 27 Zone (COSZ) of the Heber Municipal Zone 28

Staff Report 29 Ordinance 2017-5 30 31 Mr. Kohler informed the Council the amendment related to a development on the west side of 32 town, which they needed additional right-of-way. He noted that a few months ago the Council met 33 with the RPO, Wasatch County and the two developers that are developing the two subdivisions, 34 one of which had been taken care of. 35 36 Mr. Kohler said the other one was a proposed development in the cluster open space zone. One of 37 the concluding things was the Council asked that they meet with the petitioner and identify what 38 needed to be done to make sure the right-of-way could be acquired at a reasonable 39 reimbursement. Mr. Kohler indicated they met with the developers, and they had requested an 40 ordinance that gave them relief to the open space; however, there was a list in there that provided 41 some relief to other aspects, which he was asking the Council to consider. 42 Mr. Kohler informed the Council that Staff met with the petitioners, and they are supportive of the 43 amendment. It would allow them to do the development and dedicate additional right-of-way 44 without affecting their development. 45 46

of 24

Council Member Franco inquired what the Planning Commission was thinking to allow the 1 exception on the additional length on cul-de-sac. Mr. Kohler explained UDOT did not like roads 2 or City streets leading up to their facilities. The Planning Commission wanted that to apply to 3 private roads, and in this development, the roads would most likely be private. The goal was 4 to keep the driveways off of 650 South or the other idea would be a right in and right out 5 only. Council Member Franco stated she thought the cul-de-sac length was a safety standard. She 6 expressed concern with the cul-de-sacs. 7 8 Brian Balls – Summit Engineering 9 Mr. Balls addressed the Council. He noted that Staff did a great job in creating a tool set to allow 10 configuration, enhancement and the ability to maintain the integrity of the desired right-of-11 way width of the bypass in conjunction with the project north of them. He went on to say if they 12 looked at dedicating any property, they would fall below some of the minimums prescribed by the 13 ordinance. 14 15 Mr. Balls addressed the cul-de-sac length. He said there was a potential if UDOT did not like 16 their north right only out aspect, it gave them the only option of an 800-foot road. The provision 17 of the 800-foot cul-de-sac was a function of the bypass. If they cannot do that, they would not be 18 able to access their units. 19 20 Discussion followed regarding which phase the subdivision was at. Mr. Kohler indicated it was at 21 the preliminary phase in the Planning Commission. 22 23 Council Member Franco reiterated her concern with the length of the cul-de-sac due to safety 24 standards. Mr. Kohler explained the number they picked was not an arbitrary number. The number 25 1,320 came from Wasatch County's ordinance for cul-de-sacs. He went on to say the Fire Code 26 also had some numbers as it related to width, turn-around width, length, and number of houses. He 27 stated no matter what they do, they can't change the Fire Code. Mr. Kohler pointed out in Red 28 Ledges, they went with the County road standards. Mr. Balls added there was no data on the length 29 of a cul-de-sacs. He didn't think there were any safety issues. 30 31 Mr. Kohler informed the Council as far as zoning, there was only three spots in the City the Cluster 32 Open Space Zone would apply to: Ranch Landing, Elmbridge Apartments, and this property; there 33 are no other properties in the City this would apply to now. He stated if there was another 34 property that came into the City that wanted this particular zone, the Council could put conditions 35 on it. 36 37 Mr. Kohler presented the Council with a preliminary plan of the proposed development and the 38 alignment of the bypass road was discussed. 39 40 41 Motion: Council Member Smith moved to adopt Ordinance 2017-5, An Ordinance Amending 42 Section 18.22.080, Exceptions to COSZ Standards for Highway Bypass Right-of-Way Chapter 43 18.22 of the Clustered Open Space Zone (COSZ) of the Heber Municipal Zone; inserting the word 44 "private" in Section D to indicate the cul-de-sac would be a private road. Council Member 45 Bradshaw made the second. 46

of 24

1 Discussion followed regarding the motion. Council Member Franco asked Council Member Smith 2 if he would accommodate one more modification into his motion. She requested that on Section D 3 where it said “exception to the maximum cul-de-sac length from 850-feet (on private roads) to 4 1,320-feet.” that the following be added: based upon UDOT requirements for surrounding roads. 5 6 Amendment: Council Member Smith accepted the amendment. Council Member Bradshaw made 7 the second. Council Members Voting Aye: Council Member Bradshaw, Franco, Potter, Smith, and 8 Crittenden. The motion passed unanimously. 9 10 8. Ordinance 2017-6, An Ordinance Adopting Secondary Irrigation Rates for Commercial 11

Users and Amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule Appendix "A" (Consolidated Fee 12 Schedule) Associated with and Pertaining to the Irrigation Fees, Title 3.15, Heber City 13 Municipal Code, Revenue and Finance 14

Staff Report 15 Ordinance 2017-6 16 17 Mr. Mumford addressed the Council regarding commercial secondary irrigation. He explained 18 they do not have a rate to charge commercial users. He went on to say with the growth of the 19 commercial, they needed to get that rate established in order to collect revenue for their 20 landscaping. Mr. Mumford noted this was a proposal to establish that rate; it was a very simplistic 21 way to come up with a method that was on par with the residential rate. He explained they 22 established a .002 cents per square foot of landscaped area on their commercial users that have 23 pressurize irrigation, which would start on April 1, 2017. 24 25 Mr. Mumford explained the commercial users had been using the City's pressurized irrigation; 26 however, the City never had a rate to assess the users. 27 28 Council Member Franco expressed concern that Mr. Mumford was using the residential 29 permeability and trying to project from that a commercial permeability rate. She thought the 30 commercial could be a lot less than that. Mr. Mumford said he thought they had adjusted for 31 that. The residential was a gross area; the whole lot was charged for its rate. He pointed out he 32 couldn't use that same rate; therefore, he adjusted the commercial rate to try and approximate what 33 they were purely irrigating. 34 35 Discussion followed regarding metering. Mr. Mumford pointed out the City does not meter for 36 irrigation water. Council Member Franco indicated that she thought in the new developments, 37 they were going to require that. Mr. Mumford pointed out the Irrigation Company was going to 38 start moving in that direction to have the City do that. 39 40 Motion: Council Member Potter moved to adopt Ordinance 2017-6, An Ordinance Adopting 41 Secondary Irrigation Rates for Commercial Users and Amending the Consolidated Fee Schedule 42 Appendix "A" (Consolidated Fee Schedule) Associated with and Pertaining to the Irrigation Fees, 43 Title 3.15, Heber City Municipal Code, Revenue and Finance. Council Member Smith made the 44 second. Council Members Voting Aye: Council Member Bradshaw, Franco, Potter, Smith, and 45 Crittenden. The motion passed unanimously. 46

of 24

1 V. Adjournment 2 3 With no further business coming before the Council at this time, Council Member Potter moved to 4 adjourn the meeting. Council Member Smith made the second. The motion passed unanimously. 5 The meeting adjourned at 9:05 p.m. 6 7 8

___________________________ 9 Michelle Eldredge, City Recorder 10

11 12 13 14

of 10


January 21, 2017 3 8:00 a.m. 4

5 STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING 6

7 The Council of Heber City, Wasatch County, Utah, met in Strategic Planning Meeting on 8 January 21, 2017, in the Wasatch County Seniors Citizen’s Center of the Public Library Building 9 in Heber City, Utah, located at 465 East 1200 South. 10 11 I. Call to Order 12 13 Present: Mayor Pro Tempore Jeffery Bradshaw

Council Member Heidi Franco Council Member Kelleen Potter Council Member Jeffrey Smith Council Member Ronald Crittenden

Excused: Mayor Alan McDonald

Also Present: City Manager Mark Anderson

City Attorney Mark Smedley Planning Director Tony Kohler Chief of Police Dave Booth City Engineer Bart Mumford Building Official Wes Greenhalgh Parks/Cemetery Director Mark Rounds Public Works Director Steve Tozier Airport Manager Denis Godfrey City Recorder Michelle Eldredge

Planning Commission Members: 14

Keith Rawlings, Chair, Dave Richards, Dennis Gunn, Stacie Ferguson, 15 Ryan Stack, and Darryl Glissmeyer 16

17 Others in Attendance: Ryan Starks, Heber Valley Tourism and Economic Development 18 19 Mr. Anderson welcomed all those in attendance. He noted that Mayor McDonald would not be in 20 attendance due to illness. He went on to say Mayor McDonald asked him to share a few thoughts, 21 which he did. Mayor McDonald expressed his feelings toward commitment to excellence and 22 asked that everyone try to excel in their duties; and that commitment was the key to excellence in 23 all that they do. 24 25 Mr. Anderson addressed the demographics of Heber City, some of the milestones and growth the 26 City had reached in 2016, and what the City could work on in 2017. 27

of 10

Mr. Anderson reviewed where the City was at in the budget. He said he thought they were 1 addressing the most critical issues. He appreciated the way the Department Heads managed their 2 budgets, and how responsible they were. He went on to say the City was blessed with good revenue 3 flows; however, they always had to be mindful of fixed costs they put in the budget. 4 5 Tony Kohler – Planning Department 6 Mr. Kohler addressed the City’s General Plan and downtown. He indicated the Council asked for 7 the Form-Base Code to be applied to the downtown area. In addition, he would like to look at small 8 business creation and retention; they are missing parking in the downtown area and quality spaces. 9 Mr. Kohler suggested adopting a parallel zoning ordinance, which would leave all the zoning in 10 place and the adoption of a parallel zone would give property owners incentives. 11 12 Mr. Kohler noted he prepared a map, which was similar to the Form-Base Code map. He noted 13 there was an RC zone, which was a scaled down version of the City’s downtown district, and it 14 would be the highest density. He said 100 West and 100 East would play a stronger role, and in 15 general, it would support uses that would help the City’s downtown be more successful. He 16 questioned if the City Council was in support of that. 17 18 Mr. Kohler suggested the City could have a redevelopment or feasibility study completed and redo 19 the City’s General Plan. It was his opinion the Planning Commission and City Council would be 20 deliberating for 6 to 12months. 21 22 Mayor Pro Tempore Bradshaw stated he thought the redevelopment area was what he had in mind 23 as far as expanding the downtown on the right side. He thought that was what they needed to focus 24 on; however, the one on the left side was a little too much. 25 26 Mr. Anderson added that he and Mr. Kohler met with Mountainlands, and they met with some 27 economic directors. He explained the City needed to have someone propose something before they 28 could create a district, and they might want to look at creating a district on the Bassett property. It 29 could be a way to funnel some money back into the downtown. 30 31 Council Member Potter expressed concern with the Karl Malone area. She wondered how they 32 would balance the transition without the neighbors feeling like they were being encroached on and 33 without jumping across the street. Mr. Kohler noted that the representative from Karl Malone said 34 they would finish purchasing the other homes, and they would landscape the area. 35 36 Mr. Smedley said landscaping was encouraging; however, lighting was a concern. He questioned 37 if they could blend the light in next to the residential. Mr. Kohler said the Karl Malone 38 representative wanted to make the light look more residential. Council Member Franco suggest 39 they could reduce the fees or waive the fees to do reduced lighting. 40 41 Discussion followed regarding development on the east side of the street. It was said the City 42 needed to scale back the commercial; it seemed too intrusive. 43 44 Mayor Pro Tempore Bradshaw pointed out there was no parking in the downtown area. It was a 45 big issue, and the City needed to address it. A Planning Commission member pointed out the City 46

of 10

had a commercial owner willing to put in parking where a house was; the house would be 1 abandoned eventually; and the site couldn’t be rebuilt on because it was too small. He thought it 2 was a win-win for both the City and the commercial owner; however, the lighting was an issue. 3 4 Council Member Franco said because the bypass doesn’t look like it would be a reality for a while, 5 it looked like the City would need parking on both sides of Main Street. She thought they would 6 need to phase in the commercial on 100 East and 100 West until the demographics shifted. 7 8 Bart Mumford – Engineering 9 Mr. Mumford informed the Council this last year had been the biggest year to date in the City. He 10 noted they had spent 5 million dollars to date in the City and had more than 30 million dollars in 11 development. Their number one priority was to try and keep up; however, things did fall through 12 the cracks. He said with the Council’s help, he was able to hire Mr. Funk, and that help him get 13 through the past year. 14 15 Mr. Mumford referred to Page 27, and informed the Council what the Engineering Department 16 accomplished the past year, and what their priorities were. He noted that the developers were their 17 clients too while they protected the City’s interests at the same time. 18 19 Mr. Mumford explained new legislation that passed that would affect the City, which was in 20 regards to the ability of issuing building permits prior to the completion of improvements in a 21 subdivision. 22 23 Discussion followed regarding new City projects that would be coming forward. Mr. Mumford 24 mentioned as Mr. Anderson mentioned earlier, the City may want to change their position on street 25 impact fees. In addition, he explained he looked at his projects based on cost; not on a fiscal year. 26 27 Mr. Mumford addressed the Facilities Master Plan. He explained they had a lot of plans and studies 28 they worked on, and sometimes they refer to it as the General Plan, but it is not; it is the Facilities 29 Master Plan. He noted he had a dilemma, which rolled into the impact fees. He went on to say, if 30 the City did the Public Works expansion, it would roll into the Facilities Master Plan. He had to 31 decide if he should start to amend it now, or should he put it on hold and start it next year. 32 33 Discussion followed regarding the process of updating the Facilities Master Plan. 34 35 Mr. Mumford informed the Council he had a mapping priority this year; they had been doing their 36 mapping on a shoestring budget for the past 10 years. He went on to say he would like to keep it 37 in-house; however, it was an expensive process. He explained he would like to move forward with 38 ESRI, which was a GIS system and convert all of their old files over to that system. It would cost 39 the City approximately $50,000 to $60,000, plus a yearly license fee. 40 41 Finally, Mr. Mumford indicated the City needed to work on a replacement plan for the 42 infrastructure for Heber City so they could do better budgeting. He noted they don’t have a lot of 43 data. Public Works was working on videoing the system, and as of right now, they have about 25 44 percent of the system completed. In addition, the City needed to look at modifying it standards in 45

of 10

regards to irrigation meters. If the City had to put meters in all of its homes; it would cost a couple 1 million dollars. 2 3 Ryan Starks – Branding and Taglines / Heber Valley Tourism and Economic Development 4 Mr. Starks, Heber Valley Tourism and Economic Development, addressed the Council and others 5 in attendance. He indicated they needed to figure out what they wanted to do with the branding; 6 did they want to do it or not. It was his opinion they were hung up on the tagline or log. He 7 explained the way he understood it, the tagline was 1 percent of the brand, and the brand was many 8 things; however, color was as strong as the logo. 9 10 Mr. Starks stated he would create an identity of the community and encourage some uniformity 11 with his organization and show that Heber Valley was a good place to live and visit. Council 12 Member Potter inquired how they should coordinate. Mr. Stark said he thought Heber City should 13 have its own logo/brand; however, he thought the colors should blend. 14 15 Council Member Potter stated that she thought they should pick one of them and move forward 16 and identify their City. She thought that many of the Council were in favor of Page 42. Council 17 Member Franco suggested they vote on two different things: the tagline and the brand/logo. 18 19 Lengthy discussion followed regarding taglines and brand/logos. 20 21 The group decided on a tagline of “Heart of the Wasatch Back” 22 23 The group decided on a brand/logo of the Timpanogos skyline, with the Heber City Tabernacle 24 incorporated within the “H” of Heber City, within an arch. 25 26 Mr. Starks went on to discuss what the office of Heber Valley Tourism and Economic 27 Development did for the community and what their economic strategy was. 28 29 Mark Rounds – Parks and Cemetery 30 Mr. Rounds discussed the sale of cemetery property and obtaining the Duke property. It was his 31 opinion the City should not sale any property below the canal on the east side of the cemetery. 32 33 It was noted if the cemetery stayed the way it was, the City had approximately 50 to 60 years left 34 to utilize the existing cemetery – depending on population. Council Member Potter commented 35 that was if they looked at it the way they always did the cemetery; they should look at new ways 36 to do the cemetery. 37 38 Discussion followed regarding a monument at the cemetery, which was a type of mausoleum. Mr. 39 Rounds indicated he didn’t know the maintenance cost; however, the initial cost could be 40 expensive, but the City could make the cost back as they sold the vaults. Council Member Franco 41 expressed her opinion that they either needed to sell the unusable land and buy the Duke property, 42 or they need to keep the north property and build a mausoleum. 43 44 45

of 10

Council Member Crittenden stated he felt they needed to be like Midway City; they need to take 1 care of their own. If they have $300,000 in perpetual care, it needed to be there for perpetual care. 2 3 Discussion followed regarding seasonal employees for the parks and cemetery. 4 5 Mr. Rounds covered his equipment costs. He noted the program for leasing backhoes was 6 potentially going away, and he may have to ask to purchase a backhoe, which would cost $80,000 7 to $90,000. Council Member Franco inquired if Mr. Rounds could find other options. Mr. Rounds 8 explained there were only three options on the State purchasing contract. 9 10 Mr. Rounds inquired what type of roofing material the Council wanted for the City Administration 11 building. It was said tin or aluminum was not acceptable. It was said the roofing material on Mr. 12 Starks’ building was nice; it could be an option. Mr. Greenhalgh pointed out the sidewalks would 13 have to be moved if that material was utilized. 14 15 Finally, Mr. Rounds addressed the Main Street Park. He indicated it has been requested that 16 another pavilion and bathroom be constructed at the park. 17 18 Wes Greenhalgh – Building Department 19 Mr. Greenhalgh indicated the Building Department was doing well. They had issued 369 building 20 permits, which was the most they had ever issued. 21 22 Mr. Greenhalgh addressed software needs. 23 24 Mr. Greenhalgh discussed the idea of a walkable downtown. He pointed out there was no anchor 25 in downtown Heber. In his opinion, the one thing that was lacking, was a big theatre complex. 26 Council Member Crittenden indicated he talked with the movie theatre owner, and he said Heber 27 City didn’t have the population to sustain a movie complex and there was no parking. 28 29 Mark Smedley – Legal Counsel 30 Mr. Smedley indicated it was important to separate fact from fiction. He said it was important so 31 individuals could make a good decision. He went on to say we, as in government, the power shift 32 had changed. The power was government and news; reacting and getting information and applying 33 it in such a way that you could make a good decision. 34 35 Mr. Smedley showed a video clip from the Internet. 36 37 Mr. Smedley advised the Council to let the facts lead them to a road of truth and recognize the 38 truth of data, as close as they could and arrive at the truth. He stated the truth would protect them, 39 and they should resist the urge to react when people come to them; they needed to verify 40 information. 41 42 Chief Dave Booth – Public Safety 43 Chief Booth indicated they had the City/County Council meeting regarding Animal Control 44 Services, and the next step was for him to go before the County Council and formally ask for the 45 Animal Control Services to be a special service district. 46

of 10

Chief Booth addressed the Animal Control’s equipment. It was his recommendation that it go with 1 the special service district; it was a joint purchase. In regards to the property, it was purchased 2 with FAA funds. The property had to stay with the City; however, the City could lease the property 3 to the special service district for $1 year. 4 5 Council Member Franco inquired about the use of the land and more buildings on the land. Chief 6 Booth indicated he didn’t think another building would fit on the building. 7 8 Mr. Smedley indicated as long as the use didn’t violate any FAA rules, he thought it would be a 9 minutia detail; however, the City may want to ask the FAA about it. The City did speak to the 10 FAA before the shelter was built, and they were aware when it was being constructed there. 11 Council Member Franco inquired if there was any documentation regarding such. No one knew 12 if there was any documentation. Mr. Godfrey indicated it was permissible to have a non-13 aeronautical use on the property; however, the FAA may want a fair market lease rate. 14 15 Chief Booth noted he was also proposing the special service district absorb the City’s personnel. 16 In addition, there would be a Board. He questioned if the Council was okay with a Board. It was 17 indicated the Council was okay with that. 18 19 Discussion following regarding housing. Chief Booth gave the Council some housing price 20 mediums (not averages). He noted Wasatch County was the second highest priced for houses in 21 the State of Utah. The state average was $241,000 vs. Heber City, which was $415,000; however, 22 on the average sales price, most homes were going for $560,000. He pointed out that there were 23 currently six homes in the Heber Valley on the market under $300,000. 24 25 Discussion followed regarding the lack of rentals and rental rates. He pointed out Council Member 26 Potter’s study suggested that 30 percent of an individual’s wage should go to housing. 27 28 Chief Booth informed the Council that what the Department Heads discussed was they were 29 willing to not request any full-time positions; they were worried about their current staffing needs 30 now. He addressed some of the things that could help. 31 32 Chief Booth stated they were going to lose their working class. It was an organizational issue and 33 a community issue. He questioned, where do we go with this. He acknowledged it had to be within 34 reason; there was always going to be employees that couldn’t afford a house. He said they were 35 competitive, but they have to be better than that. 36 37 Council Member Crittenden inquired if they could require a developer to set aside so many units 38 as rentals, or so many units/lots go to public employees. Mr. Kohler indicated they could look at 39 the County’s ordinance on affordable housing. 40 41 Chief Booth addressed the hiring of an Assistant City Manager. He stated he and the other 42 Department Heads were not in favor of it. They would like the money for this year to go toward 43 item 1, which was insurance. For next year, they would like the Council to consider converting 44 those funds into items 2 and 3, which were employees moving to mid-range in the pay scale at 6-45

of 10

years and max-range in the pay scale at 12-years; and a 3 percent probationary raise reinstated / 1 made retroactive for current employees. 2 3 Discussion followed regarding the evaluation process and how employees obtain their raises 4 through that process. It was said they are not automatically given the highest percentage; they 5 have to earn what they get by their performance. In addition, Chief Booth addressed moving 6 employees to mid-range in a certain amount of years. 7 8 Mr. Anderson pointed out that doing all the items that Chief Booth discussed was not reasonable; 9 however, the first two was the most feasible. Chief Booth agreed. All the items would not be 10 today; this was a long-term goal. He would like to propose they start building it today. They know 11 they have a problem, and they are just trying to fix it. 12 13 Chief Booth reiterated he would like to get employees into homes, and if they could pay the 14 employees, they could keep them. He stated, I say we fight it and resist it. It was his opinion they 15 wanted the employees in their community. 16 17 It was inquired what the County was doing with their employees. Chief Booth explained the 18 County does not require their employees to live within Wasatch County/Heber Valley, and it 19 seemed the Karmas side was more affordable. However, the County was trying, and they did raise 20 the wages for the sheriffs. He noted Heber City was the higher paying agency of the two. 21 22 Chief Booth inquired if the Council was in favor of trying to knock out one or two of the proposed 23 ideas. 24 25 Council Member Franco stated she had a long-term thought about the Duke property and working 26 with the County. She thought they could have some condominiums there for public employees. It 27 was mentioned that Park City had a good program for their employees. They build some 28 townhomes, which are only available to their employees, and the rent was very affordable. In 29 addition, there was an option to purchase the unit. 30 31 Mr. Anderson inquired if the Council would be okay if Staff put together some number to each 32 employee so they knew what the impact would look like. There was not a total consensus of the 33 Council. 34 35 Steve Tozier – Public Works 36 Mr. Tozier addressed the concern about the Public Works Department working closely with 37 Wasatch County. He explained they do work closely with the County, and Mr. Christensen, with 38 the County, offered to help the City top of their loads with tailings from the street sweeper. 39 40 Mr. Tozier addressed concerns with dumping. He informed the Council they had a test conducted 41 regarding contamination, and it was a false alarm. The test showed one-third of 1 percent 42 contamination. He explained there was another problem, which was petroleum products. He went 43 on to explain they could reclaim all of the asphalt product with a unit that could recycle and reuse 44 hot mix. He explained the process of asphalt reclamation, the reasons for potholes and the 45

of 10

equipment needed to solve the problem. Mr. Tozier indicated the equipment was approximately 1 $185,000. 2 3 Mr. Tozier said it was mentioned earlier today they would have to purchase backhoes; however, 4 for this next budget year, they would provide the same deal but there was a slight increase from 5 $7,000 to $7,500 for 300 hours. In fiscal year 2018-2019, they would have to purchase backhoes 6 at a price of approximately $60,000. 7 8 Mr. Tozier addressed the wages of his employees. He expressed the concern he had was he had to 9 bring his new employees in at the bottom of the scale, and he would like to have the ability to give 10 them a raise at the end of their probation. 11 12 Mr. Tozier informed the Council the City had 25 to 30 miles of sidewalk that was failing. He stated 13 it had been determined the City was responsible for replacing sidewalk because it was a trip hazard 14 and there could be a number of claims. Mr. Tozier presented the Council with a video clip for HMI 15 Concrete Lifting, which was a way to repair sidewalks without tearing out the old sidewalk. 16 17 Denis Godfrey – Airport Manager 18 Mr. Godfrey indicated as they performed snow removal at the Airport, they had to follow a certain 19 advisory circular by the FAA. He explained he didn’t have a snow blower. He said the problem 20 was if a jet hits its brakes, and then it hit the snow and other things, it could put the City at liability. 21 22 It was inquired how quickly the snow had to be removed from the Airport. Mr. Godfrey stated the 23 advisory circular said four hours; however, people had different opinions. Mr. Godfrey informed 24 the Council the Airport had a plow truck and a loader. He and Mr. Biggs could handle the plowing, 25 but Public Works was outstanding, and they had helped them when the snow storms were bad. He 26 estimated each visit from Public Works cost $800 to $1,000. Mr. Godfrey estimated a new snow 27 blower would cost $80,000 to $120,000. 28 29 Mr. Godfrey informed the Council he had received some complaints about the middle taxiways 30 being closed for a day or two because of the amount of snow. Council Member Potter stated she 31 thought the legal exposure was huge. She suggested Mr. Godfrey check into getting a grant or if 32 there was any type of surplus equipment. 33 34 Finally, Mr. Godfrey indicated he needed a reel type broom to break up ice and compacted snow, 35 which would cost approximately $80,000. 36 37 Mark Anderson – City Manager 38 Mr. Anderson referred to the Water and Sewer Fund. He said he was seeing positive effects with 39 those Funds; however, there was still work to be done. He said the Council adopted a resolution 40 that said the City may need to borrow money for the northwest sewer project. He noted he didn’t 41 think there was a need to bond; and they should be able to erase that deficit. In addition, the City’s 42 Operating Funds were building up, and the deficit was going down. In his opinion, the Operating 43 Fund would have to offset the negative impact fees for two more years. 44 45

of 10

Council Member Franco pointed out the rate increases were scheduled to be for another two or 1 three years. If the rates were maintaining and the impact fees were lowering, perhaps the City 2 didn’t need to raise the rates. 3 4 Council Member Franco inquired what the deficit was in the Water Fund. Mr. Anderson replied, 5 they didn’t have a deficit in the Water Fund; they were failing to cover their operating costs. 6 7 Mr. Anderson referred to the City’s financial stability, and he said sales tax and building permits 8 were the most volatile. He noted that property taxes were stable. He went on to say, as the City 9 looked to borrow money, there were some risks there because in the Sewer Fund, they were in the 10 negative. 11 12 Discussion followed regarding staffing. Mr. Anderson pointed out the Assistant City Manager 13 position had already been approved and a full-time Deputy Recorder was hired. He pointed out 14 that some of the funding for the Assistant City Manager went to hire the Deputy City Recorder. In 15 addition, they could use some of the Assistant City Manager wage to supplement employee wages 16 and a cost sharing of the employee’s medical with a differential for tobacco users. 17 18 Mr. Anderson addressed the Qualtrics Software. He said it was a pretty sophisticated software. It 19 was inquired if it was compared to Survey Monkey; how it would be integrated with the City’s 20 current website; and would the City keep parlant or get rid of it. Mr. Anderson said the City had a 21 good database of phone numbers and a way to communicate with the public. Mr. Kohler added 22 Qualtrics was different than the City’s website. Council Member Franco stressed it was important 23 to do public polling. 24 25 Mr. Anderson addressed capital projects for the new fiscal year. 26 27 Mr. Anderson proposed a budget process for the 2017-2018 fiscal year. He indicated he would like 28 to have the Department Heads come to a budget meeting by the end of next month. He would like 29 to have a review with the Council in March and meet with the Department Heads again in April. 30 31 Mayor Pro Tempore Bradshaw inquired what the Council would like to do with the remaining 32 time. He questioned if the Council would like to discuss priorities or concerns for the community. 33 34 Council Member Crittenden said he thought they should have another meeting. Council Member 35 Potter indicated she thought it would be beneficial if each Council Member took five to ten minutes 36 to express what they thought. 37 38 Mayor Pro Tempore Bradshaw invited each Council Member to take five minutes, and then maybe 39 they would set up another meeting and invite the Department Heads. 40 41 Council Member Crittenden indicated he had already mentioned to Mayor McDonald his topic 42 was the downtown core and the streets. He said he didn’t know what they would do to move it to 43 reality. 44 45

of 10

Mayor Pro Tempore Bradshaw stated that was his topic as well. He questioned what do we want 1 to do. Do we reach out for a tax increment? Council Member Crittenden indicated he had spoken 2 with Mr. Kohler about a drive through. He said he would get with Mr. Kohler, and he wanted to 3 moved forward. 4 5 Council Member Franco stated that Mr. Starks gave the City an idea about a splash pad and an ice 6 rink, which could be an anchor. In addition, she talked about having a committee, and it could 7 have businessmen on it. 8 9 Council Member Potter indicated she wanted to discuss the General Plan; how they use it and 10 update it. 11 12 Council Member Smith said when they went into these meeting, he didn’t think they got into 13 strategic planning forward thinking, but he didn’t want to discount that. He would like to see a 14 productive conversation and come up with action items, steps in the right direction, and forward 15 thinking. In addition, he would like to be able to recognize the solutions. He commented this was 16 the second time he had done this, and he appreciated the Department Heads and them expressing 17 what they need and why they need it. He went on to say he wanted to see how they could work 18 things into the budget and see a clear picture of what they need and why they need it. 19 20 Mayor Pro Tempore Bradshaw suggested the Council plan on continuing the Strategic Planning 21 meeting at the beginning of the February 2, 2017, Regular Council meeting at 4:00 p.m. 22 23 Council Member Crittenden indicated he got a lot out of attending agenda prep meetings; he 24 understood the issues more. He said he would like to see at the end of each City Council meeting, 25 a recap of what they heard from the meeting. Council Member Franco agreed. 26 27 Council Member Potter stated they were giving Staff whip lash. She stated she thought they could 28 make it better on all of them if they had a vision plan. Mr. Anderson informed the Council they 29 had done some of that in the past. In some years, they spent a Friday and a Saturday going through 30 the goal process. Five of the six Council Members agreed. Mr. Anderson stated it would take a 31 real investment of time and focus. He went on to say other communities do it too, and they invest 32 two whole days with the process, and they generate their goals and associate their finances with it 33 as well. 34 35 With no further business to come before the Council at this time, the Council adjourned its 36 Strategic Planning meeting at 4:10 p.m. 37 38 39 40 41


44

of 8 cc 02‐02‐2017


February 2, 2017 3 5:00 p.m. 4

5 REGULAR MEETING 6

7 The Council of Heber City, Wasatch County, Utah, met in Regular Meeting on February 2, 8 2017, in the City Council Chambers in Heber City, Utah 9 10 Present: Mayor Alan McDonald

Council Member Jeffery Bradshaw Council Member Kelleen Potter Council Member Jeffrey Smith

Excused: Council Member Heidi Franco Council Member Ron Crittenden Also Present:

City Manager Mark Anderson City Recorder Michelle Eldredge City Engineer Bart Mumford City Planner Tony Kohler Chief of Police Dave Booth

Senior Accountant Wes Bingham City Attorney Mark Smedley Airport Manager Denis Godfrey

11 Others Present: D.R. Glissmeyer, Dave Hansen, Riley Probst, Dennis Jensen, Paul Boyer, , 12 Anthon Beales, Chris Pedersen, Jacob Anderson, Justin Motley, Chris Davis, Stephen LaFay, 13 Corey Simpson, Laurie Wynn, Kayden Davis, Matthew Kennard, Rance Echols, Nate Bijole, 14 Nancy Nebeker, Candace Bufton, Chase Winder, Blake Allen, and others whose names were 15 illegible. 16 17 I. CONTINUATION OF STRATEGIC PLANNING MEETING (4:00 p.m.) 18 19 Mayor McDonald explained that there was one unaddressed agenda item from the January 21 20 Strategic Planning Meeting, and he wanted to give each Council Member the opportunity to 21 express any concern or goal they wanted to achieve; or anything they wished to discuss. 22 23 Council Member Smith had two priorities: what to do to revitalize downtown and updating the 24 General Plan, which he felt was the general consensus of all those present at the meeting. 25 26 Mayor McDonald agreed and felt they should designate what portion of downtown should be the 27 focus of the revitalization effort, and to focus on that for the next year or two. Discussion turned 28 to Kohler's incentives. Kohler explained that he proposed leaving the zoning in place, and to 29

of 8 cc 02‐02‐2017

adopt new design criteria as an option, meaning if people wanted to keep their zoning as is, they 1 could; but if they wanted the new zoning to apply, the incentive would be density. If they wanted 2 the new zoning, they would get more density, but they would need to comply with the new 3 design criteria. 4 5 Council Member Potter discussed the General Plan and asked when it had last been 6 revised. Kohler explained that the last major revision was done in 2003, however changes were 7 made in 2008 and 2009, and a dozen other minor map amendments had been done as 8 well. Potter stated she spoke with Midway, where their General Plan was reviewed every five 9 years. She also spoke with Park City. She felt Heber was not using its General Plan as well as it 10 could, and suggested the City have an updated General Plan with public input. She then shared 11 how Midway engaged the public in their General Plan update process. Potter felt the City was 12 being reactive with respect to annexations and growth, and she thought if the City had 13 community input at the level of the General Plan, it may provide a blue print on the City's 14 priorities when making decisions as the City grew. 15 16 Council Member Bradshaw's main concern pertained to downtown development. He felt the 17 City should try and maintain the current feel of the downtown and expand on that. He felt 18 certain businesses should be restricted from that area, e.g. car dealerships and auto repair 19 businesses that had been grandfathered in. Bradshaw also felt the City should consider 20 expanding the commercial area east and west from Main Street, as Main Street had become 21 difficult due to the traffic. 22 23 Bradshaw agreed that the General Plan needed to be worked on, and expressed his interest in 24 having Staff give an overall plan on how to approach that. He felt Midway's process would 25 provide some good ideas to glean from and felt the Plan needed to be updated regularly. 26 27 Mayor McDonald noted that Mark Rounds brought up the potential purchase of the Duke 28 property for the cemetery. The Mayor felt strongly that the Council needed to look at that. 29 30 Another concern raised by Mayor McDonald was the large amount of emails going back and 31 forth, and he felt way too much City business was being done via email; even decisions were 32 being made via email. He noted that some of the Council Members were not included on some 33 emails. Mayor McDonald stated that all Council Members needed to be included if one chose to 34 communicate by email. He added that the City needed to maintain transparency, and the Council 35 needed to avoid making decisions by email. Instead, issues needed to be brought before the full 36 Council and decided during a noticed meeting. 37 38 Mayor McDonald then solicited any comments from the Staff. 39 40 Mark Anderson noted that during the January 21 meeting, Council Member Smith mentioned a 41 more formal visioning process. Anderson estimated it would likely be a two-day process and 42 suggested a paid facilitator to keep the group on track, and if the Council wanted to do that, then 43 it would need to be budgeted. He estimated it would cost approximately $1000 for a two-day 44 event, perhaps more. 45 46

of 8 cc 02‐02‐2017

Bart Mumford was seeking more input on the General Plan and how much it may change, which 1 would impact the Master Facilities Plan, which was currently due for an update. If it were to 2 significantly change, then the Facilities Plan would be obsolete. He asked whether the Council 3 wanted him to proceed forward with the Facilities Plan, or wait a year. Tony Kohler felt the 4 Council was more interested in policy changes and goals and not sweeping changes in the land 5 use map. Council Member Potter agreed, and mentioned parks and parking as an example: does 6 the City have adequate parks and parking? She wanted the City to be less reactive on these 7 issues. 8 9 Discussion next focused on the downtown area. Kohler wanted to know what area the Council 10 considered as downtown. Mayor McDonald felt the area between Canton City and the City Park 11 should be the area on which to focus, which he felt would be somewhat walkable. He thought 12 the City needed to find ways to attract businesses to the area. 13 14 Anderson noted that Council Members Bradshaw and Smith were on the Arts Committee, and as 15 such, he suggested they envision a spot for the arts center in Heber, even though he understood 16 the committee was looking at Midway. 17 18 Council Member Bradshaw indicated that the committee was coming close to a decision on a 19 location and was focusing Midway, as most of the committee members held close connections to 20 Midway. He felt their proposal was a little unrealistic, as they presented a pretty comprehensive 21 plan to create a mixed-use and residential area with an auditorium that would seat 400-500 22 people, and an outdoor amphitheater. They were looking at potentially developing everything 23 from the south side of Memorial Hill to Midway's Main Street. The plan parameters pretty much 24 eliminated anything in Heber City, however they had considered the railroad village area. 25 26 At 4:50 p.m., with no further business, the Strategic Planning Meeting was concluded. 27 28 II. REGULAR MEETING - Call to Order (5:00 p.m.) 29 City Manager's Memo 30 31 III. Pledge of Allegiance: Council Member Kelleen Potter 32

33 IV. Prayer/Thought: Council Member Jeffrey Smith 34 35 V. Open Period for Public Comments 36 37 Mayor McDonald opened the meeting for comments by the public on items not listed on the 38 Agenda. 39 40 Paul Boyer, Owner of Hangar 19, wished to discuss two hangar owner groups that he previously 41 hadn't been able to discuss during his tenure as Interim Airport Manager, due to concerns 42 regarding a potential conflict of interest. The two hangar groups were affected by decisions that 43 happened last summer. 44 45

of 8 cc 02‐02‐2017

First, the July 21, 2016 Council meeting minutes, on page 15, Agenda Item 10, discussing the 1 Hangar Row lease recommendation. Boyer noted there were five separate motions made and 2 passed. Then, in the September 1, 2016 meeting minutes on pages 2 and 3, there was another 3 discussion concerning hangar leases. Boyer noted that Mayor McDonald made a 4 recommendation and the item was tabled. Boyer stated that five months had passed, and nothing 5 had been resolved on that. He felt it was time to work on that issue and the hangar owners had 6 been patient. 7 8 The second hangar group Boyer discussed was the 31 Daniel Hangar owners who all converted 9 their leases to non-reversionary leases. Boyer noted that in its April 2016 meeting, the Airport 10 Board discussed clarifying language regarding "above-mentioned term and rate," and the Board 11 found it did not want to change the language. Boyer felt this was important to highlight, because 12 the intent of the Airport Board was to retain value on the leases and to allow the lease holders the 13 opportunity to sell their hangars, and transfer their leases. 14 15 Boyer then discussed two motions made at the September 1, 2016 Council meeting: one to 16 approve the owner's transfer of a lease to his buyer; and the other to offer the buyer the new 17 standard lease when available. 18 19 Boyer felt the City had some responsibility to complete these items as to the two owner groups in 20 a timely fashion, and added those groups had been waiting for a decision since 21 September. Mayor McDonald indicated the Council had been working on it; there were some 22 legal issues that had arisen and the Council was trying to resolve everything at once. 23 24 Mayor McDonald recognized the presence of a Boy Scout at the meeting (Joshua Williams) and 25 asked him to stand and introduce himself. 26 27 1. Presentation of Mayor's Award - Officer Richard Crist, Tammy Mair and the Public 28

Works Department 29 30 The Mayor's Award was presented to Tammy Mair and Officer Richard Crist in recognition of 31 their exceptional service, as recounted by Chief Booth. 32 33 Next, Mayor McDonald recognized the entire Public Works Department for their exemplary 34 service to the City, particularly during the hard winter, and noted how the department had 35 received so many compliments. He stated that the City would take them out to breakfast or 36 lunch as a team in appreciation for their efforts. 37 38 2. Public Hearing - Resolution 2017-3, A Resolution Amending the 2016-2017 Operating 39

Budget, Airport Special Revenue Fund 40 Resolution 2017-3 41 Staff Report 42 43 Godfrey reviewed that the public hearing was to discuss an amendment to the Airport Special 44 Revenue Fund to include legal fees. He explained they had several legal issues to address, in 45 light of the ongoing revision of the lease agreement. 46

of 8 cc 02‐02‐2017

On another note, Godfrey expressed his thanks to the Public Works personnel, who had been out 1 to plow the airport a number of times after plowing City streets during the recent storms and had 2 done a fantastic job in keeping the airport operational. 3 4 At 5:23 p.m., Mayor McDonald opened the public hearing. With no public comments, Mayor 5 McDonald closed the public hearing at 5:23 p.m. 6 7 Motion: Council Member Bradshaw moved to pass Resolution 2017-3, which would increase 8 the hangar pad fee revenue by $95,000 and increase by $95,000 the Professional Services for the 9 fiscal year 2017 budget. Council Member Smith made the second. Voting Aye: Council 10 Members Bradshaw, Potter, and Smith. Council Members Franco and Crittenden were excused. 11 The motion carried. 12 13 3. Chase Winder, Qualtrics Government Account Executive, Presentation on Software to 14

Manage the Customer Experience 15 Qualtrics Presentation 16 17 Chase Winder, with Qualtrics Government Account Software, presented on the software. The 18 purpose of the software was to achieve a better dialog with the public on key City topics and to 19 enhance customer engagement. Winder walked through how other cities and organizations were 20 using the application. He then demonstrated how the product worked. 21 22 Discussion followed concerning the cost and the comparison of this product to Survey Monkey, 23 as well as the survey methodologies employed by Qualtrics. 24 25 Mayor McDonald felt the City should proceed with the system. Council Member Potter was 26 concerned with the sophistication and cost of the system. Winder listed the various smaller Utah 27 cities that were currently using the system. He stated the City could invest in a more 28 conservative level and grow the system in sophistication over time. 29 30 Council Members Smith and Bradshaw were in favor of taking the process to the next 31 step. Mayor McDonald stated they would undertake the next step and perhaps the City Manager 32 and Anthon Beales would get together to discuss the City's needs. 33 34 Anderson explained that the funds for this system would be allocated from the previous 35 allocation for the Assistant Manager position. 36 37 4. Accept/Reject the Three String Holdings, LLC Annexation Petition, a Request to Annex 38

18.3 Acres of Land Located at Approximately 1568 South Highway 189, Heber City, 39 Utah 40

Annexation Petition 41 42 Anderson reviewed the annexation request. He indicated that the Petitioner, Riley Probst, was 43 present at the meeting. He explained that the property consisted of a 14.35-acre parcel across 44 from the airport, and to make it contiguous, they needed to include the Highway 189 right-of-45

of 8 cc 02‐02‐2017

way. Probst was requesting the Council's approval, and then forwarding the petition to the 1 Planning Commission for further study. 2 3 Motion: Council Member Smith moved to approve the Three String Holdings, LLC Annexation 4 Petition and forward it to the Planning Commission for further review. Council Member 5 Bradshaw made the second. Voting Aye: Council Members Bradshaw, Potter and Smith. 6 Council Members Franco and Crittenden were excused. The motion carried. 7 8 5. Ordinance 2017-7, An Ordinance Repealing Section 10.40.04 of the Heber City 9

Municipal Code Restricting Aircraft Landing and Takeoffs at the Heber City Municipal 10 Airport to Aircraft with a Maximum Certified Takeoff Single Wheel Gear Weight of Less 11 than 30,000 Pounds and Providing for a Penalty for Violation 12

Staff Report 13 Ordinance 2017-7 14 15 Godfrey reviewed the purpose of Ordinance 2017-7 to repeal Section 10.40.04. He explained 16 that the code section was adopted in 1996, and while well-intended, it was never 17 enforced. Further, a new runway weight bearing classification for new 2015 construction 18 rendered the old ordinance obsolete. 19 20 Godfrey added that the FAA was concerned with the code section, and City staff recommended 21 repealing the section in a good faith effort to maintain a good relationship with the FAA. 22 23 Motion: Council Member Potter moved to repeal Municipal Code Section 10.40.04 restricting 24 aircraft landing and takeoffs at the Heber City Municipal Airport to aircraft with a maximum 25 certified takeoff single wheel gear weight of less than 30,000 pounds and providing for a penalty 26 for violation. Council Member Smith made the second. 27 28 Council Member Potter commented that her intention was to go along with staff and legal 29 recommendations, and that it was in no way inviting larger airplanes; it was a completely neutral 30 action and intended to comply with legal requirements. 31 32 Call the Question: Voting Aye: Council Members Bradshaw, Potter and Smith. Council 33 Members Franco and Crittenden were excused. The motion carried. 34 35 6. Resolution 2017-4, A Resolution Repealing and Rescinding Resolution 2016-9 and 2016-36

10 Addressing the City's Position Regarding Expansion of the City Airport 37 Staff Report 38 Resolution 2017-4 39 40 Godfrey explained this resolution was a good faith effort to maintain the relationship with the 41 FAA and other airport users and stakeholders, and in no way would change the City Council's 42 and citizens' position on the C-II issue. Council Member Bradshaw confirmed with Godfrey that 43 the resolution to rescind was recommended by the City's legal counsel. 44 45

of 8 cc 02‐02‐2017

Motion: Council Member Bradshaw moved to approve Resolution 2017-4, repealing and 1 rescinding Resolutions 2016-9 and 2016-10 addressing the City's position regarding expansion of 2 the City airport. Council Member Smith made the second. 3 4 Council Member Potter explained that this action was in response to some misunderstanding with 5 the FAA and some airport users, and in no way changed the Council's position regarding the 6 airport, and the Council would commit to hearing from the citizens on their feelings on the issue. 7 8 Call the Question: Voting Aye: Council Members Bradshaw, Potter and Smith. Council 9 Members Franco and Crittenden were excused. The motion carried. 10 11 7. Citywide Road Project Budget Discussion 12 Staff Report 13 Heber City Road Tax Revenue 14 Heber City Debt Service Schedule 15 16 Mumford explained the item was intended for Council discussion and related to the upcoming 17 citywide road project in the summer. Mumford noted that staff had been finalizing the budget, 18 but needed some direction from the Council on what it would like to see in the scope of the 19 budget. 20 21 Mumford summarized the associated Staff Report. The project would be carried over into 22 two fiscal budgets and it anticipated some borrowing. He also asked that the Council discuss 23 whether to include the Red Ledges project as part of the roads project, which would involve the 24 widening and resurfacing of Lake Creek Road, which was part of Red Ledges' Annexation 25 Agreement. 26 27 Mumford then explained the road condition scale included in his report and how the scale 28 determined what maintenance would be required. Based on the scale, Mumford determined that 29 79 to 80 percent of Heber's road were in good to better condition, and the City would want to 30 keep them that way. 31 32 The proposed citywide project would focus on the primary roads that carried the heaviest traffic, 33 and some of those areas would get the overlay treatment and chip and slurry seals; the other less 34 traveled roads would get an oil treatment. The cost was estimated to be $4.8 million; the current 35 budgeted amount was $4 million. 36 37 Mumford then discussed the Lake Creek project and Red Ledges’ obligation to overlay Lake 38 Creek Road. Mumford thought the Council should consider including a road widening with the 39 overlay project to 2400 East, to accommodate anticipated area growth and travel on the road. If 40 the Council wanted to do that, it would increase the budget another $750,000, bringing the total 41 budget to $5.5 million. 42 43 Anderson explained that the City collected approximately $1.4 million in road transportation tax 44 funds, and to borrow $2 to 2.5 million, it wouldn't be a big strain, and was a hedge against 45 inflation; Anderson was comfortable with Mumford's proposal, and felt the more the City 46

of 8 cc 02‐02‐2017

invested now, the less it would need to invest in the future. Mumford stated that the actual 1 numbers would not be known until the bid process was opened. 2 3 Following discussion, the Council was in favor of moving forward with Mumford's 4 recommendation. 5 6 VI. Adjournment 7 8 With no further business, Council Member Potter moved to adjourn. Council Member Smith 9 made the second. The meeting was adjourned at 6:27 p.m. 10 11 12


15 16 17 18

of 7

Heber City Corporation 1 Budget Meeting 2 March 15, 2017 3

4:08 p.m. 4 5

BUDGET MEETING 6 7 The Council of Heber City, Wasatch County, Utah, met in Budget Meeting on March 15, 2017, 8 in the Community Room of the Public Safety Building in Heber City, Utah, located at 301 South 9 Main Street. 10 11 I. Call to Order 12 13 Present: Mayor Alan McDonald

Council Member Jeffery Bradshaw Council Member Heidi Franco Council Member Kelleen Potter Council Member Jeffrey Smith Council Member Ronald Crittenden – arrived 4:14

Excused: None

Also Present: City Manager Mark Anderson Chief of Police Dave Booth Airport Manager Denis Godfrey Senior Accountant Wesley Bingham Planning Director Tony Kohler Building Official Wes Greenhalgh City Engineer Bart Mumford Public Works Director Steve Tozier Parks/Cemetery Director Mark Rounds Justice Court Judge Randy Birch City Recorder Michelle Eldredge

Others in Attendance: DiAnn Duke Turner 14 15 Mayor McDonald called the budget meeting to order at 4:08 p.m. He welcomed all those in 16 attendance. He asked everyone to introduce himself or herself; all Council Members and Staff 17 Members were in attendance at that time with the exception of Council Member Crittenden. 18 19 Mayor McDonald turned the time over to Mr. Anderson. 20 21 1. 2017-2018 Fiscal Year Budget Workshop 22 23 Mr. Anderson went over a brief review of the proposed budget. 24 25

of 7

Mr. Anderson informed the Council they usually start with benefits and salary increases and see 1 where they could go from there with the rest of the budget. He noted the sales tax and building 2 permits were at a 11 percent growth this year, and building permits were at an all-time high. 3 However, they are the most volatile. He went on to say they do not expect to meet revenues for 4 the Justice Court. Right now they are focusing more on DUIs and drug related charges. 5 6 Mr. Anderson reviewed expenditures for the General Fund. He said he was estimating that the 7 Department Heads would underspend their budgets by a couple of hundred thousand dollars. In 8 addition, it was anticipated that the Branding would have been spent in this fiscal year, but it had 9 not been spent. They would need to amend the budget. 10 11 Mr. Anderson informed the Council the City health insurance increased 1.5 percent for the new 12 fiscal year. He went on to explain the City currently pays 86.6 percent of the employees’ 13 premium and 85 percent of the dental and vision premium. He noted with the increase of all 14 benefits would be about $12,500 a year for the City based on the current allocation. However, 15 they had talked about the City increasing their portion to 90 percent. It was questioned where the 16 funding would come from to increase the City’s portion. Mr. Anderson indicated it would come 17 from the General Fund Revenue. 18 19 Discussion followed regarding benefits. 20 21 Mr. Anderson referred to Page 26. He noted it showed the breakout of how the wages currently 22 exist with a COLA and a 3 percent merit. 23 24 Council Member Crittenden suggested they go to one-time purchases instead of reviewing 25 personnel. In addition, he wanted to know how hard it would be to provide the Council with 26 employee wages for the past three to four years. Mr. Anderson indicated that historically, they 27 tracked at 65 to 70 percent of the budget, and he thought it would be pretty similar to previous 28 years. 29 30 Council Member Potter inquired if the list of personnel requests were in order of preference. 31 32 It was said the COLA was uniform across the City. Council Member Crittenden referred to merit 33 increases; he indicated he would like to be able to tell the Department Heads they only had so 34 much money to work with. 35 36 Mr. Anderson said in regards to insurance, they could have a higher premium for tobacco users. 37 38 Chief Booth noted that each of the programs they had put forward, they are not random. They 39 are meant to accomplish a certain purpose to help the employees. 40 41 Mr. Anderson stated he could explain each cost and give the Council a total cost. 42 43 Council Member Smith indicated he would like to see all of the proposed ideas together and hear 44 the Department Heads’ reasoning. He said he supported the 90/10 insurance proposal with the 45

of 7

tobacco incentive. Council Member Bradshaw noted he was open to that as well; however, they 1 needed to see how much it added up to. 2 3 Council Member Crittenden inquired where the 2.0 percent for COLA came from. He noted that 4 the seniors got less than 1 percent. Mr. Anderson explained he got it from the Consumer Price 5 Index. Council Member Bradshaw added that the senior’s COLA was based on a year or two 6 ago; it was not current. 7 8 Mr. Anderson reviewed all the costs associated with each proposed benefit. 9 10 Chief Booth informed the Council that this (the transfer of vacation credit) was what other 11 agencies are doing to recruit officers, and they are going to have to stay competitive so they 12 don’t lose their officers. He stated that agencies are trying hard to recruit Tier I employees. 13 These rewarded employees and retained them. He added that what they are finding out with the 14 “millennial” employee was they want time off. 15 16 Council Member Potter said it seemed more desirable to an employee. Chief Booth stated they 17 were trying to hit a lot of ground, and the vacation didn’t hit them with a large financial impact. 18 Council Member Crittenden said he could see offering it to new employees but not going retro. 19 The current employees chose to come and work here with what they were offered. Chief Booth 20 explained to keep moral high at the City; they would have to go retro. Council Member 21 Crittenden inquired how the City would apply it to a backhoe operator or someone with a 22 Master’s Degree. 23 24 Mr. Tozier indicated his department was harder than the Police Department. His most desired 25 proposal was the probationary increase. He added that his strongest competition was the County; 26 his department was the training ground for the County 27 28 Mr. Mumford stated this was a big issue for Mr. Funk. He lost two weeks of vacation to come 29 work for the City. If the Council only applied it to new hires, it would kill it for him. Council 30 Member Crittenden reiterated that he chose to come work here; the City is not the private sector. 31 32 Mr. Rounds informed the Council that his two key employees had their four weeks of vacation, 33 and that was the only thing that kept them from jumping from the City. He stated if the County 34 ever changed their policy, they would leave. 35 36 Council Member Franco said they City couldn’t keep up with Heber Light & Power either; it was 37 her opinion that certain departments needed to evaluate their wages. 38 39 Mr. Greenhalgh pointed out there was shortage in the building sector as well. He said Park City 40 just lost two employees, and cities are coming up with creative incentives. He stated if the City 41 didn’t go retro on the vacation, they would lose employees; they would go elsewhere. If you 42 want to keep your current employees, you have to take care of them. 43 44 Mr. Kohler indicated he liked the insurance proposal. If the Council wanted to help the lower 45 wage earners, that one would basically compress the wage scale. 46

of 7

1 Discussion followed regarding insurance, the total benefit package, and moving an employee 2 from mid to max through the pay scale. 3 4 Chief Booth referred to Page 28. He said he had a request to increase a part-time employee’s 5 hours from 19 hours a week to 25 hours a week, which would require retirement benefits. He 6 noted she does the GRAMA and redaction for the Police Department. He added he would like to 7 promote another Officer to Sergeant. In addition, he would like to start including probationary 8 raises, which would be 3 percent after a year of employment. Chief Booth addressed crossing 9 guards, he said he would like to add an additional $5 to their pay; they had not had an increase 10 for several years, and he will need to hire an additional three new crossing guards. 11 12 Mr. Godfrey, Airport Manager, informed the Council when the Assistant Airport Manager was 13 hired, it was for six months. He said he would like to continue Mr. Biggs’ employment as a part-14 time employee. 15 16 Tony Kohler, Planning Director, indicated with the General Plan update, they could use an 17 assistant for that. In addition, with the increased Planning Commission needs, he would like to 18 propose the members receive $50 a meeting and their bonus be equivalent to a full-time bonus. 19 20 Mark Rounds, Parks/Cemetery Administrator, informed the Council he would like to increase the 21 seasonal works’ wages to be competitive with Burger King or Panda Express. He pointed out 22 the State Parks pay $11.00 to $11.50 an hour, and he just talked to them, and they had not 23 received one application. Mr. Rounds indicated he just wanted to be competitive. 24 25 Steve Tozier, Public Works, indicated he would like to look at career ladders/promotions in 26 Public Works and an Office Manager. In addition, he would like to continue giving raises when 27 his employees pass their certification tests, and he would like to implement probationary raises. 28 29 Mr. Mumford stated because Staff was worried about current wages, they did not include any 30 new hires. He noted that there was a need for new hires, but they were trying to focus on the 31 City’s current employees. Chief Booth added, they were trying as hard as they could to try and 32 compromise. He stated if they were not doing this, he would have asked for two patrol officers. 33 34 Council Member Potter inquired how Chief Booth would cover without two new officers; she 35 added that she supported it. Chief Booth indicated the one thing he did suggest was whatever the 36 COLA was; he suggested an additional 1 percent to step out of the competitive range. He went 37 on to say, they would eventually get there; it’s an area they could pull back on at lean times. It 38 would help them hang on to their employees. 39 40 Council Member Crittenden pointed out COLA moved the pay range; it was the only way the 41 people that were topped out get any money. Council Member Smith stated that was the way they 42 avoid crisis time. 43 44

of 7

Council Member Potter inquired how much a 1 percent property tax increase would yield. Mr. 1 Anderson replied it would be about $14,000. He went on to say, they could fund the 1 percent 2 this year and address a lot of the City’s capital needs too. 3 4 Mr. Anderson indicated if you look at all the requests, there were going to be a lot of 5 disappointed people; however, they could still provide good services. He went on to say, the 6 City’s philosophy had always been to take care of the employees first and then equip the 7 employees. 8 9 The budget meeting recessed at 6:00 p.m. for a dinner break. 10 11 The budget meeting reconvened at 6:30. 12 13 Mayor McDonald recapped what had been proposed to the Council in regards wages and 14 benefits. 15 16 Council Member Smith and Bradshaw were in favor of the additional 1 percent for COLA. 17 Council Member Crittenden said the additional 1 percent for COLA should wait for now; he 18 questioned where the vacation was. It was said there was no cost associated with the vacation, 19 unless there were manpower needs. Council Member Franco indicated she was not sure. 20 Council Member Potter stated she was not opposed to anything; however, she would like to 21 know what the other needs were first. Mayor McDonald said he thought they needed to take care 22 of the benefits first, and then they could take care of the other needs. 23 24 Mr. Anderson noted they needed to take care of the personnel needs, the capital projects, what 25 the Council wanted and surplus funds. Then they could continue to tweak the budget and 26 continue from there at the next meeting. 27 28 Mr. Anderson referred to Page 4. He said a Christmas bonus had been built in; if there was a 29 problem with that, let him know. He said at times the City had seen requests for Memorial Hill, 30 and there was $65,000 built into the budget for the Council’s Discretionary Fund. He asked if the 31 Council would like something taken out or added, please let him know. 32 33 Mr. Anderson referred to a budget retreat. He said at the strategic planning meeting Council 34 Member Smith said he would like to have something more meaningful, which he thought, would 35 require a facilitator. Council Member Franco suggested the line item be cut in half. 36 37 Discussion followed regarding a budget retreat and what was envisioned. 38 39 Council Member Franco indicated she would prefer the City updated their website and get some 40 extensive polling from the public. Mr. Anderson said Mr. Beales requested some funding to 41 update the website. It was acknowledged it would be a total revamp of the website; in addition 42 Qualtrics would be coming on March 28th to do training in regards to the public polling. 43 44 Discussion followed regarding Qualtrics, and how they conduct their surveys. 45 46

of 7

Discussion followed regarding the Cemetery property. Mr. Rounds addressed the recent holes 1 that were dug on the property; how the holes were dug; what he found; and how many graves 2 could be put in the property. 3 4 Mr. Anderson addressed surplus funds. He pointed out that last year the City had 2.3 million 5 dollars in surplus funds, and this year the City would be close to that again unless the City 6 purchases property. Mr. Anderson suggested what the surplus funds could be utilized for. 7 8 Mr. Anderson review Page 30, which was a summary of Capital requests made by the 9 Department Heads. Page 31 and 32 were General Fund requests. Page 33 and 34 were Public 10 Works requests. He noted that Water, Sewer and Utility requests come out of the Operating 11 Fund. Mr. Mumford’s requests come out of the Operating Fund or Impact Fee money. Vehicle 12 Requests come out of the Internal Service Fund. Finally, Mr. Anderson noted that some requests 13 overlap departments, so they are combined. Mr. Anderson informed the Council they would have 14 to make some significant cuts to make the budget work. 15 16 Mr. Anderson addressed Water and Sewer. He pointed out on the water and sewer rates, that 17 was what they were projecting before any salary increases, and they had made really good 18 headway. They covered about $750,000 of depreciation. He noted the City does have one bond, 19 which should be paid off in about five years. 20 21 In the Sewer Fund, there was about $550,000 depreciation, and they had made some headway. 22 He went on to way he and Mr. Mumford discussed what they needed to for sewer replacement. 23 He said they had been able to have overspent impact fees paid back fairly rapidly; therefore, the 24 sewer impact fee deficit should be retired in the next two years, which would free up some more 25 capital. 26 27 Mr. Anderson stated he thought there was more work to do. He questioned what the Council 28 wanted to do in regards to the water and sewer. He said the water system was very demanding. 29 There was a desire to replace the system from 300 West to 600 West. He added, the sewer fund 30 was struggling more than the water fund. In addition, Mr. Mumford has $440,000 on his list for 31 repair and replacement for water. 32 33 Council Member Franco questioned if they could talk about taking some Surplus Funds out of 34 the General Fund for one year for water and sewer. Mr. Bingham suggested that once a year the 35 City had to do something for unbilled services, and they could do that. Council Member 36 Crittenden inquired if Mr. Bingham could put that together. Mr. Bingham said it was already 37 there; it’s in the five-year plan. 38 39 It was pointed out Mr. Mumford had $50,000 budgeted for dips in the road on 100 East and 100 40 West. Mr. Mumford explained they had two of them budgeted. It was a lot of work to fix them 41 and there was a lot of engineering involved. The dips cost about $25,000 each. 42 43 44

of 7

II. Adjournment 1 2 With no further business coming before the Council at this time, Council Member Bradshaw 3 moved to adjourn the meeting. Council Member Smith made the second. The motion passed 4 unanimously. The meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m. 5 6 7 ______________________________ 8 Michelle Eldredge, City Recorder 9

of 9

Heber City Corporation 1 Budget Meeting 2 April 11, 2017 3

3:14 p.m. 4 5

BUDGET MEETING 6 7 The Council of Heber City, Wasatch County, Utah, met in Budget Meeting on April 11, 2017, 8 in the Community Room of the Public Safety Building in Heber City, Utah, located at 301 South 9 Main Street. 10 11 I. Call to Order 12 13 Present: Mayor Alan McDonald

Council Member Heidi Franco Council Member Kelleen Potter Council Member Jeffrey Smith Council Member Ronald Crittenden

Excused: Council Member Jeffery Bradshaw

Also Present: City Manager Mark Anderson Planning Director Tony Kohler Network Administrator Anthon Beales Building Official Wes Greenhalgh Senior Accountant Wesley Bingham Assistant City Engineer Russell Funk Public Works Director Steve Tozier Parks/Cemetery Administrator Mark Rounds Chief of Police Dave Booth Airport Manager Denis Godfrey City Recorder Michelle Vest

Mayor McDonald called the budget meeting to order at 3:14 p.m. He welcomed all those in 14 attendance. He acknowledged that all members were in attendance with the exception of Council 15 Member Bradshaw who was excused. Mayor McDonald had each Council Member and Staff 16 member introduce themselves. 17 18 1. 2017-2018 Fiscal Year Budget Workshop 19 20 Mayor McDonald indicated that the Department Heads would present their budgets to the 21 Council, and he turned the time over to them. 22 23 Wes Greenhalgh – Building Department 24 Mr. Greenhalgh addressed the Council, and he presented the Council with a handout. He 25 informed the Council his department processed most of their work electronically with 26

of 9

spreadsheets and IWorks. He went on to explain they have had some difficulty in understanding 1 some items with the program; therefore, he did some research, and there are some other 2 programs out there, which are about $30,000. He noted that was not anywhere in the ballpark. 3 He said there was one program out there called Eprocess360 that he thought might be effective, 4 and because of the City’s relationship with Westcoast Processor, they were able to get a 5 discount. He added, if they were able to get the program, they would need to get two tablets 6 because the phones they have now are not big enough. 7 8 Mr. Greenhalgh informed the Council in the department’s current budget, they budgeted a 9 computer, and they have no interest for that. He suggested they could turn that money over or 10 use that for the tablets, which are about $1,200. Mr. Beales added he could get an IPad Pro for 11 $450 each. 12 13 Price of the software was discussed. Mr. Greenhalgh said the software for this year would be 14 $13,000 and $3,600 every year after that. Council Member Franco inquired if the $3,600 15 renewal price was guaranteed. Mr. Greenhalgh was not aware of that. Council Member Franco 16 stated as long as he could get the inspections online, that would be fantastic. It was her opinion 17 the Planning and Engineering Departments needed to have those online appointments as well. 18 19 Council Member Crittenden inquired if the Building Department was getting a new vehicle. 20 They had a request for $4,300. Mr. Anderson indicated they were not. He explained each 21 department was charged for the use of their vehicles and it is placed in the Internal Service Fund 22 for when vehicles needed to be replaced. 23 24 Russell Funk – Assistant City Engineer 25 Mr. Funk informed the Council that Mr. Mumford’s father passed away so he was there to 26 present the department’s budget. He was not sure of all the information the Council wanted to 27 hear. He noted on Page 67 was a list of all of the projects they had for the year. 28 29 Mr. Funk highlighted the large projects. He indicated there was some money set aside for the 30 Public Works expansion. He stated he was sure the CIB approved funding for the project. 31 32 Mr. Funk addressed the need for the Engineering Department to switch from AutoCAD to GIS 33 software, which was on page 66, and converting all their data; in addition to, purchasing licenses 34 for users. He stated this request was the only large increase that did not relate to capital projects. 35 36 Mr. Funk explained the difference between AutoCAD and GIS, and why the Engineering 37 Department felt it was important for them to convert to GIS. Discussion went on to cover what 38 other software GIS would/would not interface with; and where the data would be stored. 39 40 Mr. Funk informed the Council the Engineering’s other large project was their annual road 41 project, which would take two fiscal years. In addition, they have some minor replacement 42 projects; such as, upsizing some lines with impact fee money. 43 44 Discussion followed regarding the major dips in a few of the City’s roads, which were budgeted 45 to be fixed. Mr. Funk indicated there was two budgeted. 46

of 9

Mark Rounds – Park and Cemetery Administrator 1 Mr. Rounds informed the Council there were some prices that were not included on Page 10. He 2 noted there were costs for the hanging baskets; the Main Street Christmas lights, which was 3 $15,000; the decorations for the pine tree in front of City Hall, which was $14,300; and the poly 4 sand at the park for the playground, which was $5,500. 5 6 Council Member Franco referred to Page 65; she inquired how many of the items were 7 replacement items. Mr. Rounds explained the mower, the Polaris Brutis, the Skid Steer, which he 8 traded in, the John Deer backhoe, which was a lease. He informed the Council he couldn’t get 9 anyone to talk to him about trading in the backhoe so he may have to buy a new backhoe. He 10 pointed out the current lease was not a monthly lease; it was an annual lease, which was just 11 paid. In addition, he needed a new plow. The plow he had now was 20-years old, and it had holes 12 in it. Finally, he would have to replace the Grasshopper if they don’t get the Polaris, which he 13 saw as a more all-around apparatus. 14 15 Council Member Potter inquired what was going on with the trees. Mr. Rounds explained every 16 year they had trees die; they had about a 40 percent survival rate. 17 18 Council Member Franco questioned where Mr. Rounds thought he could put a cremation niche. 19 Mr. Rounds said he thought he could put one on the east end of the Cemetery. He noted it would 20 take up two graves for that purpose. Council Member Franco said she thought cremations were 21 going up. Further discussion followed regarding cremations/niches. 22 23 Mr. Rounds pointed out something that was missed for his budget. He indicated that there 24 should have been a flatbed truck, which would be split with the Parks Department. He said it was 25 a replacement vehicle for a 2000 Dodge. 26 27 Mr. Rounds stated he would like to purchase some chairs and greenery for baby burials and 28 cremations. He explained the mortuaries doesn’t set up a tent for those, and Probst lets the City 29 borrow some of theirs; however, they are getting old and used looking. 30 31 Mr. Rounds indicated he added $10,000 for the Public Safety Building for maintenance. Mr. 32 Rounds explained the building is a year old, and it is getting out of warranty. Mr. Simpson, the 33 Building Maintenance Technician, recommended the building had a quarterly maintenance check 34 on the air conditioning/heating system. Mr. Rounds informed the Council they had been having 35 monthly issues with that system. 36 37 Mr. Rounds addressed the idea of a reader board at the City Offices. He said there were 38 unlimited things the City could put on it. Mr. Kohler agreed, and he thought there could be a 39 solution between the City and the County, and if they did do it, he thought they should partner 40 with the County/Chamber. However, there would be a size limitation. 41 42 Tony Kohler – Planning Department 43 Mr. Kohler addressed the General Plan. The process he heard spelled out regarding the Plan, it 44 was a comprehensive rewrite, and it involved public input. He inquired if that was their vision; if 45 so, he asked them to be patient. It would be a two or three-year process. He went on to say if the 46

of 9

Council wanted the Form-Base Code process, it would cost the City $150,000. If they wanted 1 Staff to do it, it would cost the City about $25,000. Council Member Potter mentioned when 2 they were at the League meeting, someone brought it to her attention that the City could look to 3 the CIB for funding to amend its General Plan. Mr. Kohler said if Council Member Potter could 4 provide him a phone number, he would look into it. 5 6 Mr. Kohler informed the Council they had started looking at updates; however, if they wanted 7 the Planning Department to look at obtaining money, it would be another three to six months. 8 Council Member Potter said she would like Mr. Kohler to look into CIB Money first before he 9 started anything. 10 11 Mr. Kohler stated they scheduled their first annexation policy meeting for April 27th. It talked 12 about significant changes, and it was a part of the General Plan update. He went on to say, they 13 wanted to make sure the Council was comfortable with where they were or where they were not 14 going. 15 16 Council Member Franco indicated that she thought most of them had read the General Plan, and 17 it wasn’t bad. There were just a few gaps. Mr. Kohler thought it didn’t give enough philosophy. 18 Council Member Franco suggested it should indicate what they should do and give some goals 19 for the future. She pointed out the General Plan said one thing; however, zoning said the 20 opposite. She went on to say they had nothing on downtown, parking, or open space. 21 22 Council Member Crittenden stated they had an issue with downtown parking. He inquired why 23 they didn’t require businesses to have parking for their own employees. He suggested one-hour 24 parking for downtown and the businesses find parking for their employees. 25 26 Mr. Kohler indicated he would like one more license for his department’s GIS software, which 27 would be for Mr. Baron. 28 29 Mr. Kohler turned the time over to Mr. Beales to address technology issues. Mr. Beales 30 indicated he wanted to put forward a website redesign. He informed the Council that last month, 31 the City had 10,000 hits on its website – most of which were local hits trying to get information 32 and 40% of those hits were mobile users. 33 34 Lengthy discussion followed regarding the City’s new website, what could be done with it, and 35 the City’s different social media sites. Council Member Franco inquired if Mr. Beales could do a 36 presentation on other cities websites by the first Council meeting in May. Mr. Beales indicated 37 he could do that. 38 39 Council Member Franco inquired what the Apple T.V. was for in the conference room. Mr. 40 Beales explained it was so the different Boards could hook up to the T.V. like the City Council 41 does in the Council Chambers. 42 43 Mr. Beales addressed the KVM switches for the server room. He acknowledged they were 44 expensive; however, he explained the reason of their importance. He noted for each server, it had 45 to have its own monitor. With the KBM switches, it eliminated that need. 46

of 9

Denis Godfrey – Airport Manager 1 Mr. Godfrey stated he would like to keep Mr. Biggs as part-time employee with no benefits. 2 3 Mr. Godfrey noted he would like to request $8,000 to $9,000 for snow removal for Public Works 4 to help him with snow removal at times. Council Member Franco requested a breakdown of 5 salaries and benefits of those employees. Mr. Bingham explained the City coded those amounts 6 to the employees’ timecards when they are paid. In addition, she would see an expense to the 7 Airport for the equipment; however, it didn’t show a revenue for the employees. 8 9 Council Member Franco indicated that she thought the snow removal equipment for the Airport 10 was going to be several thousand dollars. Mr. Godfrey explained he was still trying to decide if 11 he was going to fix the equipment or have Public Works provide the snow removal. 12 13 Council Member Franco inquired what Mr. Godfrey thought about making the Airport an 14 Enterprise Fund. In addition, she questioned if Mr. Beales was able to get him into the financial 15 software. It was indicated the Mr. Bingham provided Mr. Godfrey the financial reports every 16 time he requested it; however, he does not have access to the Pelorus software because the VPN 17 was not working. Mr. Godfrey was not connected to the City’s server, and he does not have a 18 secure connection. 19 20 Council Member Franco questioned what Mr. Kirsch billed the City for the month of March. Mr. 21 Godfrey indicated the bill had not come as of yet; however, he had already requested it. Mr. 22 Bingham said it usually came around the 25th of the month. 23 24 Council Member Franco indicated that last fall Mr. Kirsch requested five years of financial data. 25 She went on to say, they needed to get it broke out; they need to document each year, by 26 department, by line item. 27 28 Mr. Anderson explained in August 2016, they took a percentage by department and his salary 29 and sent it to each Council Member; he got no reply. Council Member Franco requested that Mr. 30 Anderson send it to her again and reiterated that Mr. Kirsch wanted five years. Mr. Anderson 31 explained there was not any documentation that existed for that kind of detail. 32 33 Mr. Godfrey referred to a document in his binder. He stated he sent that document to Mr. Kirsch 34 and it was documentation for five years. 35 36 Council Member Crittenden suggested $50 a meeting be built into the budget for the Airport 37 Advisory Board members. 38 39 Mr. Godfrey informed the Council what he needed immediately was a snow blower, which 40 would cost $125,0000. It was inquired if Mr. Godfrey wanted to purchase that with a Federal 41 grant with a matching State grant. Mr. Godfrey indicated he would. 42 43 Discussion followed regarding the Doug Wagstaff property and reimbursement of $200,000 from 44 the FAA. 45 46

of 9

Steve Tozier – Public Works 1 Mr. Tozier addressed his top three needs. He informed the Council he was not sure if he could 2 release his backhoes, which he had for three years. However, his hope was he could purchase 3 them. The next item was his track hoe and wheel loader leases. He explained the program was 4 such that it was in the negative $21,000. If they don’t exceed their hours, the company will pay 5 the City; and give them a new loader. He indicated that program was ending because of an issue 6 with the State of Utah. He reiterated the company would pay the City $21,000, and they would 7 get a new lease for $1. 8 9 Mr. Tozier informed the Council they need a new street sweeper. Their current sweeper would 10 cost $30,000 to rebuild. He went on to say it had been offline, but it was running again. The 11 outright cost of the sweeper was $280,000, or they could put down $42,000 and have an annual 12 payment of $42,000 for six years. He indicated the sweeper was a high priority item. 13 14 Mr. Tozier indicated he would like to move forward with the purchase of a 2017 video truck. 15 The department’s existing truck is a 2007, and they are piecemealing the truck back together. He 16 indicated the item was a medium priority item. 17 18 Mr. Tozier addressed the need to replace a 1978 road grader. He noted it would be a leased 19 through John Deer. He went on to say it was a used machine with 300 hours for $295,000 with a 20 lease payment of approximately $42-43,000 a year. 21 22 Mr. Tozier noted the department excavates all of their own ditches, and they have a need for a 23 mini-excavator. Currently they rent the excavator when they need it. He indicated that was a low 24 priority item. 25 26 Discussion followed regarding the removal of soil from excavating ditches. Mr. Tozier 27 explained when they excavate; they do a lot of cobble crushing in the process. He went on to 28 explain the process, and if they were to get their own unit, they could make money for the 29 department and turn it into road base. 30 31 Mr. Tozier indicated they would like to replace a 1990 10-wheel truck and another vehicle – both 32 of which they could take the old vehicles to auction. 33 34 Mr. Tozier informed the Council they utilized a trailer to transport sewer equipment and video 35 equipment for homes with sewer lines in their rear easements. He stated they currently have a 36 350-sized truck for that trailer, and they are finding the trailer is overloaded with equipment and 37 the truck is inadequate. They need a 550-sized truck to pull the trailer. 38 39 Mr. Tozier informed the Council the City was on a replacement plan for vehicles and equipment. 40 He noted that his department had requested about 60 percent of the 85 percent that should be 41 replaced or approaching the need to be replaced. 42 43 Mr. Tozier reminded the Council they approved an undersized trailer, which was used to 44 transport a track hoe, to go to auction, and now, they need to replace the trailer. 45 46

of 9

Mr. Tozier discussed a polyurethane idea that would fix City sidewalks without totally replacing 1 them or tearing them out. He informed the Council the City had a responsibility for 2 fixing/replacing sidewalks. He indicated that was a high priority item. 3 4 Mr. Tozier addressed a jetting and nozzle truck for approximately $10,000. The need for a root 5 cutter so his department could cut tree roots out of pipes; in addition to, the need of shielding to 6 meet OSHA requirements. 7 8 Mr. Tozier explained the need for a piece of equipment that could reclaim asphalt, which would 9 allow them to make their own hot mix, He stated the machine would pay for itself in two to three 10 years at a cost of $182,000. 11 12 Discussion followed regarding snow plowing. 13 14 Mr. Tozier requested a Nisco Poly Unit, which would allow his employees to weld poly pipe. 15 16 It was inquired if the $75,000 for the GIS conversion was redundant of Engineering’s request. It 17 was indicated that it was. 18 19 Discussion followed regarding the City’s insurance and it’s no negligence amount, which was 20 $5,000. Council Member Franco stated it needed to be higher. Mr. Anderson indicated the 21 insurance company recommended the amount. Further discussion followed. 22 23 Council Member Franco addressed Mr. Tozier. She said you are so thorough; however, we had 24 asked for a monthly report, and I had not heard a word. She went on to say we need you to be 25 accountable to the Council every month. She stated I don’t know what you need because I don’t 26 know what you are doing. 27 28 Council Member Franco said she requested a performance audit on Public Works’ equipment on 29 everything over $5,000; when he thought it needed to be replaced; and how often it was utilized. 30 She went on to say, you have such pricey items, and I don’t know how often you utilize them or 31 how you are utilizing your equipment. Council Member Franco said she wanted to see some 32 type of inventory analysis. She did not know what was going in or what was coming out. She 33 indicted she needed accountability and transparency. 34 35 Mr. Tozier said he know what Council Member Franco was talking about. He explained when 36 they had the changeover in personnel, he didn’t have a lot of time, and they were having to do a 37 lot of training. 38 39 Mayor McDonald inquired what the other Council Members wanted. Council Member Smith 40 stated it was too detailed. Council Member Potter inquired what Mr. Tozier could pull together. 41 Mr. Tozier said he could provide what he had now, which was about five pages. Council 42 Member Potter requested that Mr. Tozier provide the Council with what he had now, and then 43 the Council could tell him what they thought was lacking. Council Member Crittenden indicated 44 he thought they needed more than what they were currently getting. He questioned how the 45 Council would set policy and make decisions. 46

of 9

Mayor McDonald asked Mr. Tozier to provide the Council with what he had now and see if it 1 was adequate for the Council, or see if they needed a bit more. 2 3 Chief Booth – Public Safety 4 Chief Booth indicated he was going to address the first two and last two items unless the Council 5 had any questions. 6 7 Council Member Franco inquired why Chief Booth wanted two message boards. Chief Booth 8 explained the message boards were also speed trailers, and they were replacement items. He said 9 they would be a dual purpose if the Council liked the message board idea. If they didn’t, they 10 didn’t have to get that part. The speed trailers were a great idea though; it was like putting an 11 officer on the street. Chief Booth explained the cost; the combination message board/speed 12 trailer was $12,000; the speed trailer was $8,000. 13 14 Chief Booth explained he needed to replace three vehicles. He said it was his goal to replace 15 vehicles every five years, and it put the department within five years 16 17 Chief Booth addressed ballistic vests. He said ballistic vests were guaranteed for five years, and 18 they replace them every five years. He went on to say they were custom tailored for each officer. 19 20 It was inquired if the desktop computers were for the Public Safety Building. Chief Booth 21 indicated they were. He informed the Council the department was still utilizing computers from 22 the old public safety building. 23 24 Discussion followed regarding the five requested defibrillators. Chief Booth informed the 25 Council they were for the officers’ cars. He went on to say, the last couple of years, the 26 department had been getting them through grants. He inquired if the Council wanted them in all 27 of the officers’ cars. 28 29 It was pointed out the Animal Shelter and the Public Works Department were both requesting 30 washers and dryers. It was inquired if the departments could share a set. Chief Booth explained 31 the washer and dryer at the shelter were utilized for washing towels and animal bedding. He 32 would think the ones at the Public Works Department would be for more heavy-duty items. His 33 set was $450 for each unit; they are not a commercial set. 34 35 Mr. Anderson stated what he would like to propose was another budget meeting on April 25th or 36 26th and put some items in the Capital Budget. He went on to say what you see on pages 69-79 37 are projections on what the budgets look like with wages and benefits projections. 38 39 Mr. Anderson indicated the one thing he was suggesting was an addition $6,000 to Mr. Smedley 40 to cover overhead costs. He explained he sat down with Mr. Smedley and discussed it with him, 41 and Mr. Smedley felt good about that. 42 43 Discussion followed regarding Mr. Smedley’s billable hours and his contract. Mr. Anderson 44 stated Mr. Smedley’s billable hours had never been defined, and he didn’t have a contract. Mr. 45

of 9

Anderson suggested that it might be a part of the Council’s expectation of what he should be 1 compensated. 2 3 The Council agreed to meet again for another Budget meeting on April 25, 2017, at 4:00 p.m. in 4 the City Council Chambers. 5 6 II. Adjournment 7 8 With no further business coming before the Council at this time, the meeting adjourned at 6:55 9 p.m. 10 11 12

___________________________ 13 Michelle Vest, City Recorder 14

15 16 17 18

1/16TH LINE

THREE STRINGS HOLDINGS, LLC

ENTRY NUMBER 399161

18.55 AC

HE

BE

R V

ALLE

Y

SP

EC

IA

L S

ER

VIC

E D

IS

TR

IC

T

OWNER:

BEEHIVE STORAGE, LC

ENTRY NO. 203712

OWNER:

HEBER CITY CORPORATION (AIRPORT)

PARCEL NO 00-0009-1236

ENTRY NO. 205688

H

W

Y

1

8

9

POINT OF BEGINNING

MONROE ANNEXATION

ENTRY NO. 343294

N0°09'28"W

1035.00'

N89°51'55"E 1124.56'

N0°00'00"E 16.50'

N89°06'25"E 106.65'

N49°49'22"E 13.92'

S40°12'16"E 111.57'

S

4

9

°

2

4

'

5

5

"

W

1

6

3

2

.

9

1

'

N40°35'06"W 108.97'

ENGINEER/SURVEYOR:

ACCEPTANCE BY LEGISLATIVE BODY

SURVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE

BASIS OF BEARINGS

SURVEYOR'S NARRATIVE

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

LEGEND:

SHEET NO.: SHEET TITLE: PROJECT:

Project no.:Approved by:Drawn by:

Customer: THREE STRINGS HOLDINGS, LLC, ENTRY NUMBER 399161ALN MCM XXXXX

THREE STRING HOLDINGS, LLCNE 1/4 SEC 7,T4S,R5E SLB&M ANNEXATION PLAT 1

Not to Scale 8.5' X 11Scale 1" = ' 11 X 17

Scale 1" = ' 22 X 34

0

GRAPHIC SCALE100 50 100 200 400

100200

AutoCAD SHX Text

Z:\16005\DWG\RS 10-4-16

AutoCAD SHX Text

MCM ENGINEERING, INC. MEL MCQUARRIE PO BOX 189 HEBER CITY, UTAH 84032 435-654-0939

AutoCAD SHX Text

THE BASIS OF BEARING FOR THIS SURVEY IS THE 1/4 SECTION LINE BETWEEN THE EAST QUARTER CORNER AND THE WEST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 7, T4S, R5E SLB&M; BEARING BEING S89°46'23"W 5322.15 FEET.

AutoCAD SHX Text

PURPOSE: CURRENT UTAH CODE REQUIRES THAT ANNEXATION PETITIONS BE ACCOMPANIED BY AN ACCURATE AND RECORDABLE MAP, PREPARED BY A LICENSED SURVEYOR, OF THE AREA PROPOSED FOR ANNEXATION (SEE 10-2-403-3-C-1). FOR THIS ANNEXATION PETITION MAP, AN ACCURATE MAP WAS INTERPRETED AS BEING PREPARED IN CONFORMANCE WITH UTAH CODE 17-20-3-17 AS PERTAINING TO MAPS OF BOUNDARY SURVEYS. EXISTING SECTION CORNER SURVEY MONUMENTS WERE USED TO IDENTIFY THE LINES; HOWEVER, SAID SECTION CORNER SURVEY MONUMENTS MAY NOT REPRESENT THE ORIGINAL LOCATION OF THE SECTION CORNERS ESTABLISHED BY THE ORIGINAL GLO SURVEY IN THIS AREA. SPECIFIC NOTES PERTAINING TO THE DERIVATION OF EACH COURSE ALONG ANNEXATION BOUNDARY ARE AS FOLLOWS: 1. THE NORTH BOUNDARY FOLLOWS THE EXISTING SOUTH BOUNDARY OF PROPOSED BEEHIVE STORAGE ANNEXATION 2. THE WEST BOUNDARY FOLLOWS THE 1/4 SECTION LINE AND HEBER VALLEY SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT. 3. THE SOUTHEAST BOUNDARY FOLLOWS THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF THE AIRPORT ANNEXATION ENTRY NO. 205688.

AutoCAD SHX Text

I, MELVIN C. McQUARRIE, UTAH REGISTERED LAND SURVEYOR No. 178851, DO HEREBY STATE THAT THIS DRAWING CONSISTING OF ONE (1) SHEET ACCURATELY REPRESENTS A SURVEY COMPLETED UNDER MY DIRECTION IN SEPTEMBER 2016.

AutoCAD SHX Text

DATE MELVIN C. MCQUARRIE MELVIN C. MCQUARRIE MELVIN C. MCQUARRIE RLS #1788551 RLS #1788551RLS #1788551

AutoCAD SHX Text

BEGINNING AT THE EAST QUARTER SECTION CORNER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 4 SOUTH, RANGE 5 EAST SALT LAKE BASE AND MERIDIAN THENCE: SOUTH 89°46'23" WEST 2668.36 FEET TO THE SOUTH WEST CORNER OF THE NORTH EAST QUARTER OF THE SECTION. NORTH 0°09'28" WEST 304.88 FEET ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE NORTH EAST QUARTER TO THE NORTH HIGHWAY RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE AND POINT OF BEGINNING. NORTH 0°09'28" WEST 1035.00 FEET ALONG THE WEST BOUNDARY OF THE NORTH EAST QUARTER TO A POINT ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE BEEHIVE ANNEXATION PLAT ALONG THE SOUTH BOUNDARY OF THE BEEHIVE ANNEXATION PLAT THE NEXT FOUR COURSES: NORTH 89°51'55" EAST 1124.56 FEET; NORTH 16.50 FEET; NORTH 89°06'25"EAST NORTH 49°49'22" EAST 13.92 FEET TO A POINT ON THE WEST LINE OFTHE MONROE ANNEXATION (SEE ENTRY NO. 343294), SOUTH 40°12'30" EAST 111.57 FEET ALONG THE MONROE WEST BOUNDARY TO APOINT ON THE NORTH PROPERTY BOUNDARY LINE OF THE HEBER CITY AIRPORT ANNEXATION (SEE ENTRY NUMBER 205688), THENCE FOLLOWING SAID NORTH PROPERTY LINE OF SAID AIRPORT SOUTH 49°24'55" WEST 1632.91 FEET; THENCE LEAVING SAID NORTHWEST AIRPORT PROPERTY LINE NORTH 40°35'06" WEST 108.97 FEET TO THE NORTH RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE OF HIGHWAY 198 TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. CONTAINS 18.55 ACRES MORE OR LESS

AutoCAD SHX Text

SET REBAR & CAP

AutoCAD SHX Text

SECTION CORNER

AutoCAD SHX Text

SECTION 1/4 CORNER

AutoCAD SHX Text

THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT WE, THE HEBER CITY COUNCIL, HAVE RECEIVED A PETITION SIGNED BY THE MAJORITY OF THE OWNERS OF THE TRACT OF LAND SHOWN HEREON REQUESTING THAT SAID TRACT OF LAND BE ANNEXED BY THE CITY OF HEBER CITY; AND THAT A COPY OF THE ORDINANCE HAS BEEN PREPARED FOR FILING HEREWITH, ALL IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE UTAH CODE ANNOTATED (1953) 10-2-101 TO 10-2-428 AS REVISED: AND THAT WE HAVE EXAMINED AND DO HEREBY APPROVE AND ACCEPT THE ANNEXATION OF THE TRACT AS SHOWN AS APART OF SAID CITY AND THAT SAID TRACT OF LAND IS TO BE KNOWN HEREAFTER AS __________________________________________ ANNEXATION. DATED THIS _________ DAY OF __________________ _______________________________ ______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________ _______________________________ ______________________________ ATTEST: ____________________________________ RECORDER __________________________________________ COUNTY SURVEYOR

AutoCAD SHX Text

P.O. BOX 189, HEBER CITY, UTAH 84032 (435) 654-0939 FAX (435) 654-3850

AutoCAD SHX Text

REVISION DESCRIPTION:

AutoCAD SHX Text

REVISED BY:

AutoCAD SHX Text

REVISION DATE:

AutoCAD SHX Text

CIVIL / STRUCTURAL / LAND SURVEYING

AutoCAD SHX Text

CENTER OF SECTION 7, T4S, R5E, SLB&M

AutoCAD SHX Text

304.88'

AutoCAD SHX Text

QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 7, T4S, R5E, SLB&M

AutoCAD SHX Text

EAST QUARTER CORNER OF SECTION 7, T4S, R5E, SLB&M

AutoCAD SHX Text

BASIS OF BEARING S89°46'23"W 5322.15' (M)

AutoCAD SHX Text

2653.78'

AutoCAD SHX Text

2668.36'

AutoCAD SHX Text

1/4 SECTION LINE

AutoCAD SHX Text

1/4 SECTION LINE N 0°09'28" W 1339.88'

AutoCAD SHX Text

NE COR. SECTION 7, T4S, R5E, SLB&M

AutoCAD SHX Text

N 0°03'20" W 2670.44'

Heber City Council Notice of Public Hearing

Notice is hereby given that the Heber City Council will hold a Public Hearing on May 4, 2017, at 5:00 p.m. to hear comments for or against an Ordinance which would consider the Three String Holdings petition. The petition was accepted by the City Council for study on February 2, 2017. The property lies contiguous to the present boundary of Heber City’s corporate limits and is located at approximately 1568 South Highway 189, Heber City. The Hearing will be held in the Heber City Municipal Building located at 75 North Main Street. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, those persons needing special accommodations, including special audio hearing assistance receivers or who are non-English speaking, should contact Michelle Vest at 435-657-7886 at least twenty-four hours prior to the meeting.

Michelle Vest City Recorder

Published in the Wasatch Wave April 26, 2017

City Coucnil Staff Report

Thursday, May 4, 2017

Two Family Dwelling Code Changes

Code Amendment Report Date: April 17, 2017 Applicant: Riley Probst Codes: 18.108.115 Two-Family Dwelling Special Exception Land Use Authority: City Council Action Type: Legislative Planner: Jamie Baron, Planner

Summary

Riley Probst is proposing an amendment to Section 18.108.115 to allow for Two-Family

Dwellings to be built on lots in areas where Two-Family Dwellings are prominent.

Recommendation

Staff recommends that the City Council review, discuss and choose an option as outlined in the

“Recommendation and Alternatives” section of the staff report.

Request

Riley Probst requests approval of a code text amendment to Section 18.108.115 to permit Two-

Family Dwellings to be built on lots in areas where Two-Family Dwellings are prominent.

Process

Section 18.12.190 requires that a code amendment be approved by the City Council after

receiving a recommendation from the Planning Commission, following a Public Hearing.

Staff Finding: Consistent. The code amendment went before the Planning Commission

with a Public Hearing and was forwarded with a positive recommendation to the City

Council.

Community Review

Section 18.12.190 requires that a code amendment be noticed as a public hearing at the

Planning Commission. The public hearing was held on the April 13, 2017 Planning Commission.

General Plan

Section 18.12.190 requires that a code amendment be reviewed against the “Comprehensive

Plan” to determine if the change will more fully carry out the intent and purposes of the plan.

The General Plan identifies this area as Moderate Density Residential, which is primarily Single

Family Residential. The General Plan also indicates a desire to see all non-conforming uses

cease. All twin homes and duplexes are considered non-conforming under the current code.

The Affordable Housing section identifies removing and/or revising regulatory barriers to

affordable housing as an objective of the plan.

Possible Finding: Consistent. The proposed code change does allow for additional

housing types to allow for more affordable housing.

______________________________________________________________________________

Recommendation and Alternatives

Staff Recommended Option – Approval

“I move to approve Ordinance 2017-16, amending Section 18.108.115, Two-Family Dwelling

Special Exception with the Findings and Conditions in the Staff Report:”

Findings

1. The amendment is consistent with the General Plan.

Conditions:

1. Any other changes as articulated by the City Council:

_________________________________________________________________.

Option 2 - Continuance

“I move to continue the Two-Family Dwelling Code Amendment to another meeting on [DATE],

with direction to the applicant and Staff on information and / or changes needed to render a

decision, as follows:

1. ______________________________________________________________

2. ______________________________________________________________

Option 3 – Denial

“I move to deny Ordinance 2017-16, amending Section 18.108.115, Two-Family Dwelling

Special with the Findings below:

1. The Two-Family Dwelling Code Amendment is not consistent with the General Plan, as

articulated by the City Council: ___________________________________________.

Exhibits:

A. Code Changes [Page 4]

18.108.115 Two-Family Dwelling Special Exception

A. Intent. The intent of this Section is to permit compatible uses for vacant lots within subdivisions blocks that contain a significant number of primarily existing two-family dwelling units.

B. Standards. The Zoning Administrator may grant a Special Exception authorizing the construction of a

two-family dwelling subject to the following conditions:

1. The property must be located within the RA-2, R-2, or R-3 Zones. 2. The property must be located within one of the following:

a. aA recorded subdivision plat that was recorded prior to the adoption of this

Section and has 80% or more of its lots occupied by two-family dwellings that were constructed prior to the adoption of this Section; or

2.b. The property must be located adjacent to an existing two-family dwelling and be

located within a block that contains at least 40% of its existing main buildings as two-family dwellings.

3. The minimum width of the property shall be ninety-eight feet.

4. The property must front upon a public street which contains curb and gutter.

5. Setback and landscaping requirements shall be the same for a two-family dwelling as those requirements for a single family home in the same zone.

6. The minimum floor area of each dwelling unit shall be at least eight hundred square feet.

7. The maximum height for a two-family dwelling is two stories above ground level. 8. There shall be no parking in the required front or side yard setbacks. Within the required setback

area from the street, there shall be only paved walks, driveways, lawns and landscaping. In the side

setbacks, measured from the property line inward, there shall be only lawns and landscaping.

Driveways shall have a maximum width of twenty feet. 9. There shall be provided two off-street parking spaces per dwelling unit. Each space shall be a

minimum of nine feet by twenty feet.

C. Sunset. Because this Section is intended to assist with the infill of only a few vacant lots, this Section

shall remain in effect until December 31, 2017, at which time the Section shall expire.

Formatted

https://heber.municipalcodeonline.com/book?type=ordinances#name=18.108.115_Two-Family_Dwelling_Special_Exception

HEBER CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT - Russ McDonald Field -

1

STAFF REPORT – City Council Meeting, May 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: Airport Advisory Board recommendations. Repeal of Airport Directive 17-01, Recommend Assessment for a Vehicle Lane Along the FBO Ramp; and Amend the Rules and

Regulations in Section 7

At the April 12th meeting, the Airport Advisory Board approved the following recommendations to the City Council:

1. Repeal of Airport Directive 17-01 2. Recommend assessment of a vehicle lane along the FBO ramp 3. Amend Rules & Regulations in Section 7

Airport Manager Advise & Recommendation

1. Do not repeal Directive 17-01. Airport Rules & Regulations, Section 3, OFFICIALS; AUTHORITY, delegates “full power” to the Airport Manager to administer and enforce this title and oversee its implementation. Section 7.6.2 reads: The Airport Manger may restrict Vehicles to a certain portion(s) or segment(s) of the AOA. Such restrictions shall prohibit Vehicle operations outside designated area(s).

2. No recommendation. The Airport Advisory Board should be careful to distinguish between a Recommendation to the City Council and a recommendation to the Airport Manager. I believe in this instance and even though it was included in the Recommendation to City Council; the AAB intended this as a recommendation and request for the Airport Manager to assess the feasibility of a ramp vehicle lane.

3. No comment.

HEBER CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT Russ McDonald Field

D I R E C T I V E 1 7 - 0 1

21 March, 2017 TO: ALL HEBER CITY AIRPORT USERS FROM: DENIS GODFREY, AIRPORT MANAGER RE: VEHICLES ON THE AIRCRAFT PARKING RAMP ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY – ALL VEHICLE TRAFFIC ON THE FBO AIRCRAFT PARKING RAMP IS PROHIBITED, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THOSE VEHICLES BY PERMISSION AND UNDER THE SUPERVISION OF FBO PERSONNEL. THE AFFECTED AREA IS SHOWN BELOW IN THE HATCHED BOX. APPLICABLE REGULATION Heber City Rules & Regulations, Section 7.6.2 – Vehicle Rules and Regulations, Air Operations Area.

HEBER CITY MUNICIPAL AIRPORT - Russ McDonald Field -

1

STAFF REPORT – City Council Meeting, May 4, 2017 AGENDA ITEM: Airport Advisory Board recommendations. Repeal of Airport Directive 17-01, Recommend Assessment for a Vehicle Lane Along the FBO Ramp; and Amend the Rules and

Regulations in Section 7

At the April 12th meeting, the Airport Advisory Board approved the following recommendations to the City Council:

1. Repeal of Airport Directive 17-01 2. Recommend assessment of a vehicle lane along the FBO ramp 3. Amend Rules & Regulations in Section 7

Airport Manager Advise & Recommendation

1. Do not repeal Directive 17-01. Airport Rules & Regulations, Section 3, OFFICIALS; AUTHORITY, delegates “full power” to the Airport Manager to administer and enforce this title and oversee its implementation. Section 7.6.2 reads: The Airport Manger may restrict Vehicles to a certain portion(s) or segment(s) of the AOA. Such restrictions shall prohibit Vehicle operations outside designated area(s).

2. No recommendation. The Airport Advisory Board should be careful to distinguish between a Recommendation to the City Council and a recommendation to the Airport Manager. I believe in this instance and even though it was included in the Recommendation to City Council; the AAB intended this as a recommendation and request for the Airport Manager to assess the feasibility of a ramp vehicle lane.

3. No comment.

1

LEASE AGREEMENT

Between

HEBER CITY CORPORATION

And

[LESSEE]

dated as of

____________ ___, 20___

945420-5

2

TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. ARTICLE I LEASE OF LEASED PREMISES; TERM........................................................... ............. 1 Section 1.1 Lease of Leased Premises............................................................................. ........ 1 Section 1.2 Lease Term............................................................................................................ 1 Section 1.3 Holding Over; Rights at Expiration ................................................................... .... 2 Section 1.4 Inspection of Leased Premises; Access to Books and Records......................... .... 2 Section 1.5 Vacation of Leased Premises............................................................................. ... 2 ARTICLE II RENTAL; SECURITY DEPOSIT........................................................................ ........... 2 Section 2.1 Rent.................................................................................................................... .. 2 Section 2.2 Late Charge........................................................................................................ ... 3 Section 2.3 Time and Place of Payments.............................................................................. ... 3 Section 2.4 Annual Rent Adjustment................................................................................... ... 3 Section 2.5 Security Deposit................................................................................................. ... 3 ARTICLE III OCCUPANCY, USE AND CONDITIONS OF LEASED PREMISES............ ..................... 3 Section 3.1 Condition of Leased Premises ........................................................................... ... 3 Section 3.2 Construction of Improvements .......................................................................... .. 3 Section 3.3 Access................................................................................................................ ... 5 Section 3.4 Use of Leased Premises and Compliance with all Laws and Regulations ........ .... 5 Section 3.5 No Unauthorized Use......................................................................................... .. 6 Section 3.6 Permits and Licenses.......................................................................................... .. 6 Section 3.7 Payment of Taxes............................................................................................... .. 6 Section 3.8 No Liens............................................................................................................. ... 6 ARTICLE IV REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES ................................................... ............. 7 Section 4.1 Representations by City ..................................................................................... .. 7 Section 4.2 Representations by the Lessee ........................................................................... . 7 ARTICLE V OBLIGATIONS OF LESSEE ............................................................................... ........ 7 Section 5.1 Operations and Maintenance.............................................................................. . 7 Section 5.2 Additions and Alterations.................................................................................. ... 8 Section 5.3 Utilities............................................................................................................... ... 8 Section 5.4 Operation of Business by Lessee ....................................................................... .. 8 Section 5.5 Signs................................................................................................................... ... 8 Section 5.6 Security .............................................................................................................. .. 9 Section 5.7 Obstruction Lights ............................................................................................. ... 9 Section 5.8 Hazardous Materials. ......................................................................................... .. 9 Section 5.9 Trash, Garbage and Other Refuse......................................................................... 10 Section 5.10 Registration of Aircraft.................................................................................... ... 10 Section 5.11 No Fuel Sales................................................................................................... .... 10

3

ARTICLE VI INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE ............................................... ................... .......10 Section 6.1 Insurance ........................................................................................ ......... ..................10 Section 6.2 Lessee’s Indemnification and Duty to Pay Damages. .................... ........... .................10 ARTICLE VII DEFAULT AND REMEDIES ............................................................ ................ ..............11 Section 7.1 Lessee’s Default............................................................................ ........... ...................11 Section 7.2 Default by City................................................................................ ........... .................11 Section 7.3 Remedies for Failure to Pay Rent ............................................................. ..................11 Section 7.4 Remedies for Breach of Agreement................................................ .......... .................12 Section 7.5 Survival........................................................................................... ........... .................12 ARTICLE VIII ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLEASING ................................................................. ..............12 Section 8.1 Assignment by Lessee................................................................ ........... ......................12 Section 8.2 Assignment by City..................................................................... ........... .....................13 Section 8.3 Encumbrances........................................................................... .......... .......................13 Section 8.4 Subleasing................................................................................. ........... .......................14 ARTICLE IX MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS.................................................. ................... ................14 Section 9.1 Damage by Fire or Other Casualty .......................................... ........... ........................14 Section 9.2 Waiver of Exemption.............................................................. ........... .........................14 Section 9.3 Addresses................................................................................ ........... .........................14 Section 9.4 No Waiver................................................................................... ........... .....................15 Section 9.5 Lessee’s Subordination .............................................................. .......... ......................15 Section 9.6 Additional Charges as Rent ...................................................... ........... .......................15 Section 9.7 Subordination to Grant Assurances ......................................... .......... ........................15 Section 9.8 Non-Interference With Operation of the Airport..................... .......... ........................15 Section 9.9 Emergency Closures ............................................................... ........... .........................16 Section 9.10 Interpretation....................................................................... ....... .............................16 Section 9.11 Force Majeure ..................................................................... ........ .............................16 Section 9.12 Governing Law and Venue .................................................. ......... ............................17 Section 9.13 Amendments and Waivers.................................................. ........ .............................17 Section 9.14 Severability ....................................................................... ........ ...............................17 Section 9.15 Merger............................................................................. ........ .................................17 Section 9.16 Relationship of Parties...................................................... ......... ...............................17 Section 9.17 Further Assurances............................................................ ........ ...............................17 Section 9.18 Required Federal Clauses ................................................. ......... ...............................17 Section 9.19 Heber City Ordinances............................................................. ......... ........................22 Section 9.20 Rules and Regulations.............................................................. ......... ........................22 Section 9.21 City Reservations..................................................................... ......... ........................22 ARTICLE X ..................................................................................................... ..... ............................22

1 945420-5

4

HANGAR LEASE AGREEMENT

(Aeronautical)

THIS HANGAR LEASE AGREEMENT (this “Agreement”) effective as of this _________ day of _____________________________, 20__, by and between Heber City Corporation, a Utah municipal corporation (“City”), and [LESSEE NAME], a [STATE] [ENTITY] (the “Lessee” and, together with City, the “Parties” and each a “Party”).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, City is the owner and operator of the Heber City Airport located in Wasatch County, Utah (the “Airport”);

WHEREAS, City owns that certain real property located within the Airport described on Exhibit A attached hereto and made part hereof [which consists of _____ square feet of land] or [which consists of [Name &/or Number of Hangar] containing ________ square feet of building area] (such real property, together with all rights, privileges, easements and appurtenances benefiting such real property, are collectively referred to herein as the “Leased Premises”); and

WHEREAS, City desires to lease the Leased Premises to Lessee and Lessee desires to lease the Leased Premises from City.

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the foregoing Recitals, which by this reference are hereby incorporated into this Agreement, and the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, the Parties hereto hereby agree as follows:

ARTICLE I LEASE OF LEASED PREMISES; TERM

Section 1.1 Lease of Leased Premises.

City hereby leases to Lessee, and Lessee hereby rents from City for its exclusive use the Leased Premises, all herein described rights incident thereto, for and during the Lease Term and upon and subject to the terms, provisions and conditions herein set forth. Section 1.2 Lease Term. The term of this Agreement (the “Initial Lease Term”) shall be for a period of __[20 years]___________ years commencing on __________________, 20__ (the “Commencement Date”), and unless sooner terminated pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement, shall terminate on _______________________, 20__. The Initial Lease Term may be extended by two (2) optional renewals, each for an additional five (5) years, hereafter called 'Extended term(s). The granting of such extension(s) may be in the sole discretion of City upon a written request by Lessee be provided to City no more than 365 days or not less than ninety (90) days six (6) months (*to meet hangar inspection requirement in Sec. 1.3.B) prior to the termination of Initial Lease Term, and provided Lessee is not in default in Lease payments or in default in any other provisions of this Agreement at the time of exercising any such option. The rent during such extension Extended Term(s) periods shall be at the rate then established by City for the Leased

5

Premises. No further extensions shall be granted by City. However, the foregoing shall not preclude the Parties from entering into a new lease to be effective after the expiration of Lease Term. The City may deny a request for a lease of a hangar if such a lease would impermissibly create an exclusive right or interfere with competition at the airport, as such terms are interpreted by the FAA. Section 1.3 Holding Over; Rights at Expiration. A. If Lessee retains all or any portion of the Leased Premises after the termination of the Initial or Extended Lease Term(s) by lapse of time or otherwise, such holding over shall constitute the creation of a tenancy at will with respect to such retained portion, terminable by City at any time upon thirty (30) days prior written notice to Lessee at a rental rate of one and one-half (1.5) times price per square foot paid under this Agreement. All provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect during such holdover period. B. Lessee further agrees that upon the expiration of the Lease Term, the Leased Premises will be delivered to City in as good as condition as when this Agreement began, reasonable wear and tear and matters covered by insurance excepted. C. As set forth elsewhere herein, Lessee shall have no rights with respect to any improvements made to the Leased Premises, that are not exclusively limited to or associated with the Structure Hanger itself, during the Lease Term that are not otherwise required to be removed by City. Section 1.4 Inspection of Leased Premises; Access to Books and Records. The City, through its duly authorized agents, shall have at any reasonable time the full and unrestricted right to enter the Leased Premises for the purpose of periodic inspection for fire protection, maintenance and to investigate compliance with the terms of this Agreement; provided, however, that except in the case of emergency, such right shall be exercised upon reasonable prior notice to Lessee and with an opportunity for Lessee to have an employee or agent present, and will not interfere with Lessee’s construction and operations. Lessee agrees to provide any documents that may be requested by City to determine compliance with this Agreement within thirty (30) days of such request. The lessee will be required to schedule an annual hanger inspection from available dates that will be provided by the Airport Manager. Failure to schedule and complete an annual inspection will/may (at the discretion of the Airport Manager?) result in the hanger being flagged for non-use until the inspection has been completed. Section 1.5 Vacation of Leased Premises. Sixty (60) Ninety (90) days Six (6) months) prior to the cessation of this Agreement, Lessee is required to contact City to arrange for an inspection of the Leased Premises. The inspection will be used to determine Lessee responsibility for repairs or maintenance work required, if any, prior to vacating the Leased Premises.

ARTICLE II RENTAL PAYMENT; SECURITY DEPOSIT

Section 2.1 Rent. In consideration for the use of the Leased Premises herein granted, Lessee shall pay to City the following rental amounts (the “Rent”). Monthly Annual Rent

Parcel/Hangar No. Area in Square Feet Annual Rent

Prior to the Commencement Date, Lessee shall deposit with City, a sum equal to the first months’ year's Rent. All subsequent rental payments will be due in advance on the first of each calendar year month thereafter.

6

Section 2.2 Late Charge. Any rental payment not received within thirty (30) days of its due date shall incur a late charge of ten (10) percent for each ninety (90) days or portions thereof that the amount remains delinquent. Section 2.3 Time and Place of Payments. The Rent, as well as all other charges hereunder, shall be payable annually or in equal monthly installments in advance on or before the first business day of each calendar month of the Lease Term at City’s principal place of business at the address set forth in Section 9.3. Section 2.4 Annual Rent Adjustment. On each anniversary of the Commencement Date, the Rent shall increase (but not decrease) based on the most recent change in the Consumer Price Index (CPI-U) for the year prior to the anniversary date. Section 2.5 Security Deposit. Lessee shall deposit with City upon the execution of this Agreement $_______________ as a security deposit. In the event of an uncured default by Lessee, City may apply the security deposit to cure of Lessee’s default. In such event, Lessee shall replenish the security deposit by depositing the amount of the security deposit with City.

ARTICLE III OCCUPANCY, USE AND CONDITIONS OF LEASED PREMISES

Section 3.1 Condition of Leased Premises. Lessee accepts the Leased Premises in their present “as is” condition. Lessee acknowledges and agrees that City makes no representation or warranty as to the condition of the Leased Premises, whether as to patent, latent or other defects and general condition. City has no obligation to repair or replace the Leased Premises or any component or part thereof, whether or not affixed to the building. Lessee releases City and holds it and its officers, directors, employees and agents harmless for any claims arising out of any condition of the Leased Premises. Lessee agrees that the Leased Premises are now in a tenantable and good condition. Lessee shall take good care of the Leased Premises and they shall not be altered, repaired or changed without the written consent of City. Lessee shall, at its expense, when surrendering said Leased Premises, remove from said Leased Premises and said building, all partitions, counters, railing, etc., installed in Leased Premises by said Lessee. All damage or injury done to the Leased Premises by Lessee shall be paid for by Lessee. Lessee shall, at the termination of this Agreement, surrender the Leased Premises to City in tenantable and good condition per Section 1.3.B. above.

NOTE: USE SECTION 3.2 A.1 FOR LAND LEASE AND 3.2 A.2 FOR LEASE OF EXISTING HANGAR

Section 3.2 Construction of Improvements. A. 1. Construction of Hangar. Lessee shall construct an aircraft hangar on the Leased Premises at its own expense. The construction, and any future modifications (including painting, wall or floor coverings), shall require the prior written approval of the City and shall comply with the Heber City Airport – Russ McDonald Field K36U Hangar Construction and Design Standards, Title 15 of the Heber City Municipal Code, and the Heber City Airport Hangar Interior Construction Limits. Upon the termination of this lease, Lessee shall have the right to remove any improvements erected by Lessee on the premises during the Lease Term or any renewal. Lessee, upon removal of any improvements shall restore the land to as good condition as it was in prior to the erection of any improvements thereon. Lessee hereby

7

agrees that removal of any and all improvements shall be completed on or before sixty (60) days from termination of this Agreement. Lessee shall, in removing any such property, repair all damage to the Leased Premises caused by such removal. Lessee hereby consents and agrees that any improvements remaining on the premises after the sixty (60) day removal period shall at the option of the City be deemed abandoned and owned by the City without any claim or right whatsoever in Lessee. All improvements shall also comply with 14 CFR Part 77 and all other applicable local, state and federal requirements. A2. Improvements to Existing Buildings and New Improvements. Lessee shall not make any structural, electrical, or other modifications (including painting, wall or floor coverings) to the existing buildings on the Leased Premises without first obtaining City’s express written consent. With written approval of City, Lessee has the right at its own expense to construct improvements to the Leased Premises, all in compliance with the provisions of this Agreement and in compliance with the Heber City Airport – Russ McDonald Field K36U Hangar Construction and Design Standards, and the Heber City Airport Hangar Interior Construction Limits. The general design and appearance of any new construction must receive the prior approval of City. In such event, the use thereof shall be enjoyed by Lessee during the term hereof without additional rental therefore. Upon the termination of this lease, Lessee shall have the right to remove any improvements erected by Lessee on the premises during the lease term or any renewal. Lessee, upon removal of any improvements shall restore the land to as good condition as it was in prior to the erection of any improvements thereon. Lessee hereby agrees that removal of any and all improvements shall be completed on or before sixty (60) days from termination of this Agreement. Lessee shall, in removing any such property, repair all damage to the Leased Premises caused by such removal. Lessee hereby consents and agrees that any improvements remaining on the premises after the sixty (60) day removal period shall at the option of the City be deemed abandoned and owned by the City without any claim or right whatsoever in Lessee. All improvements to the exterior of the Leased Premises shall comply with 14 CFR Part 77 and all other applicable local, state or federal requirements. B. Repairs. It is the responsibility of Lessee to report any damage, necessary repairs or maintenance to the Leased Premises to City immediately to Airport Manager. Lessee shall be liable for any and all damage to the Leased Premises caused by Lessee’s use, including, but not limited to, bent or broken interior walls, damage due to fuel spillage, or damage to doors due to Lessee’s improper or negligent operation. When damage is due to the fault of the Lessee, Lessee shall reimburse City for the cost of necessary repairs (see Article V, Section 5.1.C). C. Ramp. Lessee, as additional rent, shall construct and maintain a paved aircraft ramp area on the Leased Premises (the “Ramp.”). The Ramp must be designed and built to specifications, and for a minimum weight bearing capacity, established by the City, built to the full width of the Leased Premises, and to connect with adjacent taxiway, ramp and/or auto parking areas, in order that a continuous and safe pavement section results. If access to the Leased Premises is not available on existing taxiways and/or roadways, then Lessee may also be required to construct the same. It is the responsibility of Lessee to maintain the entire Ramp area, and all other pavement areas on the Leased Premises, in a manner which is safe and clean of debris so as not to cause danger or unsafe conditions for taxiing aircraft and Airport users. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the City shall be responsible for snow removal on the aircraft Ramp area excluding any parking and side lots and excluding any area within three feet (3’) for Daniel Hangars, (the 50 x 50's?) and within ten feet (10') of Hangar Row Hangars any Hangar; provided, however, that priority of snow removal shall be in accordance with the City’s Snow Removal Plan as it now exists or as it may be amended in the City’s sole discretion. Lessee grants to users of the

8

Airport the right to use aircraft Ramp areas on the Leased Premises from time to time for passage of aircraft on and near the adjacent taxiway. Section 3.3 Access. City agrees that if Lessee is not in breach of this Agreement, Lessee and Lessee’s employees, officers, directors, sub lessees (that are approved by City pursuant to this Agreement), contractors, subcontractors, suppliers, agents, invitees, and other representatives (“Lessee’s Associates”) are authorized to ingress and egress across the common areas of the Airport (in the areas designated by City, for the purposes for which they were designed, and as permitted by applicable Laws and Regulations as defined in Section 3.4) on a non-exclusive basis and to the extent reasonably necessary for Lessee’s use, occupancy, and operations at the Leased Premises. During special events at the Airport, Lessee acknowledges that the standard operation procedure at the Airport may be altered such that egress and ingress to the Leased Premises may be altered by City. City will notify Lessee in writing of any special events or closures that will impede Lessee’s use of the Leased Premises. Lessee’s failure to comply with the altered procedure is a default of this Agreement, and City may proceed to terminate this Agreement. Section 3.4 Use of Leased Premises and Compliance with all Laws and Regulations. Lessee shall use the Leased Premises only for storage of aviation related equipment and non-aviation storage as an incidental use on the condition that the space is principally used for aeronautical purposes. Use of the Leased Premises for overnight sleeping quarters or storage of equipment unrelated to aeronautical activities is prohibited, and Lessee and Lessee’s Associates shall comply at all times, at Lessee’s sole cost, with any and all laws and regulations (as amended or otherwise modified from time to time) that are applicable to Lessee’s construction of any improvements and the use, occupancy, or operations at the Leased Premises or the Airport (the “Laws and Regulations”), which include, but are not limited to, the minimum standards of the International Building Code and International Fire Code, the FAA Policy on the Non-aeronautical Use of Airport Hangars, all laws, statutes, ordinances, regulations, rules, orders, writs, judgments, decrees, injunctions, directives, rulings, guidelines, standards, codes, policies, common law, and other pronouncements of any kind having the effect of law that may be applicable at any time during the term of this Agreement including, but not limited to, the Airport Rules and Regulations, Minimum Standards, master plans and zoning codes, and all Laws and Regulations pertaining to the environment (the “Environmental Laws”); any and all plans and programs developed in compliance with such requirements; and all lawful, reasonable, and nondiscriminatory Airport policies and other requirements. Lessee shall provide all required notices under the Laws and Regulations. Upon a written request by City, Lessee will verify, within a reasonable time frame, compliance with any Laws and Regulations. Section 3.5 No Unauthorized Use. Lessee and Lessee’s Associates shall use the Leased Premises and the Airport only for purposes that are expressly authorized by this Agreement and shall not engage in any unauthorized use of the same. Unauthorized uses include, but are not limited to, damaging, interfering with, or altering any improvement; restricting access on any road or other area that Lessee does not lease; placing waste materials on the Airport or disposing of such materials in violation of any Laws and Regulations; any use that would constitute a public or private nuisance or a disturbance or annoyance to other Airport users; driving a motor vehicle in a prohibited Airport location; the use of automobile parking areas in a manner not authorized by City; any use that would interfere with any operation at the Airport or decrease the Airport’s effectiveness (as determined by City in its sole discretion); any use inconsistent with the FAA, Policy on the Non-aeronautical Use of Airport Hangars (as such may be amended or revised from time to time); and any use that would be prohibited by or would impair

9

coverage under either Party’s insurance policies or would cause an increase in the existing rate of insurance upon the Leased Premise. Section 3.6 Permits and Licenses. Lessee shall obtain and maintain in current status all permits and licenses that are required under any Laws and Regulations in connection with Lessee’s construction of any improvements and the use, occupancy, or operations at the Leased Premises or the Airport. In the event that Lessee receives notice from any governmental entity that Lessee lacks, or is in violation of, any such permit or license, Lessee shall provide City with timely written notice of the same. Section 3.7 Payment of Taxes. Lessee shall pay before delinquency, all taxes, license fees, assessments and other charges which are levied and assessed against and upon the Leased Premises, fixtures, equipment or other property caused or suffered by the Lessee to be installed, located or placed upon the Leased Premises. The Lessee shall furnish the City with satisfactory evidence of these payments upon demand from the City. Lessee acknowledges that this Lease may create a possessory interest subject to property taxation and that the Lessee may be subject to the payment of property taxes levied on such interest. Lessee agrees to assume and pay any such assessment. Section 3.8 No Liens. No liens may be placed upon the Leased Premises. Within thirty (30) days, Lessee shall pay all lawful claims made against City and discharge all liens filed or which exist against the Leased Premises or any other portion of the Airport (other than Lessee’s trade fixtures or trade equipment) to the extent such claims arise out of or in connection with, whether directly or indirectly, the failure to make payment for work done or materials provided by Lessee its contractors, subcontractors or materialmen. However, Lessee shall have the right to contest the amount or validity of any such claim or lien without being in default under this Agreement upon furnishing security in form acceptable to City, in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) of such claim or lien, which insures that such claim or lien will be properly and fully discharged forthwith in the event that such contest is finally determined against Lessee or City. City shall give timely notice to Lessee of all such claims and liens of which it becomes aware. When contracting for any work in connection with the Leased Premises, Lessee shall include in such contract a provision prohibiting the contractor or any subcontractor or supplier from filing a lien or asserting a claim against City’s real property or any interest therein. Lessee is solely responsible for ensuring that all requirements are met such that such lien waivers are effective and enforceable (such as filing such contracts, if necessary). Furthermore, when completed, the improvements on the Leased Premises shall be free from all construction liens.

ARTICLE IV REPRESENTATIONS AND WARRANTIES

Section 4.1 Representations by City. City represents and warrants that it has the right, power, and legal capacity to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement, has duly executed and delivered this Agreement, and that this Agreement constitutes a legal, valid, and binding obligation of City. Section 4.2 Representations by the Lessee. Lessee represents and warrants that it has the right, power, and legal capacity to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement, has duly executed and delivered this Agreement, and that this Agreement constitutes a legal, valid, and binding obligation of Lessee.

10

ARTICLE V OBLIGATIONS OF LESSEE

Section 5.1 Operations and Maintenance. A. Lessee shall maintain the Leased Premises and all improvements in a condition that is clean, free of debris, safe, sanitary, and in good repair and shall not accumulate or permit the accumulation of any trash, refuse, or debris or of anything that is unsightly or which creates a fire hazard or nuisance or causes inconvenience to adjoining properties. Lessee shall perform all work in accordance with Laws and Regulations and in a good and workmanlike manner. Lessee shall promptly remedy any condition that fails to meet this standard. Without limiting the foregoing obligations, Lessee shall not store on the Leased Premises any inoperable equipment, discarded or unsightly materials, or materials likely to create a hazard; shall not use areas outside of enclosed buildings for storage; and shall store trash in covered metal receptacles. Any substance or material that is regulated by any Environmental Law (“Hazardous Materials”) shall be governed by Section 5.8. B. Lessee shall be responsible for maintaining and repairing the interior of the Leased Premises, including pest and rodent control, interior ceilings, walls, floors, plumbing and electrical fixtures, pipes, exterior doors, windows and air-conditioning equipment, and will deliver up the Leased Premises at the expiration of this Agreement, or any renewal hereof, or at its earlier termination, in as good condition as the Leased Premises now are, reasonable wear and tear excepted (See Section 1.3.B. above). City will maintain the exterior of the Leased Premises, including the roof and exterior walls, in good and substantial repair; these agreements shall not apply to damage caused by fire or other casualty beyond the control of Lessee. C. Should the Lessee fail to repair and maintain the Leased Premises in proper condition, the City shall so notify the Lessee in writing. If the Lessee then fails to make such repair or maintenance within ten (10) thirty (30) days after the notice has been sent the City may cause such repair or maintenance service to be made. Lessee agrees to pay all City’s costs incurred thereby and reimburse the City therefore on demand. If said costs and expenses are not paid within fifteen (15) thirty (30) days after demand therefore, this Lease shall be deemed to be in default and the City shall be entitled to all legal remedies provided hereunder, including termination of this Lease. Lessee shall exercise due and reasonable caution to prevent fire, accidents, hazards or nuisances on the Leased Premises. Should the Lessee fail to remove or abate said hazard or nuisance after being notified to do so, the City may abate said hazard or nuisance and charge the cost thereof to the Lessee as provided above or at the City’s option terminate the Lease. Section 5.2 Additions and Alterations. A. Lessee shall not make any alterations, additions or improvements to the Leased Premises without the prior written consent of City. All contractors doing work on the Leased Premises must be licensed to perform such work. B. City may, at the termination of this Agreement, require Lessee to remove any alterations, additions or improvements made to the Leased Premises by Lessee, and restore the Leased Premises to its original conditions. If Lessee does not remove such alterations, additions or improvements in a timely manner, City may do so at Lessee’s sole expense. City is authorized to deduct any such expenses from any funds or credits that may exist.

11

C. No compensation will be paid by City on account of any improvements Lessee may make and which are not removed at the termination of the lease. Section 5.3 Utilities. Lessee shall pay for telephone, gas, light bulbs, electricity, water, sewer, and garbage and trash removal used by Lessee and shall make such deposits as are required to secure service. Lessee shall be responsible for any water or sewer impact fees incurred by their use of the Leased Premises. Any repairs of the utility lines other than those which are not the responsibility of the utility service are the responsibility of Lessee. If utilities are billed to a common meter, Lessee shall pay to City the pro-rated amount based on square footage leased. (Do we have common meters at the Airport?) Section 5.4 Unless otherwise specifically approved and agreed to in writing by the City and Airport Manager, either by addendum or amendment to this Agreement, operation of Business by Lessee. Lessee shall not use the Leased Premises for the operation of a business and shall not keep any merchandise, boxes, furniture, etc., upon the Leased Premises at any time. Lessee shall not allow storage or use of property, equipment, vehicles, etc. associated with the operation of any business. There shall be no living quarters, nor shall anyone be permitted to live or cook within the Leased Premises Any such specific permission or alteration to allow SASO's or non-aeronautical activities or businesses, as above referenced, shall meet the following minimum conditions. Said conditions are not meant to be an exhaustive list. Any addendum or amendment shall incorporate said minimums, as well as any other relevant conditions or terms as the City deems necessary. (*How can this be reworded to allow a restaurant at the Airport? Or do we keep this paragraph yet specify an addendum that relates to 'Operation of Non-Airport Related Businesses by Lessee' and refer to it here?) Section 5.5 Signs. Lessee shall not place, or cause to be placed, any sign or signs on the Leased Premises unless otherwise agreed to in writing by City. All signs are subject to the approval of City and such signs shall be in conformity with the local custom and shall be in good taste, and shall not conflict with the architecture of the building. The windows of the Leased Premises shall not be cluttered with signs; however, this shall not prohibit customary and normal use of said windows. Section 5.6 Security. Lessee is responsible to comply (at Lessee’s sole cost) with all security measures that City, the United States Transportation Security Administration, the United States Department of Homeland Security (“Homeland Security”), FAA, or any other governmental entity having jurisdiction may require in connection with the Airport, including, but not limited to, any access credential requirements, any decision to remove Lessee’s access credentials, and any civil penalty obligations and other costs arising from a breach of security requirements caused or permitted by Lessee or Lessee’s Associates. Lessee agrees that Airport access credentials are the property of City and may be suspended or revoked by City for security related reasons in its sole discretion at any time. Lessee shall pay all fees associated with such credentials, and Lessee shall immediately report to the Executive Director any lost credentials or credentials that Lessee removes from any employee or any of Lessee’s Associates. Lessee shall protect and preserve security at the Airport. Lessee acknowledges that FAA, Homeland Security, or a subdivision of either may enact laws or regulations regarding security at general aviation airports such that City may not be able to comply fully with its obligations under this Agreement, and Lessee agrees that City will not be liable for any damages to Lessee or Lessee’s personal property that may result from said noncompliance. Section 5.7 Obstruction Lights. Lessee shall, at its expense, provide and maintain obstruction lights on any structure on the Leased Premises if required by City or FAA regulations. Any obstruction lights so

12

required shall comply with the specifications and standards established for such installations by City or FAA. Section 5.8 Hazardous Materials. A. No Violation of Environmental Laws. Lessee shall not cause or permit any Hazardous Materials to be used, produced, stored, transported, brought upon, or released on, under, or about the Leased Premises or the Airport by Lessee or Lessee’s Associates in violation of applicable Environmental Laws. Lessee is responsible for any such violation as provided by Section 7.1. B. Response to Violations. Lessee agrees that in the event of a release or threat of release of any Hazardous Material by Lessee or Lessee’s Associates at the Airport, Lessee shall provide City with prompt notice of the same. Lessee shall respond to any such release or threat of release in accordance with applicable Laws and Regulations. If City has reasonable cause to believe that any such release or threat of release has occurred, City may request, in writing, that Lessee conduct reasonable testing and analysis (using qualified independent experts acceptable to City) to show that Lessee is complying with applicable Environmental Laws. City may conduct the same at Lessee’s expense if Lessee fails to respond in a reasonable manner. Lessee shall cease any or all of Lessee’s activities as City determines necessary, in its sole and absolute discretion, in connection with any investigation, cure, or remediation. If Lessee or Lessee’s Associates violate any Environmental Laws at the Airport (whether due to the release of a Hazardous Material or otherwise), Lessee, at Lessee’s sole expense, shall have the following obligations, which shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement: (i) promptly remediate such violation in compliance with applicable Environmental Laws; (ii) submit to City a written remediation plan, and City reserves the right to approve such plan (which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld) and to review and inspect all work; (iii) work with City and other governmental authorities having jurisdiction in connection with any violation; and (iv) promptly provide City copies of all documents pertaining to any environmental concern that are not subject to Lessee’s attorney-client privilege. C. Obligations upon Termination and Authorized Transfers. Upon any expiration or termination of this Agreement or any change in possession of the Leased Premises authorized by City, Lessee shall demonstrate to City’s reasonable satisfaction that Lessee has removed any Hazardous Materials and is in compliance with applicable Environmental Laws. Such demonstration may include, but is not limited to, independent analysis and testing to the extent that facts and circumstances warrant analysis and testing, such as evidence of past violations or specific uses of the Leased Premises. If the site is contaminated during Lessee’s possession, Lessee shall bear all costs and responsibility for the required clean up, and shall hold City harmless therefrom. Notwithstanding anything to the contrary, the obligations of this Section 5.8 shall survive any termination of this Agreement. Section 5.9 Trash, Garbage and Other Refuse. Lessee shall pick up, and provide for a complete and proper arrangement for the adequate sanitary handling and disposal, away from the Airport. Lessee is responsible for arranging for disposal and payment of such services. Lessee shall provide and use suitable covered metal receptacles for all such garbage, trash and other refuse on the Leased Premises. Lessee shall not pile boxes, cartons, barrels, pallets, debris or similar items in an unattractive or unsafe manner, on or about the Leased Premises. Section 5.10 Registration of Aircraft. Lessee agrees to notify the Airport manager, in writing, within ten (10) days of its basing, of the registration number of the aircraft and the person(s) responsible for it,

13

including two off hours emergency phone numbers, for all aircraft stored on the Leased Premises *or will pay a $50 fine to City. Section 5.11 No Fuel Sales. Lessee shall not have the right to sell, store, or distribute any parts, fuels, oils, or similar products, upon the Leased Premises without proper SASO approval. Self-Fueling information is available through the Airport Manager.

ARTICLE VI INDEMNIFICATION AND INSURANCE

Section 6.1 Insurance. Lessee agrees to purchase general liability insurance in the amount of ________________________________________ combined single limit to cover Lessee’s operations as described in Section 3.4. Insurance coverage shall include City as additional named insured, providing 15 days’ notice of cancellation. Lessee shall submit Certificate of Insurance to City within 10 working days after the effective date of this Agreement, and yearly thereafter *or will pay a $50 fine to City and provide insurance coverage forthwith. The above insurance policy or policies shall contain an endorsement which provides that the Lessee and the City are named insureds as it pertains to said leasehold. Lessee shall be ready to provide said insurance policy at all times this Lease is in effect. All insurance policies secured by the Lessee providing the coverages which affect the leasehold premises required under this Lease shall require each insurer to notify the City by registered or certified mail of any modification, termination or cancellation of any policy of insurance that affects the leasehold premises no less than thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of such modification, termination or cancellation. Notice by the insurer shall be effective upon the receipt of said notice by the City. In addition to any other requirements of this Lease, the Lessee shall notify the City of any modification which affects the leasehold premises, termination or cancellation of any policy of insurance secured by the Lessee pursuant to this paragraph as soon as the Lessee learns of any such modification, termination or cancellation. Each of said policies shall stipulate that the policy provided coverage is not subordinate to nor contributing with any other insurance coverage held or maintained by the City. The procuring of such policy or policies of insurance shall not be construed to be a limitation upon the Lessee's liability or a waiver of performance on the Lessee's part of the indemnification and hold harmless provisions of this Lease; and the Lessee understands and agrees that notwithstanding any policy or policies of insurance it remains the Lessee's obligation to protect, indemnify and hold harmless the City hereunder for the full and total amount of any damage, injuries, loss, expense, costs or liabilities caused by or in any manner connected with or attributed to the negligent acts or omissions of the Lessee, its officers, agents, employees, licensees or the operations conducted by the Lessee, or the Lessee's use, misuse or neglect of the premises described herein. Section 6.2 Lessee’s Indemnification and Duty to Pay Damages. A. Lessee shall hold City exempt and harmless, to the extent allowed by general law, from and against any and all claims, demands, suits, judgments, costs and expenses asserted by any person or persons (including agents or employees of City, Lessee, or sub lessee) by reason of death or injury to persons or loss of or damage to property resulting from Lessee’s operations, or anything done or omitted by Lessee under this Agreement except to the extent that such claims, demands, suits, judgments, costs and expenses may be attributed to the intentional acts or omissions of City, its agents or employees. (*Should we use the same language from the Rules & Regulations in 1.2.1.3: "Each such Entity shall at all times release, hold harmless, and indemnify the City, Airport, and the Heber City Council (individually and collectively), representatives, officers, officials, employees, agents, and volunteers from any and all

14

responsibility, liability, loss or damage that may result to any Entity, be caused by or on their behalf and/or incident to the manner in which the Airport is operated, constructed, maintained, served, or used." Located at: http://ci.heber.ut.us/departments/airport/documents/Airport%20Rules%20and%20Regulations%20-%20Adopted%2011-17-2011_Rev.%206202016.pdf ) B. City shall not be liable to Lessee for any damage by or from any act or negligence of any co-tenant or other occupant of the same building, or by any owner or occupant of adjoining or contiguous property. C. Lessee agrees to pay for all damages of Leased Premises caused by Lessee’s misuse or neglect thereof, its apparatus or appurtenances. D. Lessee shall be responsible and liable for the conduct of Lessee’s Associates in and around the Leased Premises.

ARTICLE VII DEFAULT AND REMEDIES

Section 7.1 Lessee’s Default. The occurrence of any of the following events shall constitute a default by Lessee under this Agreement unless cured within thirty (30) days following written notice of such violation from City: (i) Lessee fails to timely pay any Rent; (ii) Lessee or Lessee’s Associates violate any requirement under this Agreement (including, but not limited to, abandonment of the Leased Premises); (iii) Lessee assigns or encumbers any right in this Agreement, delegates any performance hereunder, or subleases any part of the Leased Premises (except as expressly permitted in this Agreement); (iv) Lessee files a petition in bankruptcy or has a petition filed against Lessee in bankruptcy, insolvency, or for reorganization or appointment of a receiver or trustee which is not dismissed within sixty (60) days; (v) Lessee petitions for or enters into an arrangement for the benefit of creditors, or suffers this Agreement to become subject to a writ of execution and such writ is not released within thirty (30) days; (vi) Lessee defaults in constructing any improvements that are required to be constructed under this Agreement; or (vii) Lessee dissolves or dies. Section 7.2 Default by City. City shall not be in default under this Agreement unless City fails to perform an obligation required of City under this Agreement within thirty (30) days after written notice by Lessee to City. If the nature of City’s obligation is such that more than thirty (30) days are reasonably required for performance or cure, City shall not be in default if City commences performance within such thirty (30) day period and thereafter diligently prosecutes the same to completion. Section 7.3 Remedies for Failure to Pay Rent. If any Rent required by this Agreement shall not be paid when due, City shall have the option to: A. Terminate this Agreement, resume possession of the Leased Premises for its own account, and recover immediately from Lessee the differences between the Rent and the fair rental value of the property for the term, reduced to present worth. B. Resume possession and re-lease the Leased Premises for the remainder of the term for the account of Lessee, and recover from Lessee, at the end of the term or at the time each payment of Rent comes due under this Agreement as City may choose, the difference between the Rent and the rent received on the

http://ci.heber.ut.us/departments/airport/documents/Airport%20Rules%20and%20Regulations%20-%20Adopted%2011-17-2011_Rev.%206202016.pdf

http://ci.heber.ut.us/departments/airport/documents/Airport%20Rules%20and%20Regulations%20-%20Adopted%2011-17-2011_Rev.%206202016.pdf

15

re-leasing or renting. In either event, City shall also recover all expenses incurred by reason of breach, including reasonable attorney’s fees. Section 7.4 Remedies for Breach of Agreement. If Lessee shall fail to perform or breach any provision of this Agreement other than the agreement of Lessee to pay Rent, City shall provide written notice to Lessee specifying the performance required. Ten (10) days after such notice is provided under this Section 7.4, City may terminate this Agreement or take any such action it is legally entitled to take, including instituting litigation to compel performance of this Agreement. Should litigation be filed by City and it is the prevailing party in that litigation, Lessee shall be liable for all expenses related to such litigation, including City’s attorney’s fees. Section 7.5 Survival. The provisions of this Article VII and the remedies and rights provided in this Article VII shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement.

ARTICLE VIII ASSIGNMENT AND SUBLEASING

Section 8.1 Assignment by Lessee. A. Lessee shall not assign any of its rights under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, rights in any improvements, (whether such assignment is voluntarily or involuntarily, by merger, consolidation, dissolution, change in control, or any other manner), and shall not delegate any performance under this Agreement, except with the prior written consent of City to any of the same, in City’s sole discretion. As a condition of obtaining such consent, the transferee receiving any such right shall be required to execute a new lease agreement provided by City. Regardless of City’s consent, Lessee shall not be released from any obligations for matters arising during the time when this Agreement was in effect. Any purported assignment or delegation of rights or delegation of performance in violation of this Section 8.1 is void. B. If at any time Lessee desires to sell, assign, or otherwise transfer its interest under this Lease, including the Improvements existing on the Leased Premises, to a Buyer, and has obtained a bona fide offer for such sale, Lessee must first offer to sell, assign, or otherwise transfer such interest to the City, at the price and on the same terms as such bona fide offer, and the City shall have the right to purchase Lessee’s interest under such terms. Such offer must be in writing and state the name of the proposed transferee and all of the terms and conditions of the proposed transfer. The City shall have the right for a period of ten (10) twenty (15) or (20) business days after receipt of the offer from Lessee to elect to purchase Lessee’s interest (such ten (10) twenty (15) or (20) business day period referred to as the “Election Period”). If the City does not desire to purchase Lessee’s interest, Lessee may then sell, assign, or otherwise transfer its interest in this Agreement to the person making the said offer, at the price and terms set forth in the offer, subject to the requirements of Section 8.2A above. If Lessee fails to close such sale within sixty (60) days after the expiration of the Election Period, any proposed sale, assignment or other transfer thereafter shall again be subject to this Section. This right of the City shall be continuing and shall survive any sale, assignment or other transfer of Lessee’s interest under this Lease. Lessee’s interests in this Agreement may only be sold, assigned or otherwise transferred intact, without fractionalization. Section 8.2 Assignment by City. City shall have the right, in City’s sole discretion, to assign any of its rights under this Agreement (and in connection therewith, shall be deemed to have delegate its duties),

16

and upon any such assignment, Lessee agrees that Lessee shall perform its obligations under this Agreement in favor of such assignee. Section 8.3 Encumbrances. Lessee shall not encumber or permit the encumbrance of any real property at the Airport. Lessee shall not encumber or permit the encumbrance of any of Lessee’s rights under this Agreement without City’s prior written consent, in City’s sole discretion. Lessee shall not record this Agreement or any document or interest relating thereto. Any purported encumbrance of rights in violation of this Section 8.3 is void. In connection with City’s consent to any encumbrance, at a minimum the following shall apply: (i) such encumbrance shall only encumber Lessee’s leasehold interest for the purpose of securing financing for Lessee’s authorized improvements (no other encumbrance shall be permitted); (ii) such encumbrance shall be subordinate to City’s interests; (iii) the lienholder must agree to maintain current contact information with City and provide City with concurrent copies of any notices or communications regarding a default; (iv) the lienholder must certify to City that it has reviewed this Agreement and accepted provisions that may affect the lienholder, and that no loan requirements conflict with or materially erode any provisions of this Agreement; (v) any default relating to such encumbrance shall be a default of this Agreement; (vi) the lienholder must agree that upon any default, City shall have a lien with first priority on all Lessee-owned improvements and other property at the Leased Premises; (vii) the lienholder must agree that City has complete and sole discretion as to whether to approve the substitution of a tenant by the lienholder and whether City terminates this Agreement (which would result in a termination of the lienholder’s interests in this Agreement); and (viii) such encumbrance shall terminate prior to the expiration or termination of this Agreement and the lienholder must agree to promptly remove such encumbrance when the obligation that it secures has been satisfied. If (while such encumbrance is in effect) Lessee defaults under such encumbrance or this Agreement, and if such lienholder is in compliance with the provisions set forth in this Section 8.3 and cures Lessee’s defaults of this Agreement within twenty (20) days after the first such default, City will permit such lienholder to provide a substitute tenant (which must be acceptable to City in its sole discretion) for a period of up to twelve (12) months after the date when such lienholder cured all defaults so long as such lienholder fully performs this Agreement during such period. If such lienholder fails to comply with any of the foregoing requirements, such failure shall be a default of this Agreement and City may at any time (but is not required to) terminate this Agreement and exercise any rights hereunder. City shall have no obligation to provide any notices to any lienholder, and City shall have no liability of any kind to any lienholder. Section 8.4 Subleasing. Subject to City’s prior written consent, which City may provide or withhold in City’s sole discretion, Lessee shall have the right to sublease portions of the Leased Premises subject to the terms required by City. Lessee shall impose on all approved sub lessees the same terms set forth in this Agreement to provide for the rights and protections afforded to City hereunder, including but not limited to, the subordination to the Grant Assurances under Section 9.7 and the inclusion of all of the required federal clauses under Section 9.18. Lessee shall reserve the right to amend Lessee’s subleases to conform to the requirements of this Agreement, and all such subleases shall be consistent with and subordinate to this Agreement as it is amended from time to time. Such subleases shall include an agreement that the sub lessees will attorn to and pay rent to City if Lessee ceases to be a Party to this Agreement. City shall have the right to approve any sublease in City’s sole discretion, and Lessee shall provide to City a copy of every sublease executed by Lessee. No sublease shall relieve Lessee of any obligation under this Agreement.

ARTICLE IX MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

17

Section 9.1 Damage by Fire or Other Casualty. Should the improvements to the Leased Premises be damaged or destroyed in whole or in part, by fire, earthquake or any other casualty at any time during the term of this Lease so that the same cannot be repaired within ninety (90) working days to substantially the same condition it was in immediately prior to the happening of such casualty, then either the City or the Lessee may, within fifteen (15) working days after the ninety (90) working days after the happening of such casualty, terminate this Lease as of the date of said casualty. Lessee shall proceed, within ninety (90) working days, with the restoration and reconstruction of the improvements on the Leased Premises to substantially the same condition in which they were in prior to the happening of the casualty. In no event shall the City be liable to the Lessee for any damages resulting to the Lessee from the happening of such fire or other casualty or from the repair or construction of the Leased Premises or from the termination of this Lease as herein provided, nor shall the Lessee be released thereby from any of its obligations hereunder except as expressly stated in this clause. Section 9.2 Waiver of Exemption. Any constitutional or statutory exemption of Lessee of any property usually kept on the Leased Premises, from distress or forced sale, is waived. Section 9.3 Addresses. All rent payable and notice given under this Agreement to City shall be paid to the Heber City Airport Manager c/o the Heber City Recorder, 75 North Main Street, Heber City, Utah 84032, or such other place as City shall specify in writing. All notices given under this Agreement to Lessee shall be sent to: Name ___________________________________________________________ Address__________________________________________________________ City, State, ZIP____________________________________________________ For emergency purposes, the Lessee is also to provide the following contact information: Primary Cell Phone Number_____________________ FAX___________________ Secondary Telephone Number_____________________ Primary E-mail address_____________________________________________________ Secondary E-mail address_____________________________________________________ Any notice properly mailed by registered mail, postage and fee prepaid, shall be deemed delivered when mailed, whether received or not. Section 9.4 No Waiver. The waiver by City of any breach of any term, covenant or condition herein contained shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such term, covenant or condition or any subsequent breach of the same or any other term, covenant or condition herein contained. The subsequent acceptance of rent hereunder by City shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any preceding breach by Lessee of any term, covenant or condition of this Agreement, other than the failure of Lessee to pay the particular rental so accepted, regardless of City’s knowledge of such preceding breach at the time of acceptance of such rent. Section 9.5 Lessee’s Subordination. Lessee hereby subordinates and makes this Agreement inferior to all existing and future mortgages, trust indentures or other security interest of City or City’s successor in

18

interest. Lessee shall execute and deliver any documents required to evidence and perfect such subordination. Section 9.6 Additional Charges as Rent. Any charges against Lessee by City for services or for work done on the Leased Premises by order of Lessee or otherwise accruing under this Agreement shall be considered as Rent due. Section 9.7 Subordination to Grant Assurances. This Agreement shall be subordinate to the provisions of any existing or future agreements between City and the United States of America, relative to the operation and maintenance of the Airport, the terms and execution of which have been or may be required as a condition precedent to the expenditure or reimbursement to City of federal funds for the development of the Airport (“Grant Assurances”). In the event that this Agreement, either on its own terms or by any other reason, conflicts with or violates any such Grant Assurances, City has the right to amend, alter or otherwise modify the terms of this Agreement in order to resolve such conflict or violation. Section 9.8 Non-Interference With Operation of the Airport. Lessee expressly agrees for itself, its successors and assigns that Lessee will not conduct operations in or on the Leased Premises in a manner that in the reasonable judgment of City, (i) interferes or might interfere with the reasonable use by others of common facilities at the Airport, (ii) hinders or might hinder police, fire fighting or other emergency personnel in the discharge of their duties, (iii) would or would be likely to constitute a hazardous condition at the Airport, (iv) would or would be likely to increase the premiums for insurance policies maintained by City unless such operations are not otherwise prohibited hereunder and Lessee pays the increase in insurance premiums occasioned by such operations, (v) is contrary to any applicable federal Grant Assurance; (vi) is in contradiction to any rule, regulation, directive or similar restriction issued by agencies having jurisdiction over the Airport including FAA, Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration and Customs and Border Patrol, or (vii) would involve any illegal purposes. In the event this covenant is breached, City reserves the right, after prior written notice to Lessee, to enter upon the Leased Premises and cause the abatement of such interference at the expense of Lessee. In the event of a breach in Airport security caused by Lessee, resulting in fine or penalty to City of which Lessee has received prior written notice, such fine or penalty will be charged to Lessee. Section 9.9 Emergency Closures. During time of war or national emergency, City shall have the right to enter into an agreement with the United States Government for military or naval use of part or all of the landing area, the publicly-owned air navigation facilities and/or other areas or facilities of the Airport. If any such agreement is executed, the provisions of this Agreement, insofar as they are inconsistent with provisions of the agreement with the Government, will be suspended. Section 9.10 Interpretation. A. References in the text of this Agreement to articles, sections or exhibits pertain to articles, sections or exhibits of this Agreement, unless otherwise specified. B. The terms “hereby,” “herein,” “hereof,” “hereto,” “hereunder” and any similar terms used in this Agreement refer to this Agreement. The term “including” shall not be construed in a limiting nature, but shall be construed to mean “including, without limitation.”

19

C. Words importing persons shall include firms, associations, partnerships, trusts, corporations and other legal entities, including public bodies, as well as natural persons. D. Any headings preceding the text of the articles and sections of this Agreement, and any table of contents or marginal notes appended to copies hereof, shall be solely for convenience of reference and shall not constitute a part of this Agreement, nor shall they affect the meaning, construction or effect of this Agreement. E. Words importing the singular shall include the plural and vice versa. Words of the masculine gender shall be deemed to include correlative words of the feminine and neuter genders. Section 9.11 Force Majeure. No act or event, whether foreseen or unforeseen, shall operate to excuse Lessee from the prompt payment of rent or any other amounts required to be paid under this Agreement. If City (or Lessee in connection with obligations other than payment obligations) is delayed or hindered in any performance under this Agreement by a force majeure event, such performance shall be excused to the extent so delayed or hindered during the time when such force majeure event is in effect, and such performance shall promptly occur or resume thereafter at the expense of the Party so delayed or hindered. A “force majeure event” is an act or event, whether foreseen or unforeseen, that prevents a Party in whole or in part from performing as provided in this Agreement, that is beyond the reasonable control of and not the fault of such Party, and that such Party has been unable to avoid or overcome by exercising due diligence, and may include, but is not limited to, acts of nature, war, riots, strikes, accidents, fire, and changes in law. Lessee hereby releases City from any and all liability, whether in contract or tort (including strict liability and negligence) for any loss, damage or injury of any nature whatsoever sustained by Lessee, its employees, agents or invitees during the Lease Term, including, but not limited to, loss, damage or injury to the aircraft or other personal property of Lessee that may be located or stored in the Leased Premises due to a force majeure event. Section 9.12 Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement has been made in and will be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah. In any action initiated by one Party against the other, exclusive venue and jurisdiction will be in the appropriate state courts in and for Wasatch County, Utah. Section 9.13 Amendments and Waivers. No amendment to this Agreement shall be binding on City or Lessee unless reduced to writing and signed by both Parties. No provision of this Agreement may be waived, except pursuant to a writing executed by the Party against whom the waiver is sought to be enforced. Section 9.14 Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is determined to be invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect if both the economic and legal substance of the transactions that this Agreement contemplates are not affected in any manner materially adverse to any Party. If any provision of this Agreement is held invalid, illegal, or unenforceable, the Parties shall negotiate in good faith to modify this Agreement to fulfill as closely as possible the original intents and purposes of this Agreement. Section 9.15 Merger. This Agreement constitutes the final, complete, and exclusive agreement between the Parties on the matters contained in this Agreement. All prior and contemporaneous negotiations and agreements between the Parties on the matters contained in this Agreement are expressly merged into and superseded by this Agreement. In entering into this Agreement, neither Party has relied on any

20

statement, representation, warranty, nor agreement of the other Party except for those expressly contained in this Agreement. Section 9.16 Relationship of Parties. This Agreement does not create any partnership, joint venture, employment, or agency relationship between the Parties. Nothing in this Agreement shall confer upon any other person or entity any right, benefit, or remedy of any nature. Section 9.17 Further Assurances. Each Party shall execute any document or take any action that may be necessary or desirable to consummate and make effective a performance that is required under this Agreement. Section 9.18 Required Federal Clauses. Lessee and Lessee’s Associates shall comply with all Laws and Regulations, including all of the required federal clauses in this Section 9.18. A. During the performance of this contract, the Lessee, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Lessee”) agrees as follows: 1. Compliance with Regulations: The Lessee will comply with the Title VI List of Pertinent Nondiscrimination Acts And Authorities, as they may be amended from time to time, which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this Agreement. 2. Non-discrimination: The Lessee, with regard to the work performed by it or use of the Leased Premises during the Lease Term, will not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, or national origin in the selection and retention of contractors, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment. The Lessee will not participate directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by the Nondiscrimination Acts and Authorities, including employment practices when the contract covers any activity, project, or program set forth in Appendix B of 49 CFR Part 21. 3. Solicitations for Contracts, Including Procurements of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations, either by competitive bidding, or negotiation made by Lessee for work to be performed under a contract, including procurements of materials, or leases of equipment, each potential contractor or supplier will be notified by the Lessee of the Lessee’s obligations under this Agreement and the Nondiscrimination Acts And Authorities on the grounds of race, color, or national origin. 4. Information and Reports: The Lessee will provide all information and reports required by the Acts, the Regulations, and directives issued pursuant thereto and will permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the sponsor or the Federal Aviation Administration to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Nondiscrimination Acts And Authorities and instructions. Where any information required of Lessee is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish the information, Lessee will so certify to City or the Federal Aviation Administration, as appropriate, and will set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information. 5. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of Lessee’s noncompliance with the Non-discrimination provisions of this contract, City will impose such sanctions as it or the Federal Aviation Administration may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to cancelling, terminating, or suspending the Lease, in whole or in part.

21

6. Incorporation of Provisions: The Lessee will include the provisions of paragraphs one through six of this Section 9.18(A) in every contract, including procurements of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Acts, the Regulations and directives issued pursuant thereto. The Lessee will take action with respect to any contract or procurement as City or the Federal Aviation Administration may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance. Provided, that if the Lessee becomes involved in, or is threatened with litigation by a contractor, or supplier because of such direction, the Lessee may request City to enter into any litigation to protect the interests of City. In addition, the Lessee may request the United States to enter into the litigation to protect the interests of the United States. B. Lessee for itself, its heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree as a covenant running with the land that in the event facilities are constructed, maintained, or otherwise operated on the Leased Premises for a purpose for which a Federal Aviation Administration activity, facility, or program is extended or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits, the Lessee will maintain and operate such facilities and services in compliance with all requirements imposed by the Nondiscrimination Acts and Regulations listed in the Pertinent List of Nondiscrimination Authorities (as may be amended) such that no person on the grounds of race, creed, color, or national origin, sex, age or disability will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities. C. Lessee for itself, its heirs, personal representatives, successors in interest, and assigns, as a part of the consideration hereof, does hereby covenant and agree as a covenant running with the land that (1) no person on the ground of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination in the use of said facilities, (2) that in the construction of any improvements on, over, or under such land, and the furnishing of services thereon, no person on the ground of race, color, or national origin, will be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or otherwise be subjected to discrimination, and (3) that the Lessee will use the Leased Premises in compliance with all other requirements imposed by or pursuant to the List of discrimination Acts And Authorities. D. During the performance of this contract, the contractor, for itself, its assignees, and successors in interest (hereinafter referred to as the “contractor”) agrees to comply with the following non-discrimination statutes and authorities; including but not limited to: i. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq., 78 stat. 252), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin); ii. 49 CFR Part 21 (Non-discrimination In Federally-Assisted Programs of The Department of Transportation—Effectuation of Title VI of The Civil Rights Act of 1964); iii. The Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, (42 U.S.C. § 4601), (prohibits unfair treatment of persons displaced or whose property has been acquired because of Federal or Federal aid programs and projects); iv. Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, (29 U.S.C. § 794 et seq.), as amended, (prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability); and 49 CFR Part 27;

22

v. The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, (42 U.S.C. § 6101 et seq.), (prohibits discrimination on the basis of age); vi. Airport and Airway Improvement Act of 1982, (49 USC § 471, Section 47123), as amended, (prohibits discrimination based on race, creed, color, national origin, or sex); vii. The Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, (PL 100-209), (Broadened the scope, coverage and applicability of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, The Age Discrimination Act of 1975 and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, by expanding the definition of the terms “programs or activities” to include all of the programs or activities of the Federal-aid recipients, sub recipients and contractors, whether such programs or activities are Federally funded or not); viii. Titles II and III of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, which prohibit discrimination on the basis of disability in the operation of public entities, public and private transportation systems, places of public accommodation, and certain testing entities (42 U.S.C. §§ 12131 – 12189) as implemented by Department of Transportation regulations at 49 CFR Parts 37 and 38; ix. The Federal Aviation Administration’s Non-discrimination statute (49 U.S.C. § 47123) (prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, and sex); x. Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations, which ensures nondiscrimination against minority populations by discouraging programs, policies, and activities with disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental effects on minority and low-income populations; xi. Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited English Proficiency, and resulting agency guidance, national origin discrimination includes discrimination because of limited English proficiency (LEP). To ensure compliance with Title VI, you must take reasonable steps to ensure that LEP persons have meaningful access to your programs (70 Fed. Reg. at 74087 to 74100); and xii. Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, as amended, which prohibits you from discriminating because of sex in education programs or activities (20 U.S.C. 1681 et seq). E. The Lessee and its transferee agree to comply with pertinent statutes, Executive Orders and such rules as are promulgated to ensure that no person shall, on the grounds of race, creed, color, national origin, sex, age, or disability be excluded from participating in any activity conducted with or benefiting from federal assistance. This provision obligates the Lessee or its sub lessee for the period during which federal assistance is extended to the Airport through the Airport Improvement Program. In cases where federal assistance provides, or is in the form of personal property; real property or interest therein; structures or improvements thereon, this provision obligates the Party or any transferee for the longer of the following periods: (i) the period during which the property is used by the airport sponsor or any transferee for a purpose for which federal assistance is extended, or for another purpose involving the provision of similar services or benefits; or (ii) the period during which the airport sponsor or any transferee retains ownership or possession of the property. F. In the event of breach of any of the above nondiscrimination covenants, City will have the right to terminate the Lease and to enter, re-enter, and repossess said lands and facilities thereon, and hold the same as if the Lease had never been made or issued.

23

G. This Lease incorporates by reference the provisions of 29 CFR Part 201, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), with the same force and effect as if given in full text. The FLSA sets minimum wage, overtime pay, recordkeeping, and child labor standards for full and part time workers. The Lessee has full responsibility to monitor compliance to the referenced statute or regulation. The Lessee must address any claims or disputes that arise from this requirement directly with the U.S. Department of Labor – Wage and Hour Division. H. This Lease incorporates by reference the requirements of 29 CFR Part 1910 with the same force and effect as if given in full text. Lessee must provide a work environment that is free from recognized hazards that may cause death or serious physical harm to the employee. The Lessee retains full responsibility to monitor its compliance and any sub lessee's compliance with the applicable requirements of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 (20 CFR Part 1910). Lessee must address any claims or disputes that pertain to a referenced requirement directly with the U.S. Department of Labor – Occupational Safety and Health Administration. I. Lessee agrees that it shall insert the above eight provisions (Section 9.18(A) through Section 9.18(H)) in any agreement by which said Lessee grants a right or privilege to any person, firm, or corporation to render accommodations and/or services to the public on the Leased Premises herein leased or owned. J. It is hereby specifically understood and agreed that nothing herein contained shall be construed to grant or authorize the granting of an exclusive right to provide aeronautical services to the public as prohibited by the Grant Assurances, and City reserves the right to grant to others the privilege and right of conducting any one or all activities of an aeronautical nature. (Grant Assurance 23) K. City reserves the right to further develop or improve the landing area of the Airport as it sees fit, regardless of the desires or view of Lessee, and without interference or hindrance. (FAA Order 5190.6B) L. City reserves the right, but shall not be obligated to Lessee, to maintain and keep in repair the landing area of the Airport and all publicly-owned facilities of the Airport, together with the right to direct and control all activities of Lessee in this regard. (FAA Order 5190.6B) M. This Agreement shall be subordinate to the provisions of and requirements of any existing or future agreement between City and the United States, relative to the development, operation, or maintenance of the Airport. (FAA Order 5190.6B) N. Lessee agrees to comply with the notification and review requirements covered in Part 77 of the Federal Aviation Regulations in the event any future structure or building is planned for the Leased Premises, or in the event of any planned modification or alteration of any present or future building or structure situated on the Leased Premises. (FAA Order 5190.6B) O. It is clearly understood by Lessee that no right or privilege has been granted which would operate to prevent any person, firm, or corporation operating aircraft on the Airport from performing any services on its own aircraft with its own regular employees (including but not limited to, maintenance and repair) that it may choose to perform. (Grant Assurance 22(f))

24

Section 9.19 Heber City Ordinances. Lessee hereby acknowledges the applicability of the Heber City Municipal Ordinances to this Agreement. Lessee hereby acknowledges notice of the terms, conditions and requirements presently contained therein and agrees, so far as said ordinance applies to persons such as Lessee herein, to comply with such ordinances as now in effect or as it may be amended during the term of this Lease or any renewal. Specifically, the terms and conditions of Title 15 as currently existing or as may be amended are incorporated herein by reference and made part hereof as though written herein. Section 9.20 Rules and Regulations. The City shall have the right to adopt and enforce reasonable rules and regulations with respect to the use of the Airport and the public terminal building and appurtenances, provided that such rules and regulations shall not be inconsistent with safety and with rules and regulations of the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to aircraft operations at the Airport. Section 9.21 City Reservations A. The City reserves the right to further develop or improve the Airport as it sees fit, regardless of the desires or views of the Lessee and without interference or hindrance from Lessee. B. There is hereby reserved to the City, its successors and assigns, for the use and benefit of the public, a right of flight for the passage of aircraft in the airspace above the surface of the Leased Premises hereby leased, together with the right to cause such noise as may be inherent in the operation of aircraft, now known or hereafter used for navigation of or flight in the air, using said airspace or landing at, taking off from or operating on the Airport. C. The City reserves the right to take any action it considers necessary to protect the aerial approaches of the Airport against obstructions together with the right to prevent the Lessee from erecting, or permitting to be erected, or maintaining any building or other structure on or adjacent to the Airport which, in the opinion of the City, would limit the usefulness of the Airport or constitute a hazard to aircraft.

ARTICLE X [SIGNATURE PAGES FOLLOW]

Signature Page to Hangar Lease Agreement

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused these presents to be duly executed, with all the formalities required by law on the respective dates set forth opposite their signatures to be effective the day and year first above written. HEBER CITY, a Municipal Corporation APPROVED: _________________________________ Mayor Date: ___________________________ LESSEE: By: ___________________________

25

Date: ___________________________ By: ___________________________ Date: ___________________________ [Here is proposed Addendum language for Hangar Row developed on Sep 1st lease.]

ADDENDUM for Hangar Row – Individual Hangar Lease Section I. In the event of any sublease, transfer, assignment, or sale of any Hangar Row lease a transfer fee shall be assessed and paid to the City by the Lessee: - Fifty percent (50%) of the value of the Hangar at the time of transfer or sale if such occurs within the 1st year of the commencement of this Hangar Lease; - Forty percent (40%) if during the 2nd year: - Thirty percent (30%) if during the 3rd year: - Twenty percent (20%) if during the 4th year; - Ten percent (10%) if during the 5th year; - or One percent (1%) if during any subsequent year thereafter shall be paid to the City based upon the current assessor's valuation or sales price, whichever is higher, at the time of assignment or transfer of the lease or sale of the hangar. Section II. The City hereby agrees that this Lease may be assigned as security for any hangar construction related loan required by Lessee, provided that such assignment permits Lessee to remain in possession except in the event of foreclosure. In the event of foreclosure or forfeiture by the holder of such security, the City consents to further assignment to any person, firm or corporation which is fully competent and has the necessary facilities, experience and financial resources to perform the obligations contained in this agreement on the part of the Lessee to be performed, provided such proposed assignee shall expressly assume said obligations in writing. In the event that Hangar is sold prior to the end of term, and the City is adequately compensated to do so upon consideration by the City Council of the factors identified in Section 1.3. & Article VII above, a new lease for the Buyer may be entered into between Heber City and Buyer- with the then current Lease, and the Term and Rate consistent with market value as well as the Transfer fee based on appraised value of said Hangar or the sales price, whichever is higher, as articulated above, under this Addendum Section I. (*Now the Sections and Articles refer to comparable section in this lease.) Section III. Right of First Refusal for Assignment-lf at any time Lessee desires to sell Assign, or otherwise transfer its interest under this Agreement, including the Improvements existing on the Leased Premises, to a Buyer, and has obtained a bona fide offer for such sale, Lessee must first offer to sell, assign, or otherwise transfer such interest to the City at the price and on the same terms as such bona fide offer, and the City shall have the right to purchase Lessee's interest under such terms. Such offer must be in writing and state the name of the proposed transferee and all of the terms and conditions of the proposed transfer. The City shall have the right for a period of ten ( I 0) (15) or twenty (20) business days after receipt of the offer from Lessee to elect to purchase Lessee's interest (such (15) or twenty (20) day period referred to as the "Election Period"). If the City does not desire to purchase Lessee's interest, Lessee may then sell, assign, or otherwise transfer its interest in this Agreement to the person making

26

the said offer, at the price and terms set forth in the offer, subject to the requirements of this Addendum Section 1. If Lessee fails to close such sale within sixty (60) days after the expiration of the Election Period, any proposed sale, assignment or other transfer thereafter shall again be subject to this Agreement and Addendum. This right of the City shall be continuing and shall survive any sale, assignment or other transfer of Lessee's interests under this Agreement. The intent of this Addendum is to require all of Lessee's interests in this Agreement be sold, assigned or otherwise transferred intact, without fractionalization. Section IV. The City reserves the right to terminate this Hangar Row Lease without having to pay any consideration at any time to Lessee upon giving four month's written notice to Lessee when the City Council, in its sole discretion, has a need for the property for public purposes; and in the event of Lessee failing to pay when due the whole or any part of the amounts agreed upon for the lease payment and charges; and such default continues for sixty (60) days after the City has demanded payment in writing; then the City shall have the right to declare this contract terminated. In the event that the City determines the need for removal of a hangar for a public purpose, then the City shall give 4 four months written notice.

HEBER CITY CORPORATION - utah.gov · HEBER CITY CORPORATION 75 North Main Street Heber City, UT...

Documents

Transcript of HEBER CITY CORPORATION - utah.gov · HEBER CITY CORPORATION 75 North Main Street Heber City, UT...