Recap! Truth in Taxation Hearing 8.17.2021

 

Tuesday’s meeting had some audio and visual technical difficulties. I apologize for any who tried to join in virtually!

Our truth in taxation hearing is a property tax increase to bring the paramedic tax revenue from the county to the city. This has been in the works for a few years now and I want to give a huge thanks to our fire chief Derek Tolman for getting us to a place where we are prepared and ready to take over these important services that will bring a higher quality of service to our citizens.

Since taxation in general feels confusing and overwhelming, I hope this breakdown helps and you are able to understand how this affects you.

•.Currently all South Weber citizens pay a tax to the county for those paramedic services. Davis County is discontinuing those services to all cities in the county. The same amount that you paid to the county will now need to come to South Weber City instead. However, these funds won’t cover the total costs of running the paramedic program (anticipated to cost roughly $150,000/year with the county tax bringing in roughly $65,000/year).

•In addition to this transfer, the certified tax rate is being “held” which essentially means that your property taxes will be based off of this year’s home values. The added revenue this will bring to the city will go towards helping to make up the difference needed (roughly $85,000).

•The SW fire department has requested a grant that will help us pay for the difference for the first three years. We have not yet heard if we have been approved for it yet.

•If SW is able to get the grant, this added revenue from the property tax is anticipated to be earmarked as savings to go towards these services when the grant expires so that we have money saved up to prepare for that change.

•The certified tax rate proposal is proposed to be change from .001403 to .001522. For a home value of $410,000, this increase will be about $55.70 annually or $4.64/month.

•The truth in taxation hearing did not have a vote. It was to hear any question and comments from the public with a vote happening next at next weeks meeting.

Hope that helps! Feel free to ask any questions. Happy Thursday y’all!

See more information here on the city's website.

Recap! City Council 7.20.2021

 

City Council Recap!

Heyo my peeps! How is everyone doing?? A few of these items have already been addressed so I will try to keep this short and sweet. In hopes to simplify things, I will post about new business and reports tomorrow.

Davis County Sheriff's Office: Every quarter our favoirte DSCO sheriff Chris Pope comes to report to the council the latest going-ons and stats for SWC. If you haven't had a chance to listen in, I encourage you to do so. Lots of great information in terms of our public safety and all the things the officers our doing for our city. DSCO is reporting an average of 99 hours a week in our city, 52 daytime hours and 47 night time hours. We have only had 3 break-ins which is significantly less than in the past couple of years and hope it is because of the constant police presence on our streets. They have been instructed to be observing and be observed on our streets to lower crime and it appears to be working! It was reported the radar trailer is significantly helping the traffic on Old Maple Roads and most speeders on that street continue to be local traffic. Old Maples Roads will have road striping done soon to paint speed limits as well as stop sign lines as not coming to complete stop has been a problem at the intersection.

•South Weber Gateway Rezone (poll property west of Highmark): This rezone request included 8.85 acres to a residential R7 zone and 2.78 acres commercial highway zone. The concept plan attached to this rezone request included 63 townhomes and 6 commercial buildings, however the only action item was on the rezone. The concept plan will still need to go through preliminary and final approval through staff and the planning commission. This action item was passed with 3 council members in favor and 2 not. Each council member voiced their reasoning for the vote which you can listen to on the YouTube channel linked below.

•Stephens Property Rezone (corner of 475 E and Old Fort Road): This request was to rezone this property to all commercial highway. In the past this property has had a residential component to it, however, this time it was strictly commercial highway only. The council favored this rezone and as with the other property gave their reasonings for doing so before voting.

•Riverside Place Subdivision: This subdivision is located on the west end of town near the posse grounds and is phase 4 of the subdivision. It includes 13 lots. There was some discussion of the fencing that needs to be replaced adjacent to the Posse Grounds. This is also an area where we have gotten complaints of excessive trash and garbage. Staff was instructed to increase code enforcement in this area in that regard. The action item was approved unanimously.

•Pickleball court donations: Mayor Jo has been gathering donations for pickle ball courts in Canyon Meadows. Because of these funds there will be 8 total pickle ball courts (4 paid for by the city and 4 paid for by citizens). Donors will have plaques placed at the park for their donations. Mayor Jo showed 3 different types of plaques based on the donation amount, paid for by the donation fund. The parks and rec committee brought it to the council for their opinion. The council favored the plaques for the donors but wanted the total amount of donations, where the donation money was spent and the plaque costs and donation amounts as part of the public record so it was clear where donation funds were spent vs. city funds.

And that's a wrap! Stay tuned for tomorrow to review updates and reports from the mayor and council for further happenings going on in the city.

Link to the packet: http://southwebercity.com/file/2016/11/0-CC-2021-07-20-Packet.pdf

Watch the meeting live:

Segment: Why I voted the way I did - The Stephens Property

This past week the council voted on a parcel that has had a lot of intereston from to public on the agenda; a rezone request from Agriculture to Commercial Highway. Want the short version? Skip to the bottom. 🙂

A public hearing on this parcel to hear from the public was done at the planning commission level in June. There were no comments about this item and the PC recommended unanimously to the council for approval. This also passed the council unanimously. You can watch this agenda item unfold for both the planning commission and city council on our YouTube channel. I will link them below.

Alright, let’s dive in. As I stated this passed the council with a favorable vote, which of course means I voted yes. Here’s why:

•this property received an overwhelming support during the general plan feedback to be commercial Highway. The developer has approached the council and planning commission numerous times in the past, each time with a High density residential component. Each of these presentations failed because of the desires of the community to not have more HDH developments and mixed use. The developer decided to come back and ask for exactly what we were projecting it to be, commercial highway. This is in line with the general plan and also in line with the feedback of the general plan survey. I know because I had just read all 4,500 comments again just a few months earlier.

•Another item of note was the uses within our CH zone. During the survey of the general plan, we realized a lot of the uses we allowed did not conform to the desires of the residents. Thus the code committee immediately got to work and revamped all the uses. The general plan feedback was highly considered and utilized while updating to better align with what the citizens would like by way of commercial. When we were finished, the uses went before the Planning Commission for a public hearing to get further from the public with how we did. The planning commission recommended the updated uses to the city council who passed the ordinance change unanimously. Why does this matter? Because at the time we were allowing a lot of uses we soon realized the public did not want; truck stops, RV parks and such. Better aligning our code with the desires of the community meant that we would attract only what we want and would not have our hands tied to accept something we didn’t want. As a member of the code committee, I felt we worked hard to use the feedback from the citizens to shape our new uses. The public feedback we did receive mostly included to remove a truck stop to which we had already done.

•Some caveats:

This did not come forward with a concept plan as the developer is hoping the zoning being CH will allow for more committtment. Having come to the table in the past and unable to proceed forward created a loss of confidence from potential buyers. Because of this, the developer does not have a presentation at this time, but will be allowed the uses within the zone and will be required to meet all the standards of the zone.

•This area is set to be master planned. In a previous meeting I stated that I wanted to have a code for master planning completed so that when these properties come to us (those that have hatch marks on the general plan) we can have greater control with what comes to that area and other upgrades or things they need to do to create a uniform and complete feel. While this idea was not denied, it also did not receive a lot of support. The code committee has been overwhelmed at many other projects that also need to be addressed ASAP and the priority of developing a code for master planning has been moved to work on other very needed items. However, codifying a master plan arrangement still remains a high priority for me and I will work hard to make sure it is given the attention it needs as soon as we are feasibly able.

•Too long/didn’t read (TLDR): In summary, I voted yes to this rezone because I felt it followed the general plan and because we had updated our uses to better align with the vision of the citizens. The public was given the ability and time to review this revisions and were updated just in time before this development came before us (phew!). Because of this, I favored this rezone request, but still believe more work is needed within our code to guarantee the best development for this property.

Planning Commission meeting

City Council meeting

Segment: Why I voted the way I did - Poll Property

 Happy Thursday South Weber!

I wanted to take a moment and address the vote the council had before us on Tuesday evening regarding the rezone request for the development on the property west of Highmark Charter School. It was my intention at the time of the vote to give numerous reasons for my “no” vote, but when the time came I only mentioned one. Here are my other reasons as well:

•I have serious concerns about the traffic/congestion of this development in an area where we already have a great deal of traffic. 2100 E continues to have increased traffic and close calls at that intersection. While a traffic study will be required when a concept plan is going under approvals, it will only tell us if the road can physically handle the traffic (which it can) but won’t clearly relay information about how that traffic will impact residents. In short, it is something we will have to work with, rather than prevent.

•While the concept plan presented isn’t tied to the development and will still need to go through the approval process and it is likely some changes will be made, it concerned me to have 2 story townhomes looking directly into the playing/recess field of Highmark. A lower density on this project would’ve meant a greater buffer distance between this field and a higher likelihood of single level homes, where one wouldn’t be able to see into the playing field from an upstairs room, which I find unsettling.

•This parcel of 10 acres was slated to be all commercial. I do agree that it would be difficult for South Weber to fulfill that much commercial and I will admit I was in favor of lowering the percentage of commercial **if** it lowered the overall density of this development. The acreage of commercial went down, but the residential portion still requested the highest amount of density available to them on the majority of the parcel. What the final proposal ended up being is residential with some commercial, instead of commercial with some residential. Had the residential portion been on less acreage or a lower zoning density, I would’ve been more open to the plan.

•I have concerns approving this development will set a precedent for other properties that have cross hatchmarks. What is stop them from presenting to us 20% commercial in exchange for 80% HDH residential on a property we are hoping to have as mostly commercial? Nothing. When we have done it for one property, it will be difficult to argue no to another property.

•And finally, for the reasons I stated at this meeting, I do feel this went against the feedback we received on our General Plan. The general plan is shaped by the feedback of the residents - it is their right and privilege to weigh in on how their future city will be developed. It was abundantly clear that majority of the city did not favor adding anymore multi-family zoning other than what was already built or zoned. I understand that sometimes in city matters, compromising is key. However, in my opinion this didn’t compromise enough when they chose the highest zone they had available to them on 80% of the property. A patio home zone, which would’ve been closer to 40 homes instead of 62 would’ve been far more enticing to me to work with.

This rezone request passed 3-2. As the approval process begins, I promise to ensure all aspects of our code have been met and will address some of these concerns at that time as a plea to the developer to consider. Sometimes developers are willing to work with a project even though they have a right to do more. Thank you for being involved. Difficult decisions aren’t easy to make, but I appreciate hearing from my constituents how they feel and helps me know how best to represent them.

If you desire, below is the meeting. Every council member weighed in on why they voted the way they did in case you would like to hear it straight from them.

Recap! June 2021 City Council Meetings

Hiya friends!  How is everyone doing?  I have been living up summer and making up for what 2020 took from all of us and loving it.   But I know you have all been so very anxious to read our recap of July, am I right?  We have a lot of exciting and important things to be aware of in our city! One quick note – the meeting scheduled for July 13^th which will have 2 rezone requests on the agenda has been moved to July 20^th.  We did not have everyone on the council able to attend on the 13^th and the council wanted a full council to be there for that item.  

 

•Storm Drain Capital Facilities Plan, Street Maintenance Project and Davis County Sheriff’s Office contract:  A public hearing was done on June 8^th for our storm drain CFP plan.  The packet includes a in depth study of our storm drain (last done in 1999) functionality and any needed expansion.  The costs outlined in the study include the basis for future development needs (paid for by impact fees) and storm drain fees for current residents.   Also included in the packet is a review of all our street maintenance projects.  This includes updates to Old Fort Road, 475 E, Raymond Drive, Kingston Drive and Harper Way and crack and fill in the Canyon Meadows area.  DSCO contract was re-negotiated.  The price per call to DSCO has increased from $31.51 to $32.45 resulting in an increase to services from roughly $8900 to $9900/year. These costs are based on a 5-year average and reviewed annually.    

 

•CLFRF Funds: The money for the latest stimulus bill from the federal government, now called the CLFRF, will be bringing roughly $927,000 to South Weber.  We will have 3 years to utilize these funds.  The specifics for these funds are broader the CARES act funds.  They can be used for infrastructure for sewer, water, or broadband among others.  The council will be having many future discussions on how best to utilize this additional revenue.   

 

RAP Tax: The council approved adding to the ballot a recreation, arts and park tax.  For every $.01 spent in sales tax in SWC, $10 will come back to the city to use for parks, rec and the arts.  Arguments for and against this tax can be written by the citizens.  The city – who will be neutral on this item – will provide more information to help you be an informed voter.  It is expected that if this passes, it will bring in roughly $40,000 a year in extra revenue to the parks and rec – which currently has no budget. 

 

Truth in taxation: On August 17^th the city will hold a truth and taxation hearing to propose an increase to the certified tax rate.  This is for the paramedic services.  Currently residents pay the county for these services, but as they are being discontinued at the county level, it will be redirected to the city.  It is anticipated it will cost the average home in South Weber $4.65/month for the city to provide this service, approximately half of which residents were already paying to the county.  There will be more information coming out soon on the city’s website to help inform you all of this action.  

 

Fraud Risk Assessment:  Our latest fraud risk assessment report has been completed.  The admin and finance committee spearheaded by Council members Soderquist and Winsor had a goal to drop our risk (which was in the moderate level last year) to low this year.  This report shows the city has achieved that goal and our very close to s “very low” risk standing.  Good work team!

 

Other exciting things:  Our dog park is open! Yay! I hope all of you who have furbabies are able to enjoy this newest amenity to our city.  • The Youth City Council is preparing to take new applications for the 2021-2022 school year starting right Country Fair Days.   • Country Fair Days is right around the corner! Be sure to check the website to get in on all the latest happenings!  • A committee was created to speak with Davis County School District regarding the air conditioning at the FAC (or lack thereof) and create a new agreement to better balance the shared ownership of the FAC between the school district and the city.  • The city has a new community service director, Trevor Cahoon.  We have sadly said goodbye to Shari Phippen, our contracted city planner.  The community service director position will now cover planning, communication, and HR.  Trevor was picked after an extensive interview process and the hiring panel unanimously recommended him for the position.  Trevor will be introduced to everyone at the next city council meeting on July 20^th.

 

Reports:  Mayor Jo reported that HAFB is anticipating a $75 billion dollar program which will bring a 125% increase to the economy, bring 4700 more jobs including the additional 2000 already planned.  There is a great push from the state to bring in more high-density housing to help accommodate this growth.  

 

Councilman Winsor:  The code committee has met and is working on updating landscaping to include xeriscaping and water conservation for those residents who wish to do so.  Staff is working on other code items such as dust mitigation and noise.  The municipal utility committee is reviewing proposals for high-speed internet options. 

 

Councilwoman Petty: The parks and rec committee is working on bringing forward an agreement with the train club for Canyon Meadows Park that will be voted on by the council.  Things are underway for the updates at CMP west where new pickleball courts, a tactical bike ride course, a basketball court and other items are coming.  Rising costs in supplies have required the committee to constantly revisit budget constraints and make changes.  

 

Councilman Soderquist: US89 project is currently working at ¼ due to rising costs and shortages of the supply needed but are still moving forward.  The gravel pits are also under restrictions which means they aren’t able to water down the dust in the morning.  As liason to the pits, they will be placing collection bins in different areas of the city (17 boxes in all) to discover where the dust is coming from.  This is a beginning step in hopes to work towards a resolution to this problem.

 

Councilwoman Alberts: The PR committee has been working hard on the new website and ensuring all the data and documents have been migrated over.  The new website needs some additional work before it will be ready to go live but we are excited about what we will have to offer soon.  All candidates running for office will be asked a series of questions which will be on the city’s website for all residents to refer to for more information on who to vote for.   Because of the primary for mayoral candidates, they will be available in the next few days. We will share this information with residents as soon as it is ready.  

 

Councilman Halverson: Lots of happened in the PC.  Riverside final phasing was recommended as well as a rezone request to the council for the Poll property located just west of Highmark as well as a recommended rezone request for the Stephens property (coming to the council July 20^th). 

You can watch these meetings on the city's YouTube channel by clicking here.

Find the packet for the June 8th meeting here and the packet for the June 22nd meeting here.

Public Hearing: Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Budget

Who wants to talk city budget?! 

Did I already lose you on just that first sentence? 😬😴

If so, I understand! I would've scrolled past too. But if you are interested in a simplified budget explanation, I hope you will continue reading. These are your tax dollars after all! Where do they go?!?

On Tuesday June 8th there will be a public hearing to pass fiscal year budget 2021-2022. The admin of finance committee has been working so hard at this budget for months now. I appreciate their time and dedication to this task, it is no small feat. This is your opportunity to relay back to your representatives your concerns, comments and questions on the budget and how your tax dollars are being implemented. This will be 6pm at city hall.

Here's a look at the budget at a glance: 

•SWC has approximately $2.6 million available spending dollars to allocate at the discretion of the city (meaning funds that have not already been earmarked or assigned to other areas). 

•Our debt has decreased to just under $200k due to principal payment on bonds. •The city's current property tax rate is proposed to bring in just under $755k for 2021-2022. Because the county is discontinuing paramedic services, the taxes SW citizens pay for those services to Davis County will be redirected to SWC after a truth in taxation hearing. This will raise the revenue to just over $830k, but that excess is expected to be applied to the costs of providing our own paramedic services. 

•SWC currently has just under $640k in savings as a rainy day funds and to float monies while waiting for property tax funds to come in, which is 24.4% general fund total revenue. 

•Capital Projects are one time costs for projects. The proposed budgets includes several different items for this fiscal year. Some of these are demolition of the Civic Building (directly in front of the fire station), streetlight replacement program (moving us to own our own streetlights rather than Rocky Mountain Power), a baseball diamond for Cherry Farms park and upgrades to Canyon Meadows Park and design for a new public works building among others. You can see review these updates and the budgeted amounts on page 10 and 11 of the city's proposed budget (linked below). 

•SWC will also be doing updates to many roads in this proposed budget, including mill & overlay for 475 E, View Drive and Heather Cove. Chip and seal will take place on 4 other streets and various other places within the city. You can see a map of all street upgrades on page 95. 

•The budget will let you see exactly where other funds are going to - police and fire, employees, vehicle replacement programs, infrastructure costs and more.

That wasn't so bad right? I hope you will each take a moment to dig in and see exactly where the revenue and funds SWC has is going. And I equally hope that you will come and let us know how you think we are doing on Tuesday evening! Please don't hesitate to ask any questions you may have. ☺️

To see the packet for Tuesday's meeting go here:  

To see the proposed budget only, go here:

Water Audits and Other Resources from Weber Basin

 Did you know Weber Basin Water will come preform a water audit on your lawn for you? This is a great resource I have been meaning to do. Anyone else have weird patches of lawn that seem to die no matter what? 🙋🏼‍♀️. Here is a description of what they can offer. The website even shows you how to do your own audit as well as a number of other resources.

Thanks to everyone on South Weber who is working on conversing water! The code committee will be looking into allowing xeriscaping as an option very soon. Keep it up and stay cool peeps! I don’t ever remember a June so hot so soon before!

"The average homeowner in Utah applies almost double the amount of water onto their landscape than is necessary. Most of that is not an issue of belligerently wasting water, but simply a lack of knowing how much water our landscapes need to thrive, how efficient our sprinkler systems are, and how quickly they apply water on to the lawn. Water audits are designed to help homeowners learn these particulars so they can be as efficient as possible with landscape irrigation. 

The audits consist of well-trained interns from Weber Basin coming to your home and doing a personal assessment on the property. They check the irrigation system and make suggestions if they see anything that could make it more efficient. A simple field soil test is performed to determine general soil type and texture. A catch-cup test is performed to see how quickly the sprinklers are applying water to the lawn and to determine how uniform the water is being applied. Studies show that applying half an inch of water is ideal to adequately water the soil for turf roots without too much water running off the surface of the soil or out of the root zone.”

Check out their website to see more information!

Recap! May city council meetings

 How is it the end of May already?  Time sure is flying.  I think May is when South Weber is the absolute prettiest.  Love this cute, little city of ours!

Below is the recap for the meetings of May 11th and May 25th as well as a special hearing that took place on May 16th.  For May 11th, you can find the packet here, May 18th's agenda is here and May 25th's meeting is here, here and here.  You can also watch these meetings on the city's YouTube channel here.  It is worth noting that the May 18th meeting was not streamed to YouTube, but the recording of the meeting is available to listen to here. 

Alright, let's dive in!

 

•RV PARK AGREEMENT AMENDMENT: The owner of the future RV Park requested changes to his landscaping plan to save on water.  These changes include using a more drought resistance grass, fewer shrubs and plants and other minor changes to the type of gravel rock and bark.  You can see his proposal in the packet linked below.  The council all agreed to the changes of grass and other minor changes, but the vote was split 3-2 in favor of a 15% reduction of plants and shrubs.  The motion passed to have the agreement modified.  

 

•2021-2022 TENATIVE BUDGET: The tentative budget was passed unanimously by the council.  The public will 3 weeks to review the budget before the next public hearing to pass the budget.  This is expected to happen the June 8^th meeting.  I would recommend everyone looking over.  Pages 5-11 are particularly informative, but if you are short on time or attention J pages 13-16 have a simplified breakdown of what changes will be taking place, where funds have been distributed and for what purposes.

 

•ELECTIONS: There are three seats up for re-election, 2 council member positions and the mayor position.  The time to file for candidacy begins June 1-4 and the 7^th at city hall. 

 

•LOFTS AT DEER RUN: The final approval for the Lofts development came before the council on May 25^th.  The council reviewed the recommendation from the planning commission both the preliminary approval that took place in December of 2020 and the final approval which took place last month.  Two commissioners were present and gave comment about the final approval because it was a 2-2 split vote and therefore no recommendation was given to help give the council perspective.   After asking questions and reviewing the plans, the council passed the motion unanimously.  

 

•COBBLESTONE SHORT TERM RENTAL HEARING: The council had the unique responsibility to act as the appeal authority in response to staff denying a business license for Cobblestone Resort, a short-term rental within the city limits.  This was set up much like a court where the council listened to both the arguments both for and against overturning this decision from their legal attorneys.  The council unanimously agreed to uphold the city’s decision to deny the business license.  Cobblestone Resort is also appealing the judicial court case regarding their need of a business license – that process will be ongoing.  

 

•CITY CODE CHANGES: The council reviewed code changes to the CH zone as well as updated definitions.  The code committee, comprising of the mayor, city manager, 2 planning commissioners and 2 city council members, made these changes which updated the specific uses that will be able to come to the commercial highway zones and beefing up the definitions to better align with the city’s desires for development following the feedback of the general plan survey results.  The was recommended to the council from the planning commission.  The council passed this motion unanimously.

 

•CANYON MEADOWS PARK WEST: Due to the rising costs of material, the plan for Canyon Meadows Park has had to be altered to fit within the budget, but still lacked the needed funds to complete a portion of the project.  It was requested of the council to allow a transfer of $182,194 which will be earmarked to pay back into impact fees to allow the project to start moving forward.  While 4 pickleball courts were budgeted, the Pickleball Community has successfully raised enough money to put in 4 more pickle ball courts for a total of 8.  After a lengthy discussion, the council passed this motion unanimously.

 

•REPORTS: Mayor Jo relayed the new digital screen for the city’s sign has been a huge update for staff as far as looks and functionality.   She also reported she met with our new Region 1 director for UDOT and discussed the I84/89 corridor, the box culvert, and the potential of future bike lanes on SWD.   She also said the LPC met and discussed the ARPA funds from the federal government.    

•Councilman Halverson stated the RAB met and OU16 will have a new ROD, new technology and better ways to test all types of contamination.

•Councilwoman Alberts reported the PR committee is working on ensuring all data has been successfully migrated from the old website to the new website, but it is slow progress.    

•Councilman Soderquist relayed the Admin and Finance committee continue to work through the budget and finalizing all the details.  He also reported our sales tax revenue for this quarter hit a new all-time high, which is good.  

•Councilwoman Petty reported they will meet with the contractor for Canyon Meadows and to get started on the work for Canyon Meadows West. 

•Councilman Winsor reported all 52 streetlights city owned streetlights now have power (after giving the rep for Rocky Mountain Power at the ULCT conference a run for his money J).  He requested information on an annual water report from staff and reported the Municipal Utility committee is working on bringing forth all high-speed internet options for citizens and council to review. He also reported the mosquito abatement is hiring for drivers if anyone is interested (at least 17 years old preferred).  Code committee is finishing up new code for internal ADU’s and moving on to cleaning up our conditional use code. 

•City Manager David Larsen reported the dog park grand opening will sadly need to be postponed due to issues with the grass not taking to root well.  He also reported information on use of the ARP funds from the feds will be presented to the council at the June 8^th meeting.  

And that’s a wrap!  You deserve a candy bar and a drink for reading this all!  

Recap! City Council April 2021

What’s up my peeps?! This month has flown by and I just realized I missed our first meeting on the month’s recap. So hold on to your hats, we are going to cover both meetings in one post! It’s gonna get all crazy in here (as crazy as municipal government gets that is). You can find all the information by checking out the April 8th packet and the April 27th packet.

•City Parks: The Parks and Rec committee met and to present changes made to all the parks. These rules greatly needed to be updated and the committee exchanged just a few lines of code for 2 pages. There were some changes that needed to take place which were approved in the following council meeting. •Dog Park: The Parks and Rec committee also created new rules for the dog park, which will open at the end of this month (don’t miss our grand opening on May 28th – time TBA!). These rules were approved by the council and will be posted at the dog park. •RV Park: The RV park came back requesting some amendments to their development agreement. This is a continuation of a meeting last week where the council was in favor of part of the agreement (adding a concrete barrier wall alongside I84) but wanted more information on the landscaping changes. The proposed changes to landscaping were quite a drastic change from the original plan and the owner was pressed on why so many changes were taking place. The property owner did not have all the information he needed to review at that time and so the council agreed to allow him to come back when he has the information, before we vote on allowing those changes. •Cross hatch properties and Poll Property Proposal: The council was able to discuss once again the properties on the general plan that have cross hatch marks. The council deliberated at length the best way to move forward on these properties. Additionally, a development agreement was brought forward for the Poll Property regarding the proposal that was presented last month. The committee was not able to review this development agreement before it came forth in the packet and considering the new information of council member’s thoughts - that meeting was imperative before continuing. The discussion was postponed until the committee could meet and discuss the development agreement. In the days following this meeting, the committee recommended to only allow the highest density (R7) for the portion that is residential and added bonuses of density. When the developers learned of this new provision, they backed out of the process. Procedures and Policies: The admin and finance committee spent a lot of time reviewing and making any changes necessary to our policies and procedures. You can view all these changes in the packet. The changes were approved unanimously. •Budget: The budget for our next fiscal year begins this summer which means the admin and finance committee have been working very hard on our next budget. This budget was just for review of the council. On May 11th, the council will approve the tentative budget as presented. Following a 2-week period for the public to review the budget, there will be a public hearing on May 25th and final adoption of the budget will be happening in August. There is a lot happening here with the budget, and I encourage everyone to review councilman Winsor’s post on it (I will link it below). We will be working on getting this information out to the public through many different means, so keep an eye out for it! REPORTS: •Mayor Jo reported the council spent a few days down in St. George for the ULCT convention. UDOT has approved $60 million dollars to expand Highway 89 to 3 lanes and redo the bridge over the Weber River. The construction for the areas in Uintah is expected to take place in 5-8 years. The Davis County Sewer will be doing a rate increase of 24% over the next 5 years. •Councilman Halverson reported the RAB meeting will be happening virtually in regard to the contamination in our area from Hill Air Force Base. •Councilwoman Alberts reported the PR Committee will be meeting next week to work on our new website as well as start working on getting information to the public regarding the budget and a truth in taxation that will take place for the paramedic services. •Councilman Winsor reported that he met with a representative from Rocky Mountain Power and was able to make headway on getting our new streetlights hooked up. He has also been working on high-speed internet options and will be working with the PR committee to disseminate the information. Woot Woot! If you have read all of this, pat yourself on the back. Not everyone can be so cool as to ready about city government on a Friday night. :D

April 8th meeting


April 27th meeting


April 8th packet: http://southwebercity.com/file/2016/11/0-CC-2021-04-08-Packet-.pdf April 27th packet: http://southwebercity.com/file/2016/11/0-CC-2021-04-27-Packet.pdf April 8th meeting: https://youtu.be/FbbX--nE3pM April 27th meeting: https://youtu.be/o0bd3vlk4Q8

Recap! City Council 3.23.21

 Trying something new this recap, live video!  Feel free to watch the full meeting down below.  Check out the minutes and the packet for more information. 

 City Council Recap! 3.23.21

•Canyon Meadow Park Contract

•Grocery Study Results

•Cross Hatch Properties on General Plan

•Council Reports

Regarding the hatch-marks on the general plan...

Hello South Weberites! A hot item right now is underway regarding the hash-marked properties on the general plan. Some quick backstory - the hash marked properties have been on the plan since 2014 and stated it was areas where commercial could be mixed with a high density of residential. After the 2020 plan surveys returned, it was clear the citizens did not favor this. The hashmarks were revisited by a committee of council members and planning commissioners.

The idea of master planning these properties (requiring the entire parcel to be developed as one cohesive project) was still favored by many because the properties are so large and many preferred a cohesive complete project over splitting parcels. While some favored removing any concept of residential, others worried it could remove the potential of a great development. The compromise was to allow a developer to present a commercial + residential project if they wanted, but there was no legal requirement for council to approve it. In order for a developer to proceed, it would need to first get approval of a development agreement passed successfully through council.

As I have heard from many of you, I realize this process needs more clarity. While original feedback regarding residential was against higher densities, I have heard from some residential would be acceptable on these properties within reason if it brings a valuable commercial project to the city. I would like to get more info from you, my constituents, regarding these hashmarked properties - particularly the Poll property (10 acres) west of Highmark and the Stephens property (17 acres) at the corner of 475 E and Old Fort Road near I84.

I would like to hear from you on the following options:

A. No residential regardless of the density. Commercial only that is master planned.

B. Residential could be allowed as long as the portion that is residential does not exceed 7 units per acre. (If 6 acres is residential, than 42 units).

C. Residential could be allowed and based off of the entire parcel size at R7 zoning. (If the property is 10 acres, 70 units regardless how much of the property is actual residential.)

D. Higher densities up to a certain point (for example, no more than 10 units per acre) could be considered and calculated off the entire parcel area.

D. Remove the requirement of master planning and development agreement and only allow commercial and follow regular zoning processes.

I am happy to have you leave your responses below, but not all council members will see it. Feel free to send us an email at publiccomment@southwebercity.com to relay your thoughts.

Recap! City Council 3.9.21

Here is the recap for city council meeting for March 9th of 2021!  You can watch the entire meeting by clicking below. If you need more information, be sure to check out the packet and the minutes.

<

•YCC Logo: The YCC has created a logo for the Youth City Council. To date, the YCC has never had their own independent logo and felt they needed to be able to stand out and decipher themselves apart. They created their own logo and brought it forth to the council for approval, which passed unanimously.

•Poll Property Proposal: I have gotten a lot of questions, texts and phone calls on this property so I want to take a little more time with this. I will also attach a picture of the proposal below. This proposal came before the planning commission late last year and the council last month and is coming back again after further feedback. They are proposing approximately 15,000 sq ft of commercial space fronting South Weber Drive with 100 townhomes in the back/south part of the property – removing the apartments that were previously presented and lowering the units from 172 to 100. They are presenting three phases with both residential and commercial. This property requires a development agreement because it is cross hatched on the general plan, which indicates the property must be master planned -meaning the whole property must be developed in one uniformed piece rather than in pieces to ensure uniformity. Because there is no code or ordinances, the council is to create a development agreement that will address many items usually within a zone such as density allowed, percentage of commercial and others. Staff will work with the council to create a development agreement which will then move to the planning commission to review for a recommendation. The council in this instance has the ability to legislate what this area will look like with regards to many items that are typically within the zone. The council deliberated at length regarding the amount of commercial and specifically residential that should be allowed. The council had difficulty as roughly 2 acres of the parcel are not developable due to the slope and deliberated if acreage on undevelopable land should be included in the density calculation. After much deliberation, 3 council members agreed to allowing 100% of the parcel being included to calculate for an R7 zone (75 units). Two council members felt that only the portion that is residential should be included in the calculation of R7 and the percentage of residential needed to be addressed. Councilwoman Alberts requested that the development agreement be worked on without developers present and with staff only for all future meetings. The development agreement will be tied to the concept plan. The next steps in this process is for the committee members (Councilwoman Petty and Councilman Halverson) to work with staff to create a development agreement that includes among other things; the amount of allowed residential, the amount of property allowed to calculate residential, the amount of commercial and other standards. Once that step is completed, it will come to the council for review and vote. If the development agreement passes, the process will then begin again in Planning Commission for a recommendation, using the development agreement and concept plan as a reference point. Staff is currently working on when the most appropriate time for public hearings would be. At this time, it is anticipated one will happen when/if the development agreement comes for a vote before the council and then again at the planning commission preliminary plan. I will keep you all posted of course. 

 •Paramedic Interlocal Agreement: This agreement has been in the workings for a couple of years now and was finally able to be signed by all communities in Davis County. This will transfer the paramedic license from the county to South Weber City. This agreement will mean a truth in taxation will happen at the city level August of 2021, but it *will not* mean an increase of taxes for our citizens. It will allow the funds that currently go to the county for paramedic services to come to the city instead. Ken Letham with Davis County praised the work of all the communities involved and everyone is looking forward to an easy transition. The city will also be actively working to receive grants to help us with this process. 

 •RV Park Development Agreement Amendment: The owner of the RV park came before the council requesting to amend the original development agreement on 2 fronts. One was regarding the cable wire fencing we required of the park along I-84. UDOT informed the owner that the cable wire would not be required. The owner is requesting to instead install an 8’ solid concrete wall in its place. The owner also requested changes to the landscaping plan of the park to make it more water efficient and to save money on water as they are hooked up to culinary only. The council disagreed with the changes as it would lower the quality of the park when so much grass is replaced with gravel. The council was in agreement of the solid wall. 

•Digital Sign Update: The public safety committee was tasked to review the safety and measure of the city’s digital sign on the east side of town. The city has the ability to use CARES funds to replace the screen in the sign but the committee determined there was not enough time to use CARES funds to move the sign. The committee recommended that the city utilize the CARES funds to replace the screen which can be removed if the sign is to be moved. The public safety committee will continue to review the options available regarding moving the sign and the details and bring back to the council their findings. The committee also recommended dropping the speed limit in the area of Highmark to the Interstate to 35 mph as speeding and the amount of traffic has become concerning. The council agreed the best option was to have UDOT perform a speed study on the road and report their findings for the council to take direction from. 

New Business: 

Staff will be actively working to ensure all applicable items that passed the legislature will be addressed and accommodated and any changes or processes that need to be changed will be done. 

Reports:

•Mayor Jo:  Councilwomen Petty and Alberts were able to attend a meeting with the Wasatch Regional Front Council in regard to removing the connection to Layton from the WFRC map. The process will be to submit an amendment to the WFRC. The letter signed by the council was also sent to the representatives of the WFRC regarding this removal. 

Councilwoman Petty: Reported that the Parks and Rec requested funds from the budget to be allocated for maintenance of trails. They also met with WFRC regarding the trailhead on Cottonwood Drive. WFRC was optimistic about widening the shoulder of the road and creating a parking lot for the traffic of the trail. 

Councilmen Soderquist: Met with the gravel pits and reported they donated $80,000 this year in funds to the rec programs as part of their agreement with the city. All committees budget proposals are being reviewed as well as moving sales tax revenues to certain budgets that currently do not get any. 

Councilman Winsor: The code committee is forwarding definitions on to the Planning Commission which will begin to review them in smaller bites. The committee is in the process of making plans for the future regarding getting information to the public.

Recap! City Council 2.23.2021

Scroll down for the recap for the 2/23/21 City Council meeting!.  You can watch the meeting by clicking the YouTube video below.  If you have further questions -  be sure to check out the packet and the minutes.

City Council Recap! 2.23.2021

(Part 1....it's a long one!)

•The city recognized planning commissioners Tim Grub and Rob Osborne who resigned from the planning commission. We thank them and their families for their dedication to the city.

•Lester Drive & 7375 South development and connection: Layne Kap came before the council to present a proposal to the city regarding city owned property near Lester Drive. This property was purchased by the city years ago to ensure a connection would happen allowing for 2 exits/entrances to South Weber Elementary school. Layne would like to be able to develop the lots and complete the connection of the road to 7375 South. Further discussion took place later during a closed session to discuss the purchase, lease or exchange of property.

•Planning Commission Code Changes: The council has been discussing changes to the planning commission and have been split on the best option moving forward, specifically speaking with the number of commissioners. After some deliberation, a motion was put forth to change the code to change the length of term to 3 years, 2 consecutive terms, and 5 members of the planning commission. There was also some changes to the policies and the procedures as well as the bylaws. The vote passed 3-2, with the 2 dissenting votes being in favor of 7 members rather than 5.

•3 new planning commission members: Following this motion, the vacancies of the planning commissions were filled. Jeremy Davis, Julie Losee & Taylor Walton were recommended. Taylor Walton will finish out the remaining 2 years of Rob Osborne’s position ending in January of 2023, Julie Losee will finish out the remainder of Tim Grubb’s position ending in January 2024, and Jeremey Davis will complete the vacancy of 3 years ending in January of 2024. All three applicants were approved and will assume their roles in the Planning Commission immediately.

•Kelly Miles: Representative Kelly Miles joined the council to discuss happenings during the open session. Councilwoman Alberts relayed some comments from the public encouraging control to stay local. She also urged Kelly Miles to vote no to HB98 (Building inspection amendments) and addressed several concerns she had with it. Councilman Winsor expressed gratitude to Kelly for voting no on HB82 (ADU’s). Representative Miles was able to meet with Councilwoman Alberts, Councilman Winsor, Mayor Jo and City Manager David Larsen last week regarding some changes and concerns with HB82 (ADU’s) and Kelly took those concerns in with his vote. Councilman Winsor also expressed his concerns and objections to HB98. Councilman Winsor asked Representative Miles why the state gets frustrated when the Federal Government imposes restrictions to the State because they want local control, but yet they turn and do the same thing to local cities and towns, specifically calling out affordability and the inability to legislate affordability. The council spoke briefly about SB81 and SB144 (outdoor advertising/billboard amendments) and SB221 (short-term rental amendments). We are grateful for his time speaking with us. (An update since this meeting happened is that HB98 did pass the House, but Representative Miles voted no).

Part 2 coming soon with lots of other good stuff. Let me know if you have any questions. :-)