Welcome to the Highland City Council Meeting
PRESENTATIONS • Item #1 – Economic Development – Marlin Eldred
PRESSURIZED IRRIGATION UTILITY RATE ALLOCATION Item #2 – Motion Presented by – Nathan Crane, City Administrator/ Community Development Director
Questions • Does the Council want to consider a tiered rate structure? • Does the council want to modify those items in the base rate and per square foot rate? – If so what are those items?
Background • Utility Rate Study • Mayor has raised concerns over the rate – Tiered rates for everyone above 11800 North due to pumping charges • 4,082 Connections – 420 are above 11800 North – Growth – abt. 250 additional connections • “Contained Water Shares” – Local and State Auditor – Share “Selling” Update
420 Connections North of 11800 North
Mayor Proposal
Mayor Proposal • Base Rate – $29.00 vs. $20.12 (+ $8.80) • Square Foot Rate – .000664 vs. .00048 (- .000184)
Examples • .25 acres – 10,890 sqft lot: + $7.04 • .50 acres - 20,000 sqft lot: + $5.20 • .68 acres - 30,000 sqft lot: + $3.36 • .92 acres - 40,000 sqft lot: + $1.52 • 1.12 acres - 49,000 sqft lot: ($0.14) • 1.37 acres - 60,000 sqft lot: ($2.16) • 1.72 acres - 75,000 sqft lot: ($5.10) • 2.29 acres - 100,000 sqft lot: ($9.52) • 5.0 acres – 218,000 sqft lot: ($31.23)
Lot Distribution and % Change
Questions • Does the Council want to consider a tiered rate structure? • Does the council want to modify those items in the base rate and per square foot rate? – If so what are those items?
ADOPTION OF PARK USE POLICY Item #8 – Ordinance Presented by – Erin Wells, Assistant to the City Administrator & Josh Castleberry, Parks Superintendent
The Problem • Growing recreation demand • Inconsistency in rental process • Lack of communication • Liability to City • Neighborhoods wanting to use fields • Maintenance costs
Grass Field Designations • Community Park • Neighborhood Park
Community Parks (Grass Fields) • I – Practices and games for all ages • Parking lot must have 25 stalls per field • Useable open field area must be greater than or equal to 150’ X 300’ • Must have dedicated restrooms • II – Practices for all ages • Parking lot must have 15 stalls per field • Useable open field area must be greater than or equal to 100’ X 200’ • III – Practices for 12U and younger ages • Parking lot must have 15 stalls per field • Useable open field area must be greater than or equal to 100’ X 200’
Community Parks (Grass Fields) I) Green – practices and games for all ages II) Yellow – practices for all ages III) Red – practices for 12U and younger teams
Neighborhood Parks (Grass Fields) • All other parks (15) • Usage appropriate for size/amenities – 4 hours per week or less – 2 practices a week or less – Only practices – Recreation league – 10 and younger – Live in area
Community Parks (Baseball Fields) • I – Practices and games for 12U and younger ages (Mitchell Hollow) • Parking lot must have 25 stalls per field • Distance from home plate to outfield fence must be greater than or equal to 200 feet • Must have dedicated restrooms • II – Practices for 10U and younger ages (Heritage Park) • Parking lot must have 25 stalls per field • Distance from home plate to outfield fence must be greater than or equal to 180 feet • Must have dedicated restrooms
Reservation Priority • City mowing times • Highland City activities • Cedar Hills Recreation League • Other Government agencies • Non-profit entities • For-profit entities • Encourage coordination by groups who are interested in using the fields • Consider historical use of fields • Prioritize minor league play on baseball fields
Unorganized Groups or Organized Groups Using Neighborhood Fields • Online request • Information on team/coach/league • Hold Harmless agreement
Community Fields – Organized Groups • Online request • Information on team/coach/league • Hold Harmless agreement • $3 million liability insurance • $150 deposit • Hourly reservation fee – Depending on organization • Porta-potty fee split – Lone Peak, Beacon Hills, Canterbury PI, & Wimbleton South
Draft Reservation Fees – Community Fields • Other governmental agencies – $5 per hour • Non-profit entities – $500 for up to 100 hours per league per year and $10 per hour thereafter • For-profit entities – $1,000 for up to 100 hours per league per year and $20 per hour thereafter
Fee Comparisons Hourly Rate Comparison Baseball Soccer Lehi $20 $20 Alpine School $45 $25 District Salem $15 $20 Alpine $10 $10 American Fork $25 $15 Pleasant Grove $10 $10 Orem $30 $12.50 Draper $15 $15 Riverton $15 $15
Fee Impact Hours per year Annual Cost Lone Peak Football 400 $ 3,500.00 Lone Peak Lacrosse 875 $ 8,250.00 Rocky Mountain Baseball 380 $ 3,300.00 Lone Peak Youth Football 400 $ 3,500.00 Stars United 468 $ 4,180.00 North Utah County Soccer 280 $ 2,300.00 Lone Peak Band 180 $ 900.00 $ 25,930.00
Reservation Process • Online calendar • Weekly physical postings at the field
Other Information • No reservations on Sunday – Allow grass to recuperate • All parks closed October 31 – March 1 • Hours 7:00AM – 8:00PM
Feedback • Proposed fees are too high – Lacrosse $75-100 increase in registration fees – Don’t adopt policy until fees are set – Baseball fields per day rate
Recommendation • Adopt the proposed ordinance changes tonight • Fee schedule will be brought back at a later time for final approval
FUNDING OF THE ROAD RECONSTRUCTION MASTER PLAN Communication Item Presented by – Erin Wells, Assistant to the City Administrator
PEPG Recommendation vs. Actual Road Spending Recommended Actual Total Rollover Deficient Year 1 $1,500,000 $600,000 $900,000 Year 2 $1,500,000 $609,000 $1,791,000 Year 3 $1,500,000 $618,000 $2,673,000 Year 4 $1,500,000 $627,000 $3,546,000 Year 5 $1,500,000 $636,000 $4,410,000 Year 6 $1,500,000 $645,000 $5,265,000 Year 7 $1,500,000 $654,000 $6,111,000 Ongoing $1,500,000 $663,000 Maintenance
Delayed Funding Risk Recommended Anticipated Delayed Difference Spending Spending Costs $10,500,000 $17,083,552 $6,583,552 (63%)
Highland City Bond Information Bond Summary Year Outstanding Calendar 2017 Amount Maturity Purpose Revenue Source Originated Balance Due Date Impact Fees & 2006 Buildings $0 2016 General Fund Buildings Impact Fees & 2015 $3,925,000 $445,327 2026 (Refinanced) General Fund Parks & General 2007 Parks $330,000 $338,663 2017 Fund Parks Parks & General 2016 $4,970,000 $104,122 2027 (Refinanced) Fund Pressurized 2009 $2,240,000 $423,313 2022 PI Fund Irrigation
Increased Funding Estimate • $16.65 per month per ERU – $199.80 per year – Assumes raising additional $900,00 per year • $1.5 million recommended - $0.6 million current – ERU (Equivalent Residential Unit = 4505) • An increase of $16.65 would only solve the road funding issue
Funding Options Overview 1. Property Tax Increase 2. Fee 1. Roads 2. Public Safety 3. Bond 1. Would need an additional tax/fee to help pay bond costs
Property Tax Increase Information • Pros – $ spent is tax deductible – Highland City rate is currently relatively low – Rate has never increased only decreased • Cons – Referendum potential – Churches/schools exempt
Highland Household Property Breakdown by Entity County Assessment State Assessment Water Districts, 4.0% Costs, 1.9% Costs, 0.1% County, 7.8% City , 14.0% School District, 72.2% Highland Rate – 0.001494
Utah County--City Property Tax Rates for 2016 0.003000 0.002500 0.002000 0.001500 Average 0.001000 0.000500 0.000000
Fee Information • Pros – $ collected feels directly tied to category – Churches and schools contribute • Cons – Referendum potential – $ spent is not tax deductible – Would likely have to save up for some time before being able to do projects
Bond Information • Pros – One-time influx of cash – Would be able to do more projects quicker – Likely would get a lower overall cost because could bid out more all at once • Cons – Additional debt taken on – Would also have to do some sort of fee/ tax increase to make bond payments
Preliminary Survey Results • Roads – 71% think the City should allocate more funding – 64% would likely or very likely support City raising taxes or fees to increase funding • Public Safety – 13% think the City should allocate more funding – 45% would likely or very likely support City raising taxes or fees to increase funding • 397 responses. About 250 more paper responses to be recorded.
PEPG Road Survey Results • 59% would likely or very likely support City raising additional funds for ongoing maintenance • 43% - preferred a fee • 47% - preferred a restricted use property tax increase • 89 responses
Recommend
More recommend
