Council and RDA meeting: 11.14.06 Part 3
By Dian Woodhouse
When the RDA reconvened, the meeting began with consideration of Proposed Resolution #2006-19, "authorizing the issuance and sale of up to $6,750,000 tax increment revenue bonds, and providing for related matters." This of course refers to the Fresenius expansion mentioned earlier. It passed.
The next item, Proposed Resolution #2006-17 is a proposed budget opening. Background: From the 2006 bonding, money was received from bond proceeds now being carried forward into mall development. For instance, $360,000 was appropriated for 24th Street development, but Work Session discussions had indicated that project far enough out on the timeline so that that money can be re-appropriated. This proposed resolution deals with the movement of funds in that manner, a very complex movement of funds, as it was stated that we are also borrowing money to pay finance charges on the bond. The figure is large enough to quote this agenda item in full:
FY2007 Budget Opening. Proposed Resolution amending the Budget for the Fiscal Year July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007 by increasing the anticipated revenues and transfers for gross increases of $14,810,213.00 from sources as detailed in the body of this resolution; and increasing the appropriations for a gross increase of $14,810,213.00 as detailed in the body of this resolution.
The public hearing for 2006-17 was set for November 28th, 2006.
At this point in the RDA agenda, the Peterson project had originally been set, but this was an error, as this was a Council and not an RDA matter. The meeting then moved to public comment.
Caril Jennings asked where one could obtain a copy of the Council's proposed process regarding the Peterson project, and was told that they were out in the hall.
The RDA meeting then adjourned and the Special Ogden City Council Meeting convened. This went immediately into Closed Executive Session "for the purpose of discussing the character, professional competence, physical or mental health of an individual."
When the City Council returned, Jim Wallace was appointed as the new Ogden City engineer. Then came Item 8b: Process steps for Chris Peterson Project. Proposed Resolution #2006-28 establishing process steps for the project being proposed by Chris Peterson.
This began with a power point presentation by Bill Cook. There were two hand-outs available for this--one a breakdown on blue paper of the resolution and another white paper of the resolution itself. In the blue paper breakdown, there was a list of 8 steps:
1. Mt. Ogden Community Plan
2. Planned Community Development Zones (Mixed-use Zones) and Sensitive Area Overlay Zones.
3. Petition and Review of the Chris Peterson Project.
(Note: This petition might include: amendments to the Ogden City General Plan, which in turn would involve: open space, open space zoning, annexation, sale of property, and more.
4. Mixed Use Zone for a Specific Project.
5. Development Agreement and Project Master Plan.
6. Annexation.
7. Property Sale.
8. Budget amendments.
Mr. Cook identified #5 as the "point of no return" in this process. This coming Thursday is the final meeting of the Mount Ogden Community to unveil its plan. The Planning Commission also has the zoning portions of this process under review. "If they do make a recommendation, the Council will be obligated to consider it," Mr. Cook said. He went on to state that getting more public input before official action was taken on the proposed process resolution "was certainly an option for you."
This seemed to be the way the Council wanted to go. Councilwoman Jeske mentioned that there was no mention of geological assessments in the proposed process. She went on to state that she would "feel better about it" if it did.
Councilman Stephenson stated that some of his constituents had approached him and said that this proposed process might be a way that our regular, in place processes that all developers have to go through is being bypassed for one individual. "I don't believe so," Mr. Cook said, but went on to remark that it could be possible.
Councilman Stephens stated that he appreciated all the work done by staff on this. "What's before us is a very important project," he said. "(We need to) protect the rights of the citizens of this city. If we could table this for a month, would this hurt us in any way?" Again, Mr. Cook said he didn't believe so.
Chairman Garcia said: "I don't see this as hampering the process at all since we don't have any proposal."
"I would like to have some public input," Councilwoman Wicks said.
Councilman Stephenson seemed to disagree. He viewed this project as "a proactive step," and stated that it was a way to "telegraph our intention as to this project."
Councilman Stephens rebutted this by stating again that it should be tabled for 30 days. "I agree with Councilman Stephens that we need to be proactive, but we also need to hear what the people have to say," he said.
Chairman Garcia asked when appropriate dates in January would be, and was told the 2nd, the 16th, and the 23rd.
"I don't think we can push this out too long," Councilman Stephenson said.
Motions began. Table to January 2nd? It failed. Table to January 16th? Failed.
Councilwoman Van Hooser then asked the question of the hour: "If we don't have a proposal, how can we do a process?"
Mayor Godfrey was then recognized by the Chair, and stated that it had been his hope that the Council would have its process in place before the administration began to move on this, but it was not necessary that this happen. The implication was that the administration would continue to move whether this resolution passed or failed or was tabled.
Councilwoman Jeske then made a motion to table until January 23rd. This passed.
Chairman Garcia then said that an earlier suggestion by Councilwoman Wicks that this proposed process resolution be put on the Council website was very good and should happen.
Councilman Stephenson then made a speech stating that as an elected official, it was his responsibility to assist the city in economic development, and that "Every development starts somewhere...We would be in derelict of our duty...Be fair to Chris Peterson."
For Public Comments and more, Stay tuned.
No comments:
Post a Comment