< Back to Home
Start Position
Welcome & introductions City Manager Jacob McHargue opened the meeting at 9:08 A.M. Those present introduced themselves.     2.
Presentation and Discussion –Comprehensive Financial Sustainability Plan (CFSP) Kate Werrett with Lewis Young Robertson and Burningham gave a brief overview of the CFSP. They considered several factors: ·         Growth in Vineyard was a major concern ·         There was a lot of money coming in but also lot of projects that needed to be done ·         Projects that could be funded through bonding or property tax increases ·         Model Development o   2014-2020 Actual Amounts o   2021 Budgeted Amounts o   Projections through 2040 o   Focus on the next 5 years o   The full impacts of COVID are not known and model projections may be impacted by the current uncertain conditions ·         Revenue and expenses Ms. Werrett reviewed the Revenue and Expenditure Assumptions. She said that two key assumptions went into the model, which were historical growth rate and population. The population was divided into ten-year tranches. The first ten years would grow at about 6 percent and the following ten years at about 3 percent.   Ms. Werrett reviewed the baseline scenario analysis. She said that the analysis was done without factoring in any bonds or General Fund transfers. She mentioned that the State required the City to keep the fund balance at about 25% of Operation and Maintenance expenses. They could adjust the balance through transfers to the Capital Projects Fund. She said that they needed to determine how to fund the Capital Improvements. She also mentioned that changes to the revenue would impact the General Fund balance. Capital Improvement projects would also change what happened to the General Fund balance. She reminded everyone that this was a working document.   David Robertson with Lewis Young Robertson and Burningham said that in the sustainable model, they looked at the ongoing operations, potential Capital Improvement Projects, potential new hires, and what were the funding sources. He said that the City was in a good position and had no concerns with operation standards.   Mr. McHargue explained that they had worked with each department on what they would need to sustain a certain level of service. He said that the margins would be slim for a few years, but the City would be in a different position once the RDA was done. Mr. Robertson added that these projects were calculated with a zero percent tax increase.   Councilmember Earnest asked how the City could generate more income. Ms. Werrett replied that the Recreation, Arts and Park Tax (RAP) brought in additional revenue. There was a discussion about revenue sources. Mr. Robertson mentioned that a property tax increase was another option. Mr. McHargue said that they would not discuss that option until the RDA was completed. Public Works Director/City Engineer Don Overson asked about impact fees. Ms. Werrett replied that they did not include the impact fees because they were primarily pass-through fees. There was a discussion about impact fees. Mr. Robertson explained that the Tax Increment Financing Funds repaid bonds. If you had a water project, you could issue the bond out of the Enterprise Funds. You could determine which funds you wanted to pay for the bonds. Councilmember Judd asked about sales dropping in year ten in the CFSP. Ms. Werrett replied that sales were tied to the growth rate. She explained that they had tranched the population growth into ten-year segments, and they lowered the growth rates in year ten. She mentioned that public safety was on a contract with a four percent growth rate, and new hires for police were based on population growth. Mr. McHargue reiterated what Ms. Werrett said.   Councilmember Judd asked if they had factored in delinquent property taxes. Ms. Werrett replied that they had factored those into the property tax section at a 97 percent collection rate.   Councilmember Judd asked about the 25 percent balance required to be in the General Fund Balance and if they were projecting to be over that amount. Mr. McHargue replied that the model did not consider any transfers to the Capital Projects Fund; it was assuming that everything over the budgeted expenditures was staying in the General Fund. He explained that they made a transfer every year to meet the state requirement. Councilmember Judd suggested that if they started to see higher balances in the Capital Fund balance, they should look into adjusting the property tax rate.     3.
Discussion – Current Projects and Staff Updates Mr. McHargue reported that the Administration Department had hired a new accountant and recreation coordinator, and that an administrative intern would start in May. They were looking to hire a Social Media Coordinator to help the current coordinator, who would be stepping back on her duties. He also introduced the new city attorney, Jayme Blakesley.   City Recorder Pamela Spencer reported that the Recorder’s Officer was working on updating the retention schedule, finishing up going through the records room, putting all of their forms online to complete the application process faster, and that they had made some changes to the busines licensing in the Municipal Code. She read a breakdown of the different businesses in the city.   Community Development Director Morgan Brim reported that his department had three employees. He explained that his department oversaw current planning activities in the city, which included updating the General Plan. He mentioned that with recent changes to Code Enforcement staffing, they were able to close several significant cases. They were now able to take a more proactive approach to code enforcement. The current projects they were working on were: ·         Updating the Parks and Trails Plan, and the Moderate Income Housing Plan in the General Plan. ·         Contracting through the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) with Alta Planning and Design, a firm that would be helping them with the Active Transportation Plan, which they hoped to adopt in March 2022. ·         They had sent out a Request for Proposal (RFP) for the Vineyard waterfront. He hoped that this plan would help consolidate all plans for use of the waterfront in the entire city and provide an overall theme for economic development. He felt that having the downtown on a waterfront would be a huge opportunity for the city and would add revenue to the city and provide a high quality of life. ·         They were also working on a bike and skate park plan.   Public Works Director/City Engineer Don Overson reported that his department had 13 full-time employees, three part-time employees, and one contract employee. They hired a new Stormwater Pollution Prevention (SWPP) Inspector and created a new part-time position to do blue staking. Councilmember Earnest asked why the city had hired someone to do their blue staking. Mr. Overson replied that the city had blue staking requirements for utilities, and that it would be quicker to do this in-house. Assistant Public Works Director Chris Wilson explained that the new blue stake employee was also working for another company that did blue staking and mentioned a backlog at that company.  Councilmember Judd said that developers he worked with had mentioned that it took a long time to get utilities going because of the backlog. Mr. Overson said hiring a person to take care of blue staking could help the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) get the train station open more quickly. Mr. Overson reviewed the five main projects his department was working on. They were: The Center Street Overpass: They were hoping to have it completed before winter, but it was delayed because of UTA and Union Pacific Railroad (UP) issues. He said that they planned on finishing some items that they were not able to do in the winter. FrontRunner Train Station: It was going out for bid in April. The completion was scheduled for some time in November.Main Street Extension: The design for the road into the train station was underway.Rail Spur Removal: They were waiting for approval of the Construction Management and Exchange Contracts. Mr. McHargue mentioned that they had reviewed the redline copies and sent them back to Union Pacific Railroad (UP) for final review. Mr. Overson noted that he had found a document that said that the crossing at 1600 North was public, not private.Water Tank: Mr. Overson felt that the project was moving quickly. He explained that they would be building the water tank in the Public Works yard but would have to build a booster station to go along with it. He said that the design of the tank would be completed in September, then they could send it out for bid. Mr. McHargue said they hoped to have all of the agreements done with the Central Utah Water Project (CUP) and Orem City soon hopefully only have only one contract with CUP. Mr. Overson felt that this contract would give the city more control of water delivery.    Mayor Fullmer explained the accomplishments and the success of the last several years. Center Street Overpass: They had to navigate a relationship with UTA to build the bridge offsite and felt that the project moving along well. The overpass still had some items that needed to be finished.FrontRunner Train Station: They were waiting on the Army Corps of Engineers to reassess their land base. They had discussed adding land base as part of the Park Plan so they could negotiate with the Army Corps of Engineers as a city. She explained that there had been a shortage of funds to build station, but they were able to get additional funding through the legislature. They were able to work collaboratively with UDOT and UTA at the legislature.Rail Spur Removal: The contract had closed three times. UP had held up 90 projects and contracts throughout the state. The contracts had only stalled because the city had wanted additional items to the contract, and then UDOT hired a new attorney who wanted to add clarifying markers. This project was going to open up more economic development and allow to build the city more quickly. Water Tank: The water tank project was moving forward because of support from the residents.Vineyard Connector: Because of full support from the legislature, the Governor, Mountainland Association of Governments (MAG), and letters sent in by other mayors, and HB 433, they were able to get $15 million for the expansion of the Vineyard Connector. She said that they had been working with all of the entities to get the connector completed.    Building Official George Reid reported that his department had three full-time inspectors, a full-and a part-time plans examiner, and a front desk person they share with other departments. Construction in the Lakefront development was well underway. He said that the Building and Planning Departments took some hits in the legislature with significant code changes on accessory dwelling units, building inspections, etc. He said that he met with Jeff Speck, Flagship, and their design team on Phase 1 of the Vineyard Downtown. Mr. McHargue mentioned that most of the development in the city was completed, and now the building department was in a slow period and trying to keep staff working until the Vineyard Downtown began development.   Councilmember Judd asked about the lumber shortage. Mr. Reid replied that construction costs had increased because lumber costs had almost tripled. He mentioned that the price of the homes had increased more than the materials. Mr. Brim said that a townhome in the Lakefront development recently sold for $480,000. There was a discussion about home prices and mortgage rates.   Sergeant Holden Rockwell with the Utah County Sheriff’s Office reported that they added a full-time detective and a full-time deputy last year.  He mentioned that the detective had done an excellent job clearing cases. He said that he had asked his office specialist to take on more responsibilities, such as billings, budget items, purchases, and social media. He said that, on average, response times had continued to decrease. He reported that they were able to get a new contract approved with the city.    Mayor Fullmer mentioned that Vineyard’s crime rate was at or below other areas. Sergeant Rockwell added that he would present crime statistics in his next quarterly report.   Planning Commission Chair Bryce Brady asked if they would be discussing the code change for ADU requirements. Mr. Brim replied that they would be discussing it in a Planning Commission work session. There was a discussion about ADUs, the legislature, and what the changes in state law meant for Vineyard’s future ADU regulations. Mayor Fullmer mentioned that the legislature would be reviewing Vineyard’s proximity to a university and their requirements for ADUs. Councilmember Flake felt that they needed to be more proactive with the legislature in the future. The discussion continued.   A short break was taken at 10:26 AM. The meeting resumed at 10:37 AM.     4.
Discussion – Review Strategic Plan Mr. McHargue explained that they needed to review the Strategic Plan because some of the metrics had been accomplished. He read the Primary Directive. Each section of the plan was reviewed: ·         Enhanced Amenities – Everyone felt that the initiatives were still applicable. o   Goals – §  Councilmember Flake mentioned that there was nothing for seniors. He suggested that they add amenities such as a pickleball court. There was a discussion about amenities. The consensus was to add amenities for all ages, interests, and abilities. Mr. Brim suggested that they add the specifics to the General Plan amendment. §  Preserving land for future amenities ·         Multi-modal Transportation o   Change title to include smart city technology. There was a discussion about smart city technology. o   Remove the Center Street Overpass from the list of goals o   Include collaboration with outside entities to help Vineyard accomplish these goals o   Add an accessibility section o   Utility easement for fiber – There was a discussion about fiber usage o   Mass transit – Would make it easy to gain access to our community, becoming a state model, and create ease of transportation on the “last mile” from work to home. There was a discussion about mass transit. ·         Economic Development o   Add Branding the Town Center, Marketing, and Networking goals to the plan o   Remediation – There was a discussion about the Containment Area Management Unit (CAMU), the area around. They also discussed funding to complete the remediation. ·         Long-Range Planning o   Management of Growth and Services – Have an accessible way for residents to view each department’s strategies and how they handle their projects and have a user-friendly website. There was a discussion about the website. o   Water conservation – State requirement to start reporting o   Separate water system for non-culinary uses – There was a discussion about sources of secondary water. Water Manager Sullivan Love said that he was looking into using ditch water or obtaining other partnerships. He said that there were partnerships for water conservation as well.     5.
Discussion – Priorities and goals for 2021 ·         Mill Road Extension – It must be extended if a Fire Station goes on the north side of the Vineyard Connector ·         Approve a city-wide Park Plan o   Eastside – Establish open space or a park. The city was in discussions with Utah Valley University (UVU) about allowing the city to add park space on their property. o   Westside – At buildout it would have about 11 parks or open space areas. Provide access to open space o   How to get pedestrians across Mill Road. Bring ideas to a work session. ·         Dog Park – Possibly require a dog-only area in every park. There was a discussion about dog parks. Mr. Blakesley explained that most dog parks allowed dogs to run free, but owners must clean up after their pets or be excluded from the park. In other parks dogs must be on a leash. The discussion continued. ·         Community Center – Start planning for one now in anticipation of establishing one in ten to 12 years. There was the option to contribute to the Orem City Fitness Center to give Vineyard residents Orem’s residential rates for the next ten years. There was a discussion about a community/recreation center. ·         Bike/Skate Park – American Ramp Company did a concept plan for a bike/skate park, that could be incorporated into Grove Park, Gammon Park or in the downtown area. There was a discussion about installing a bike/skate park. Chair Brady suggested that they could spilt up the dirt and concrete park into separate parks. The discussion continued. ·         Community Gardens – There was desire expressed from residents to have a community garden and it would add a healthy aspect to the community. There could be a vertical farming and community garden tie-in. There was a discussion about the community gardens. ·         Orem Lakeside Sports Park – Orem wanted Vineyard to participate in the cost of extending the parking lot and moving the soccer fields. There was a discussion about the extension. Included the bump-out at the elementary school in the negotiations.   6.
Discussion and action – $500 Project Mr. McHargue asked for ideas to spend the money that the city had set aside for its annual $500.00 project. Ideas were as follows: 1.      Kidz ‘n’ Kites – could grow it into a festival 2.      Neighborhood cleanliness 3.      Benches at the end of Center Street 4.      Painted crosswalks in areas that would not have signal lights 5.      Hometown Heroes 6.      Improve bird watching areas 7.      Exercise equipment along the trail 8.      Water feature at Sunset Beach 9.      Benches north of Vineyard Beach 10.  Kayak rentals 11.  Garden stands where people share their excess produce 12.  Bike rack at school bus stops 13.  Slack line posts in Grove Park   The group did a secret vote for their top three projects. Mr. McHargue said that he would tally the votes and let everyone know the results at a later time.     7.
Discussion – Budget Schedule Mr. McHargue felt that they needed to have a follow-up meeting to discuss the feedback from this meeting and input from residents on the budget to set additional goals. He recommended that it be at the first meeting in April. He reviewed the budget schedule.   Mr. McHargue mentioned that City Council meetings would be held in-person moving forward. Mayor Fullmer reviewed the timeline for the mask mandate removal.     8.
Adjournment Mayor Fullmer called for a motion to adjourn the meeting and go into a closed session.   Motion:Councilmember Welsh moved to adjourn the meeting at 12:40 PM and go into a closed session today at 3:00 PM in the City Council Chambers to discuss the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual. Councilmember Earnest seconded the motion. Mayor Fullmer, Councilmembers Earnest, Flake, Judd, and Welsh voted aye. The motion carried unanimously.     MINUTES APPROVED ON:   April 14, 2021   CERTIFIED CORRECT BY:    /s/Pamela Spencer Pamela spencer, city recorder

Link

Start video at

Social

Embed


* you need to log in to manage your favorites

My Favorites List
You haven't added any favorites yet. Click the "Add Favorite" button on any media page, and they'll show up here.
* use Ctrl+F (Cmd+F on Mac) to search in document
Loading...
Loading...
Unable to preview the file.
scroll up