Welcome to the Highland City Council Meeting PRESENTATIONS Item - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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
• r 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
• r 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 District $45 $25 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 Maintenance $1,500,000 $663,000

Delayed Funding Risk

Recommended Spending Anticipated Delayed Spending Costs Difference $10,500,000 $17,083,552 $6,583,552 (63%)

Highland City Bond Information

Bond Summary

Year Originated Purpose Outstanding Balance Calendar 2017 Amount Due Maturity Date Revenue Source 2006 Buildings $0 2016 Impact Fees & General Fund 2015 Buildings (Refinanced) $3,925,000 $445,327 2026 Impact Fees & General Fund 2007 Parks $330,000 $338,663 2017 Parks & General Fund 2016 Parks (Refinanced) $4,970,000 $104,122 2027 Parks & General Fund 2009 Pressurized Irrigation $2,240,000 $423,313 2022 PI Fund

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

School District, 72.2% City , 14.0% County, 7.8% Water Districts, 4.0% County Assessment Costs, 1.9% State Assessment Costs, 0.1%

Highland Household Property Breakdown by Entity

Highland Rate – 0.001494

0.000000 0.000500 0.001000 0.001500 0.002000 0.002500 0.003000

Utah County--City Property Tax Rates for 2016

Average

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

• ut 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

Sales Tax

• FY2016 sales in Highland $88,836,000
• $2,040,764 collected in sales tax last year

– $444,000 from point of sale – $1,600,000 state-wide distribution

• Need 44% overall increase in sales tax revenue

to get additional $900,000

Tonight

• Do you want staff to explore raising additional

revenue?

• If so, do you have a preference?