Mayor Tran recently explained to the City Council the State of Utah is requiring “Code Blue” temporary homeless shelters between Oct. 15 – April 30 if the temperature drops below a certain degree.  Kaysville is one of three Davis County cities that has a senior center; these have been suggested as possible locations because they are typically not utilized at night. Tran said the theory is for homeless to go to the shelter at night and leave in the morning; however, in Kaysville there are no mass transit or other necessary services for assistance. She said, “while the concept may make economic sense for the building use, the necessary homeless services are not available in these areas.”

Tran said she serves on the Davis County Task Force discussing the homeless shelter that the state is requiring Davis County to provide. The task force identified a triangular shaped parcel on the industrial side of Clearfield that is located next to other facilities and appeared to be ideal for a permanent Davis County Shelter. The parcel is owned by a Billboard Company; however, the property owner is not interested in selling. The real estate broker had suggested they would possibly consider selling the property for a reduction of $5 per square foot if cities along I-15 were to allow a billboard within their city limits.

Tran explained all Davis County cities would have to agree or that proposal would not work. She said the thought was for each city to conduct a discussion regarding this type of concept, which is part of the homeless shelter negotiation process. She said there are several cities that don’t have a Davis County property within their boundaries and currently limit billboards; those were in agreement that adjusting their ordinances to allow billboards under these circumstances could create potential litigation from competitor companies. “As cities, our independent legal counsel felt we cannot allow one billboard company and not others, even for a great cause like this.”

City Attorney Nic Mills said the Kaysville City Code (17-33-8 Prohibited Signs) prohibits off-premises signs/billboards in the city; amending Title 17 would require Planning Commission review and a public hearing. “Billboards are a valuable commodity,” he said. “Legally there are problems with creating an ordinance to prevent other billboards.” He said every city will have multiple applications come in and it will be difficult to say “yes” for one and not others. 

The City Council discussed this concept. Tran said that each Davis County Mayor will be asking their Councils for direction regarding the potential to negotiate for billboards. She said the county has looked at other properties as possible permanent winter shelter facilities in Kaysville. She said staff does not view those locations, or any location in Kaysville, to be suitable for a homeless shelter for several reasons: including a lack of public transportation and other resources to support a shelter. 

The Council had concerns about where there is a shelter, there is also a potential for problems if adequate resources cannot be readily available and accessible. They discussed what is being done on a county or state level to attempt to solve the problem instead of rendering patchy solutions. Tran said the reality is there is a need to create a permanent facility that is surrounded by support services; she said there is also the idea of having a private company operate these facilities. She said Kaysville does offer support to local communities with low-income housing, Safe Harbor Crisis Center, Mercy Housing project, Mountain High School, and the Family Enrichment Center.

Tran said she appreciates the opportunity for Kaysville to conduct this discussion on the public record. She said there are ways to do this, and Kaysville needs to be compassionate and look after the most vulnerable population in society, regardless of how they got into that situation. She said it is not that Kaysville does not want to support a shelter, they want a shelter that can become a permanent pathway to a future for homeless families.

The Council determined they did not have enough information to push forward in any direction, other than to keep looking for other available properties. The desire was to make sure to support a solution rather than just another program.