PUBLIC HEARING AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, February 21, 2006 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Mayor Mike McGee, Presiding
Council Members: Jim Perry, Charelle Bowman, Darin Lowder, Eric Richardson
Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager
Kim Holindrake, City Recorder
David Bunker, City Engineer
Rich Knapp, City Accountant
David Taylor, Assistant to the City Manager
Eric Johnson, City Attorney
Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber
Others: Barbara Christensen-New Utah, Caleb Warnock-Daily Herald, Steve Kroes, Joel Wright, Cecil Read, Mark Edminster, Dave Griffin, Katrina Griffin, Brent Uibel, Alan Petersen, Jessie Elder-Deseret News, Jim Ferry, Tom Gleason, Becky Richards, Brett Taufer, Daniel Zappala (7:10 p.m.), Greg Kofford (7:10 p.m.), Andrew Bowman (7:10 p.m.), Shawn Richins (7:10 p.m.), Zonda Perry (7:10 p.m.), Larry Wood (7:12 p.m.), Eric Hanson (7:29 p.m.), Troy Watkins (7:31 p.m.)
1. This Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of Cedar Hills, having been posted throughout the City and the press notified, was called to order at 7:06 p.m.
2. Proposed Amendments to the City Code Section 10-1-1 Relating to the Formal Title of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 10-1-7 Relating to the Process for Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Map (7:06 p.m.)
No public comments.
3. Proposed Amendment to the Zone Map to Change a Portion of Area Currently in the H-1 Hillside Development Zone to the Public Facilities Zone. The Property is Located at Approximately 10300 North Between Canyon Road and Bayhill Drive (7:31 p.m.)
C. Perry gave a Power Point presentation outlining the pros and cons of the potential sites for the Public Works Building. There were nine sites reviewed and rated on many criteria including size, cost, impact to residents, accessibility, etc.
• Site A is the golf course site. The site is down below The Cedars, accessed through SR-92. A bridge would need to be built to cross the American Fork River, which would require additional permits. The City has a 10-foot access to the site making it difficult for large vehicle access. The biggest issue is that the site is in Highland City, requiring approval from their city. Highland City is hesitant to consider approval.
• Site B is the site recommended by staff. It is along the edge of the LDS Church property on Bayhill Drive. The Salt Lake Aqueduct runs through the eastern part of the parcel. The City cannot build within 75 feet of the aqueduct. The City has talked about constructing a trail head and park along the eastern edge of the parcel. Access to the Public Works Building would be from Canyon Road.
• Site C is property owned by Utah Power. It is adjacent to Site B. The City would need to purchase the property. It would also require additional road improvements.
• Site D is hillside land that is owned by Property Reserve, Inc. (PRI ). PRI has policies dealing with real estate that does not allow them to parcel the land. It is a large chunk of land that would cost more than $20 million.
• Site E is next to the City building. It is in Pleasant Grove and the City would need to purchase the property. The site is adjacent to homes and is too small to meet the City’s needs at buildout.
• Site F is near Lone Peak High School, southwest of the commercial areas. It is also near homes and is prime commercial property.
• Site G is in the industrial area of Pleasant Grove.
• Site H is in The Cottages at Canyon Heights subdivision. The City owns the parcel. Access to the site is through the neighborhood and the parcel would not be large enough for future City needs.
• The City Staff recommends Site B as the best option for construction.
Brent Uibel - I appreciate what you are doing and thanks for that fine presentation. The question I have is, in that we are looking to change the zoning on this H-1 section here, do we as a City have an ordinance to keep the rest – the area south of what is going to be the public facility from being changed into a commercial zone or other things of that sort–the area down where the church owns? Do we have ordinances that would keep that from being changed into a commercial zone of sorts?
C. Perry - The short answer is no, because any future Council can do whatever they want with the zoning. It would have to go through the normal process like we are now for zoning change, but a future Council can go through the process with the Planning Commission and a Public Hearing. They can change the zoning anywhere in the City. I wouldn’t do it, but again, I don’t want to make a promise that none of us can deliver on. That is just the way the law is.
Brent Uibel - Another question, the dirt that they are piling here to be removed – I understand from talking to them that this is there for the purpose of easier removal to trucks and stuff like that. To what state will this land be restored once the earth has been removed?
Mayor McGee - It will be restored to its original state and reseeded.
Brent Uibel - Also, I would like to just suggest one thing that came up in the discussions. We as the citizens in the area would appreciate having a citizen architectural review group to participate in the City planning and design on that building.
Jim Ferry - I would also like to thank the Mayor and Councilperson Bowman and Jim Perry for coming to our meeting on Saturday, attempting to inform us all and alleviate some of our concerns. One question that I have, if the City goes ahead with the proposed zoning and then decides that they do not want to place a Public Works building there, what impact does that have on the possibility of putting homes or other things in that area? Does this lock us into the change?
C. Perry - In theory we can always change it back. That said, we certainly want to do the trail head and trail on the top part. We are moving toward all of our parks zoned Public Facility. It would be totally appropriate to have that area, assuming that actually went forward, zoned that way. The lower portion-obviously you cannot build homes where it is zoned Public Facility, but the zoning could be changed.
C. Richardson - You also cannot build homes on that public easement.
Jim Ferry - I have done an overlay of the plat map to get an idea of where things are. Another question that I have is if the Public Works Building goes there, what kind of a guarantee would we as citizens have that it will be maintained and well kept, or that the upkeep of the building would be adequate to maintain the feel of Cedar Hills and the community. I know that there is a lot of maintenance on trucks and things like that, engine grease that would probably be washed off of the trucks that could possibly get into the groundwater. In Orem City, the old Public Works Building has had a big problem with that. What can we do to ensure that the upkeep is done adequately?
C. Perry - You could talk to your Council representatives and Mayor and try to get a policy written up. Again, we can establish a policy and say we want to maintain the building at this certain level of aesthetic value and we want to treat environmentally sensitive chemicals a certain way. We can do all those things, and those are appropriate conversations to have.
C. Bowman - Have laws changed at all with that, David (Bunker), with new regulations with cities to avoid stuff like that?
David Bunker - Yes, it is extremely strict. The Division of Water Quality actually on the federal level came down to every single community and said “All right, you have to have a Storm Water Management Plan,” which includes everything you are talking about. This Council already has adopted that plan – a big thick document. We are already doing that. It includes preconstruction runoff control, construction runoff control, post-construction. All the drainage from the site will be collected – every single bit of it. It will go into a storm drain system. It will have pretreatment on every catch basin before we discharge it into the main system. I know there is a lot of design that goes into that. It is going to be maintained. That is where the City is citywide. Those regulations are hitting us – not only us as a City – everywhere in Utah County. In fact we have a Utah County Storm Water Coalition that we are part of. Every city is facing the same issues.
Jim Ferry - Who does the enforcement of that?
David Bunker - The State.
C. Lowder - We are all very motivated to keep the place looking good. As residents, I would hope that all of us everywhere recognize the importance of keeping all areas of the City nice. Protecting one area of property values just benefits everyone. Recently that is what brought up the Code Enforcement Officer. Someone came in and said, “This road has some problems.” We got the discussion going and thought, “We can’t have that. We can’t have it slipping through the cracks.”
Mayor McGee - And not just that. It was developers, and builders, and lot owners and so on and so forth. When we found that there was a real, genuine problem with that, we addressed it immediately. Now we have a Code Enforcement Officer that, as you have heard from several residents in other meetings, they are extremely happy with the response we have had on that.
Jim Ferry - Will the Code Enforcement Officer be enforcing the City?
Jim Perry - Absolutely. And the Council will hold him to that.
Jim Ferry - My experience with this is that the code we are following wasn’t enforced with the current grading that is going on right now. Once bitten, twice shy.
Mayor McGee - Let me address that. That is still sort of a misconception, I think. As the Mayor, I will take full responsibility for it. I am just going to tell you, the buck stops with me. I am sorry. I am completely and totally, sincerely sorry that things didn’t happen the way that they should have happened. We felt that given the fact that we already had a public building on that site, which we were okay in doing. Thank you, Jim, because you are actually the one that brought it to our attention. The minute we discovered that we weren’t in compliance, we shut it down. And egg on our face, I suppose, and I do sincerely apologize for that. Had I known immediately that we weren’t in compliance with our own rules and regulations, we would not have done it that way. We genuinely thought that (A) we were okay doing what we were doing and (B) there was a little exuberance on our part to save $115,000. We tried to accomplish that. I want you to understand, it wasn’t because we had disgruntled citizens that we shut the project down. It was because we discovered that we were genuinely not following the rules and ordinances as they exist. And once we discovered that, it went out to everybody, “Shut it down.” If we did wrong – and we did – I’m sorry. When we know what the right and wrong processes are, we always choose the right. In this particular instance, call it a little bit of ignorance, a little bit of exuberance, what have you, but we shut the process down, we went through to correct that and now the project is proceeding down the path correctly. That is always our intent. I apologize for any mistakes that we’ve made and I mean that sincerely.
C. Perry - I agree with the Mayor. I think the mistake was an honest mistake. The concern you voiced, I do not share that concern because it wasn’t that either the staff or the Mayor or anyone else decided, “Well, we are just going to cut corners and not follow our process.” It was an oversight and hopefully won’t happen again. Certainly, we will be more careful. As far as maintaining the building, we all want it to look good. We can set a policy saying staff are instructed to maintain it at some certain level. I would support doing that. Look at this building. Staff does want to keep things nice. This is our Public Works Building and our Public Safety Building and our City Hall right. There is a lot coming and going; a lot of stuff crammed into one building. They still manage to keep it looking nice and in good repair.
Jim Ferry - The one difference is that there is no wall around this. However, even with the wall around the site up there, citizens up on Bayhill will still be able to look down.
Mayor McGee - Another thing I have suggested is, and we haven’t had any objection to, is building berms around the property and planting those berms. On the bottom end, build a berm, plant it up. You will very nearly not be able to see this beautiful building we are going to build. We can even build a berm around the top, I suppose and plant plants where people virtually would not be able to see this facility. I think it is going to be a good-looking facility anyway. We are willing to do whatever people think, within reason, because we are a small city with not vast coffers of money. But, within reason, we are willing to do whatever it takes to help people be happy about the views that they have in the community.
C. Richardson - I think the other thing that I would just add to that is we are a small city with 1,700 homes. You can throw a rock from one side of the City to the other. You are always going to have at least one Council person who lives in the neighborhood or very near to it. We are not that big of a City. It is going to be in my backyard too. I want it looking nice as long as I am on the Council. Other people are going to come after me and do a good job and it is going to be in their back yard. If it does not look nice, then you and I are going to call them and let them know. They are not going to want those phone calls at night.
Jim Ferry - The road, Canyon Road, is the City going to do anything to widen the road, so that there is a turn lane going into the facility.
Mayor McGee - We do not own Canyon Road. It is a State road.
David Bunker - There is already curb and gutter on Canyon Road right now, on this site. That is the full width. Just immediately south of this site is the Questar facility. The curb and gutter is not in front of that facility nor is it anywhere south. The road actually narrows up as you head south of the Questar building.
Mayor McGee - But if those properties were to develop, we would require curb and gutter.
C. Bowman - I think what we want to happen is to have the residents and Council working together – at least for me. I think that the way things went down with this whole situation, it kind of created a barrier. The residents feel they are on one side and we are on the other. Really, what we want to happen is to work with the residents on this. It is going to be serving the residents. The residents should have a say in this. We have all expressed our apologies for what has gone on.
C. Lowder - I think there has been a theme, too, of what our focus has been in the last 12–18 months. We have talked about keeping the City looking as nice as possible. The Planning Commission has finished up a sign ordinance that took a lot of time to prepare. That was in anticipation of more commercial development. A yard ordinance has been discussed for many reasons, as you might imagine. But all the things that we have been discussing is all to protect the image, the beauty of the City. I don’t see this as any different. Our focus and concern, although we may not live as close to it as you, is every bit as if it was in our backyard.
Jim Ferry - If the City can build it in such a way that it blends in with the hillside, and do something to control the sound, I am not necessarily opposed to the building. I think the City needs to ensure it is done correctly and that it is a building that is fitting for the City of Cedar Hills and fitting for the surrounding hillside because it is visible from a lot of the City. A lot of the City will be able to see this structure.
4. Proposed Amendments to the 2005-2006 Fiscal Year Budget (7:48 p.m.)
5. This Public Hearing was adjourned 7:48 p.m. by Mayor McGee.
1. This Council Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cedar Hills, having been posted throughout the City and the press notified, was called to order 7:48 p.m. by Mayor McGee.
Invocation given by C. Lowder
Pledge of Allegiance
2. Public Issues for Future Agendas (7:50 p.m.)
Caleb Warnock - Mr. Warnock is a reporter with the Daily Herald. He asked for clarification on the photography policy at City meetings. Mayor McGee explained that the official policy is that photographs can only be taken from the back of the room, along the back wall. However, for a swearing-in ceremony, the Mayor will allow an exception. He will alert attendees of when it is appropriate to take pictures of the swearing in. C. Perry explained that the City Council implemented the policy because some individuals were taking liberties in taking photos at the meetings, upsetting many residents.
Daniel Zappala - Mr. Zappala asked that the Council consider landscaping at the new speed table on Cottonwood Drive. He would also like to see some stop signs in the area.
Mayor McGee - The Mayor indicated that the City Staff Council would take the suggestion into consideration.
Alan Petersen - Mr. Petersen expressed concern with the volume of dirt that is being excavated on Canyon Road at the proposed Bayhill Public Works Building site. He asked that the City implement some controls to avoid broken windshields from the dirt and gravel. David Bunker said that the site does have a heavy cobble access that will shake debris off the truck before it gets on the road. The City and State can also require clean up when they see a problem.
Zonda Perry - Ms. Perry said that she was traveling north on Canyon Road at 4:30 p.m. A dump truck was coming out from the proposed Bayhill Public Works Building site and was blocking the north bound lane and part of the middle lane. There were no traffic controls. David Bunker said that he will require flag men at the site for traffic control.
3. Approval of the Minutes from the January 24, 2006, Special City Council Meeting and the February 7, 2006, Regular City Council Meeting (7:55 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve the minutes from the January 24, 2006, Special City Council Meeting and the February 7, 2006, Regular City Council Meeting, as amended. Seconded by C. Lowder.
C. Richardson Motion passes.
4. Review/Action on Appointment and Swearing in of City Council Member (8:05 p.m.)
See handouts. Council Member James Parker submitted his resignation on January 24, 2006, effective January 31, 2006. The City noticed the vacancy and received two applications from residents. The applicants are Steve Kroes and Joel Wright. Each applicant was given an opportunity to make a statement.
Steve Kroes: Mr. Kroes moved to Cedar Hills five years ago for the peaceful environment, parks, good schools, beauty and strong families. He has always tried to be involved in the cities and communities in which he lives. In Cedar Hills, Mr. Kroes has served on the Planning Commission for the past three years. As vice-chair, he chaired the contentious WalMart meeting and enjoyed the experience because he likes to jump in and address residents’ concerns. He enjoys facilitating the fair process of government. He wants to be involved with the City Council to ensure that good decisions are made. Mr. Kroes said that there are three important attributes of good decision making: inquisitive nature, thoughtful analysis, seasoning of experience. He has sixteen years of experience working around governments and helping to craft good policy. He feels the City has great things ahead of it. He foresees Cedar Hills moving into a new phase including commercial development, which will bring both added quality of life and needed revenue. As a Planning Commissioner, Mr. Kroes has worked with talented individuals and has worked on hard issues, including crafting a sign ordinance. It was a tedious, but valuable experience. Dealing with the issues has given him a stronger understanding of the strengths of the community as well as its problems and issues. He intends to run for a Council seat in 2007.
Joel Wright: Mr. Wright said that he agreed with everything Mr. Kroes had said. What sets him apart is that he is an enthusiastic person. While at law school, Mr. Wright got excited about the business side of law - aligning people to work together. He recognizes that, at times, hard choices need to be made. He loves talking to people, listening to people and engaging people. Listening to people and educating people are important parts of the Council. His legal training and experience with city financing will benefit the Council. He lives in Canyon Heights – a newer area that he feels is relatively disengaged. He would like to see a higher voter turnout in that area.
Questions from the Council:
C. Lowder asked the applicants to explain their feelings on where the Council should be headed.
Joel Wright: Mr. Wright said that resolving the City’s financial situation is the first priority. As that happens, a long-term vision will develop and a sense of trust will be enhanced. He sees the City becoming a prosperous, desirous place to live. He has a progressive view of government. He said that governments do some things very well. We should implement those things that city governments can do well. He hates debt but pointed out that there is a difference between debt for consumption and debt for infrastructure. Debt in the appropriate situation makes sense.
Steve Kroes: Mr. Kroes said that he currently sees unity on the Council. He was pleased to see how the Council successfully convinced voters to approve refinancing of the golf course. He sees the golf course as a top job for the City to resolve in order to remove the tax burden from the citizens. He said that he is pleased that there is unity in pursuing commercial development. The two top priorities for the City Council are the golf course issues and commercial development. Once those fiscal issues are resolved, the Council can look at other issues, such as recreation.
C. Perry asked the applicants what differentiates them from each other. Also, given a choice between supporting what the majority of residents want or what they believe is the best decision, which would they choose?
Steve Kroes: Mr. Kroes said that he has observed public policy making for the past 16 years. He has seen things happen that can make citizens distrust their government. He puts a lot of stock in trust. As an example, he said that there were legitimate reasons for grading the land at the proposed Bayhill Public Works site, but those reasons were not presented to the residents. If he has an opinion that goes against the majority, he doesn’t know what will happen every time. He is willing to be convinced of another point of view. However, if he believes he is right, he will not flip flop because of public opinion.
Joel Wright: Mr. Wrights said he loves the election process and feels he would be a bit deficient if he were appointed. Consequently, he would triple his efforts to communicate with residents and gain their trust. He likes public discourse where there is an exchange of opinion and feedback. He feels democracy is sacred. He said that knowing when to lead and when to follow is difficult. If you are going to lead, you need to be sure you have done your research. If you think the majority of residents are wrong, you need to get out there and let them know what you think, and let them know you have also listened to them.
C. Bowman asked the candidates why they did not run for a Council seat in the fall and if they would run in two years.
Joel Wright: Mr. Wright said that he was very focused on the initiative debate and was one of the first members of the Concerned Citizens of Cedar Hills. He said that of the group that was involved in the initiative debate, Eric Richardson stood out as the leader that was best poised to run. He focused on supporting Eric and Charelle’s candidacy. He said that he would feel a need to run in two years.
Steve Kroes: Mr. Kroes said he didn’t run because he supported Eric and Charelle. He said that in the past, the time has not been right for him to commit because of family and other responsibilities. He and his wife both feel that now is a good time. He will run in 2007.
C. Richardson said that often the City Council has to balance conflicting needs. For example the commercial district is hoped for by most residents and not just for convenience but also for the revenue. On the other hand, the design guidelines may limit the initial financial impact. mentioned that the The needs of different neighborhoods of the City may be are often at conflict with each other. He asked the candidates how they would approach a proposal for from a large WalMart with large revenue potential, but also design flaws.
Steve Kroes: Mr. Kroes said that the WalMart proposal of 2002 was a 150,000 square foot store. The developer kept saying the Design Guidelines were just guidelines. But Mr. Kroes felt that residents were engaged in the guidelines process and it was important to keep faith with the residents. There would have been some great revenue, but it didn’t fit the process. Revenue was not worth breaking faith with the citizens. He also felt that there was financial risk in allowing a big box in a neighborhood commercial zone.
Joel Wright: Mr. Wright said that he is likely less attached to the guidelines than Steve Kroes or Eric Richardson. He feels the guidelines are a great starting point, but because there is not a liquid market of potential commercial anchors, at some point the City should take the best deal it can get. The long-term consequences of not having commercial is big.
Mayor McGee asked the applicants where they lived before moving to Cedar Hills and for how long. Also, what has been their interest level in City Council meetings over the past year?
Joel Wright: Mr. Wright grew up in Provo and attended Brigham Young University. He lived in New York for five years, and Washington D.C. for three years. After that he lived in American Fork and Pleasant Grove. His interest in Council meetings has mostly involved the initiatives. He first came to a meeting in May and heard the negative dialogue surrounding the initiatives and then got involved. He has been very involved on the public forum.
Steve Kroes: Before moving to Cedar Hills, Mr. Kroes lived in Roseville, CA. Before that, he lived in Sacramento for seven years. He is a BYU graduate and went to graduate school at USC. While at USC, he lived in Pasadena. He has been in Cedar Hills for the past five years. He has not attended a lot of Council meetings but has been in touch with Council members. He came to some meetings during the debate on the initiatives.
C. Richardson asked the candidates their plans between tonight and July 15, 2007, regardless of the outcome.
Steve Kroes: If he is not appointed, Mr. Kroes said he intends to attend more meetings and continue with his Planning Commission duties. If appointed, he will be here attending meetings and gathering public input.
Joel Wright: Mr. Wright said there are three aspects to life: family, work, religion. Work includes professional work and volunteer work. He is a community activist and currently serves as the legislative district chair for the Republican Party for Pleasant Grove and Cedar Hills. He will stay involved in that. He said that most people view city government like what is inside their stomach. If it is working right, they don’t think about it. He would come to meetings when he sees something of interest. Otherwise, he would continue to be on the public forum.
Discussion from Council:
C. Bowman said that she felt both candidates are very qualified and have demonstrated great involvement. The Planning Commission serves as a great preparation for City Council, though isn’t necessary as evidenced by the fact only C. Richardson has served on the Planning Commission. She said that she appreciates the applicants’ involvement in the community. C. Lowder said that the Council faces a tough decision. He has received e-mails from supporters of both applicants. They both bring great experience to the table. Mayor McGee said that he has received phone calls from several individuals endorsing both candidates. Lieutenant Governor Herbert spoke highly of Steve Kroes. Marian Monahan, Utah Republican Party Chair, called to endorse Joel Wright. C. Perry said that he knows and loves both men and feels they are both great candidates. He said that the law requires a year of residency to have continuity and experience in the community. That is where Steve Kroes has an edge.
MOTION: C. Perry - To appoint Steve Kroes as the City Council member. Seconded by C. Richardson.
C. Richardson said that C. Parker will be missed by many. One thing C. Parker brought up is that there are certain segments of the City that are currently under served and that there is a need for those residents to be served. C. Richardson feels that representation from many segments of the City would add diversity to the Council. He said that the decision is tough because he feels unworthy to judge the two candidates. C. Richardson ran on a clear platform and what qualified him was involvement. Both candidates have involvement. The difference is just a matter of time. C. Lowder clarified for the candidates that a nay vote is simply a preference. He said that he feels enthusiasm is important and has never met anybody as enthusiastic as Joel. C. Perry said that he is 99 percent certain he will vote for both in 2007.
Vote taken by roll call. Aye - C. Perry
Mayor McGee said that both candidates are highly qualified and respectable. His decision on the vote was based on a few things. He was intrigued by references made to C. Parker and segments he represented. While it is good that those segments be heard, they don’t necessarily have a right to be represented. In an election that probably wouldn’t happen. Mayor McGee likes C. Parker. C. Parker was the one that nominated him to the position of Mayor. As people have submitted applications for various positions in the City, people don’t understand what is going on when the Mayor makes an appointment. He hopes people will understand that only one person can be picked.
Nay - Mayor McGee Motion fails.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To appoint Joel Wright as City Council member. Seconded by C. Bowman.
C. Richardson said he can fully support Mr. Wright. He hopes to see Mr. Kroes involved as well. Mayor McGee said that he thinks very highly of Mr. Kroes. He asked him to remain on the Planning Commission and maybe run for Mayor in four years.
Vote taken by roll call. Aye - C. Bowman
C. Richardson Motion passes.
Joel Wright was sworn in by Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To move Item #12 in front of Item #5. Seconded by C. Bowman.
C. Wright Motion passes.
12. Review/Action on Amendment to the Zone Map to Change a Portion of Area Currently in the H-1 Hillside Development Zone to the Public Facilities zone. The Property is Located at Approximately 10300 North between Canyon Road and Bayhill Drive (9:45 p.m.)
See handouts. There were about nine sites studied, five extensively. The Public Works building has been funded in the budget for the last two years. Staff has worked to try to finish the facility in this year’s budget. David Bunker does not feel it is possible to finish the building by the end of June. He handed out a plausible time line. The first step would be to change the zoning from H-1 Hillside to Public Facilities. The best estimate would be completion by the end of July. There has been a suggestion to just zone the footprint to Public Facilities and leave the rest of the site remain in the H-1 Hillside Development Zone. The Public Facilities Zone is more restrictive. The recommendation is to zone the entire parcel Public Facilities.
C. Perry said that the Council has fully met all Public Hearing requirements, but the Council could have done a better job of informing and educating the public. While the Council has done much over the past few weeks to earn back trust from the lack of communication, he feels it could earn more trust by waiting to change the zoning until the plan is complete. C. Bowman echoed C. Perry’s comments and said she would like to give the public time to see the plans as well. C. Richardson asked if the Planning Commission can review the site plan even if the area is not rezoned. It was decided that they could. C. Richardson feels comfortable with the site but feels it is important to get public input.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To table the request to amend the zone map to Change a Portion of Area Currently in the H-1Hillside Development Zone to the Public Facilities Zone until the next regularly scheduled meeting. Seconded by C. Bowman.
C. Wright said that with public input, the City can create a beautiful building, especially if it has a pocket park around it. He also felt that by involving the public, the Council can create positive sentiment. C. Perry said he would like people to know exactly what is being proposed. Kim Holindrake asked the Council to get in touch with those residents that they have been communicating with on this issue. There are laws for noticing items and going beyond the notice requirements creates a precedence that would have to be followed in the future. The City cannot do additional noticing requirements without following the same format later. C. Richardson said that the item does not need to be renoticed, but would like to see residents given time to think about what was presented tonight. C. Bowman pointed out that this is the first time this has been brought to a regularly scheduled Council meeting. Kim Holindrake clarified that all noticing requirements were met for this meeting. The consensus of the Council is that although this item was properly and adequately noticed, it would be better to allow more resident input and postpone making a decision. They would like to see a Public Hearing combining the zone change and the site plan. In order to address the site plan, the Planning Commission needs to make its recommendation to the Council move it along.
C. Wright Motion passes.
C. Perry would like to see a site plan that includes some enhancements, such as berms, landscaping and a pocket park.
5. Review/Action on Board/Committee Appointments – Golf Committee (10:04 p.m.)
See handouts. There is one vacancy on the Golf Course Advisory Committee. The City received five applications. Mayor McGee recommended appointing Paul Wright, who has run golf courses and helped manage them. C. Bowman asked if candidates are informed of the meeting when the appointment would be made. Kim Holindrake said that all candidates are informed. C. Perry thanked Mayor McGee for providing his reasoning for the appointment. He asked that the reasoning be included in the memo so the Council can come to the meeting better prepared.
MOTION: C. Perry - To affirm Mayor McGee’s recommendation and appoint Paul Wright to the Golf Course Advisory Committee with a term ending December 31, 2009. Seconded by C. Lowder.
C. Wright Motion passes.
6. Report from RC Management Regarding the Cedar Hills Golf Course (10:10 p.m.)
See handouts. Cecil Read reported on the golf course. The January numbers were low because the course was only open on 12 days. Golf rounds increased from 22,172 in 2004 to 27,452 in 2005 and year-to-date fiscal 2006 are at 15,783. Showing a positive trend increase. The golf course lost $20,996 in 2004 and lost $7,761 in 2005. The Golf Committee has met and worked on marketing and tournament leads. Cecil Read said the Golf Committee seems to be doing a good job.
7. Review/Action Regarding RC Management Contract (10:13 p.m.)
See handouts. A few weeks ago, RC Management came to a Council meeting and discussed the continuance of their contract with the City. The existing contract terminated January 2006. The Council requested some incentive clauses be added to the contract. RC Management would like to leave the contract as is with the addition of the incentives. They would also like to take the $2,000 per month from a separate line item from payroll and make the contract a two-year term. C. Wright asked why the contract isn’t being renewed until after it had expired. Konrad Hildebrandt said that there was no concrete reason. Cecil Read said that RC Management wanted to wait until they had all the numbers so that the Council could see improvement from last year. C. Perry said that he would like to see something more aggressive for incentives, such as incentive for anything over 25,000 rounds. Mr. Read explained that he wanted to simplify the incentive program. Eric Johnson said that because the golf course is financed by tax exempt bonds the IRS has put restrictions on private management. Any incentive program should be reviewed by the City Attorney. The concern is with profit sharing. Eric Johnson requested that he review the incentive structure before any action is taken. C. Perry said he would also like to see incentives for saving costs. He said the RC Management has done a great job at saving costs, but isn’t receiving the benefit. Cecil Read said that he does not want something built in that would jeopardize the quality of the course to save money. RC Management proposed offsetting management costs by increasing the weekday rate, increasing the weekend rate, adding Sundays to the weekend rate and increasing the Sunset Room rental costs. C. Perry said that he would like to see an in-depth analysis of lease rates and terms to discuss at another meeting.
MOTION: C. Lowder - To table this item, pending legal counsel’s review of its structure and compliance with IRS regulations. No second. Motion dies.
C. Perry said he would like to see something more aggressive – less on the low end, more on the high end.
MOTION: C. Lowder - To table the contract pending legal counsel review for compliance with IRS regulations. Seconded by C. Wright.
C. Wright Motion passes.
8. Review Action on a Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Not More than $1,500,000 Aggregate Principal Amount of Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2006 for the Purpose of Financing the Costs of Acquiring and Constructing a Public Works Facility; Calling a Public Hearing; Providing for a Pledge of Excise Tax Revenues for Repayment of the bonds; Providing for the Running of a Contest Period; and Related Matters (10:45 p.m.)
See handouts. This parameters resolution is for the issuance of not more than $1.5 million of excise tax revenue bonds for the construction of a Public Works Building. Approving a parameters resolution does not approve bonds; it sets parameters. This has been in the Capital Improvements Plan for years. The City has been putting away money for the construction of a Public Works Building; there is about $500,000 in the franchise fees account. Not all of this money is earmarked for the Public Works Building, but a bulk of it can be used toward the building. Staff feels that this parameters resolution will easily hold the costs of the building. C. Perry said that unless the City builds on property currently owned by the City, $1.5 million will not cover the costs. He is reluctant to approve the parameters resolution without knowing that it will be sufficient. It presumes a decision that has not been made regarding the location of the Public Works building.
MOTION: C.Perry - To table this item. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Mark Edminster said that waiting a couple of weeks will not be a problem. He emphasized that this does not obligate the City, but starts the process. C. Richardson asked who covers the cost if the process starts but the bonds are not ultimately issued. It was clarified that the City assumes those costs. C. Richardson felt that unless the City is sure it is going to move forward, it should not expend the fees. Eric Johnson said that one solution would be to increase the parameter that would cover costs. The Council was not in favor of that idea. There is some interest rate risk for not moving forward. Mark Edminster said that there is not a lot of pressure for the rates to go up in the next few weeks. Konrad Hildebrandt pointed out that the City is incurring costs with grading, architectural drawings, etc. When the City Council declares its intention to issue a bond, the City can look back 60 days and include those costs in the bond. Anything before that cannot be rolled into the bond. Engineering is an exception. C. Perry pointed out that there is money in the franchise fees to cover those costs.
C. Wright Motion passes.
Standard and Poor’s gave the City an “A” rating for the utilities bond. Fitch also gave the City an “A” rating. The Council would like a press release letting the public know of the great rating the City received and the cost savings involved.
9. Review/Action on Amendments to the 2005-2006 Fiscal Year Budget (11:08 p.m.)
See handouts. The audit was included in the budget, but it was underbudgeted by about $12,000. It’s actual cost was $32,000. An additional $3,500 for the code enforcement officer will take the City through the end of the year.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve the amended FY2006 budget. Seconded by C. Lowder.
C. Perry clarified that money was budgeted for events, but it now needs to be identified for Family First.
C. Wright Motion passes.
10. Report on Fiscal Year 2007 Budget (July 1, 206-June 30, 2007) (11:14 p.m.)
See handouts. To project revenue, City staff looks at growth. Fiscal Year 2007 projects 200 new households.
• The projected property tax is a rough number at this point. The City needs to wait for a Certified Tax Rate from the County.
• Revenues increase by 17.3 percent from Fiscal Year 2006 to Fiscal Year 2007.
• Water/Sewer funds budget increased by 14 percent. David Bunker explained the water relationship that Cedar Hills has with American Fork. Cedar Hills use to depend on American Fork for water. Once the Harvey Well was installed, the connection to American Fork is rarely used. American Fork was charging Lone Peak High School for their water although Cedar Hills physically provides that water. Cedar Hills has billed American Fork for the high school’s water. American Fork would prefer that Cedar Hills take the water from their water line. This needs to be addressed with American Fork and the agreement modified.
11. Review/Action on Amendments to the City Code Section 10-1-1 Relating to the Formal Title of the Zoning Ordinance and Section 10-1-7 Relating to the Process for Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Map (11:31 p.m.)
See handouts. In May, the State passed Senate Bill 60, making changes to land use issues. Previously when a land use issue came before a city, a Public Hearing wasn’t held until it came before the City Council. Now, the Public Hearing is required before the Planning Commission, so the public has an earlier view of the issue. The Planning Commission felt that the City Council should also have a public hearing. C. Perry was at the Planning Commission meeting where there was 90 minutes of discussion on this issue. He feels comfortable approving the ordinance.
MOTION: C. Perry - To approve Ordinance No. 2-21-2006A, An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the City Code of the City of Cedar Hills Relating to the Formal Title of the Zoning Ordinance and Relating to Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Zone Map. Seconded by C. Lowder. Vote taken by roll call.
C. Richardson said he was also in the Planning Commission meeting when this was discussed. Part of the motion included a little bit different language saying, “pursuant to the policy of Cedar Hills, but no less than 24 hours.” Kim Holindrake said that State Code already requires no less than 24 hours for noticing. C. Richardson said that the Planning Commission’s recommendation included that the notice be not just no less than 24 hours, but that the City follow its policies and notice as soon as possible. C. Perry feels that is redundant. He asked when there would be a situation when the City would have a Public Hearing that was not pursuant to the policy. If the City has a policy, that is what it does. He said it seems silly to say, “We will follow our policy.” C. Richardson asked where the policy is located that states that the City will notice sooner than 24 hours, if possible. Kim Holindrake said that the City Code, as it currently stands, does not require the City to do any more than what the State Code requires. The City follows State law but notices go out the same day as packets. C. Wright suggested that rather than making it mandatory, allow the Planning Commission to recommend another Public Hearing before the Council. C. Perry said that this is not the place to set policy about noticing.
C. Wright Motion passes.
13. Review/Action on Release of Durability for The Cedars, Plat F (11:43 p.m.)
See handouts. The Council originally tabled this item because the sidewalk had not been completed. C. Lowder added that the Council tabled the item because a resident sent pictures of incomplete items. David Bunker stated that everything is complete. Discussion about deficiencies throughout The Cedars development.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To deny release of the durability bond pending correction of the deficiencies shown in pictures in Exhibit A-D and fulfillment of Lone Peak Links Development Agreement regarding The Cedars, Plat I. Seconded by C. Perry.
David Bunker said that all the issues have been addressed. The sidewalk is in and there is sod along the edge of the sidewalk. The temporary power pedestal is not in this plat. There is a separate bond for that issue. Legally, the City cannot withhold releasing durability for something outside of Plat F. If the items for which the bond is held are complete, the City has no legal basis for withholding.
AMEND MOTION: C. Richardson - To table the item pending legal review. Accepted and seconded by C. Perry.
The Council has already agreed that nothing will happen to Plat I until the CC&Rs are recorded. Kim Holindrake said that a Notice of Interest can be recorded on every lot in Plat I. Konrad Hildebrandt said that the Council can continue to table this item and let Lone Peak Links know it will not be approved until the Development Agreement has been fulfilled with regards to Plat I.
C. Wright Motion fails.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To table this item. Seconded by C. Perry.
C. Wright Motion passes.
14. Review/Action on Final Acceptance of Subdivision Improvements and Beginning of Durability for Mountaintop Trails (11:55 p.m.)
See handouts. This is a five-lot subdivision. Durability is just starting though improvements have been done for some time. The list has been growing as the developers have taken too long getting everything done.
MOTION: C. Richardson –To approve acceptance of subdivision improvements, release of the performance guarantee, and the start of the durability period for Mountaintop Trails. Seconded by C. Perry.
C. Wright Motion passes.
15. City Manager Report and Discussion (11:56 p.m.)
16. Board and Committee Reports (11: p.m.)
C. Perry - Lone Peak Public Safety District is meeting Thursday morning.
C. Lowder - There was poor turnout by Cedar Hills residents to the Family First event.
C. Wright - UTOPIA is going well. The network has reached a stability and maturity level where businesses are more comfortable. The network needs more maturity before UTOPIA can make it to Cedar Hills. The City has looked at its franchise agreement with Comcast. They should will be expanding their lines in Cedar Hills. This could potentially increase franchise fees.
C. Bowman - Only two committee members showed up to the Parks and Trails Committee meeting. Staff hopes to have the Canyon Heights Park on the agenda for March 21.
David Bunker - Regarding the landslide, Goulder sent their report to Amec. Frances Ashland feels the City has a 60-day period before the ground water rises. Goulder approved the concept, but asked for more detail. Amec is trying to figure out funding. The City needs to send a letter to Amec applying pressure to get the mitigation done quickly.
C. Lowder excused - 12:10 a.m.
A City Council meeting is scheduled for March 21. That is also the night of the Republican and Democratic Caucus meeting. The Council meeting will be moved to March 22.
17. Motion to go into Executive Session, Pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-5
18. Motion to Adjourn Executive Session and Reconvene City Council Meeting
No Executive Session held.
19. Review/Action Regarding City Manager’s Contract
20. This meeting was adjourned at 12:17 a.m. on a motion by C. Richardson, seconded by C. Perry unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
Approved by Council:
March 7, 2006