Here is the list of meetings for 2012. Each meeting begins at 7:00pm.
January - 3rd and 17th
February - 7th and 21st
March - 6th and 20th
April - 3rd
May - 1st and 15th
June - 5th and 19th
July - 10th
August - 7th and 21st
September - 4th and 18th
October - 2nd and 16th
November - 13th
December - 4th
Thursday, December 8, 2011
Council Meeting - December 6, 2011
Public Comment
Angela Johnson - Asked the Council to not start a municipal court and to not build a civic center. She feels that the money that has been saved up for a civic center should be used for something else and that the Fire Department does not need use of the entire Public Safety building.
Temporary Vendors - Discussion Item
The Council had asked the Planning Commission to make changes to the current code that will allow temporary vendors to do business in Cedar Hills (such as shaved ice, farmers markets, fireworks stands, Christmas tree lots, etc.). The Planning Commission has made changes and presented for approval. Some of the key points:
Assisted Living Group Homes - Discussion Item
Jared Osmond had come to the Council previously requesting changes in the code that would allow for assisted living homes in residential areas. These facilities would house elderly people who needed full-time onsite care. Some of the key points:
CARE Tax Funds for Community Recreation Center
The Community Recreation Center is scheduled to be open in 2012 and staff plan on offering a variety of recreational classes immediately. The Council was asked to approve the use of up to $20,000 of CARE tax funds to purchase equipment needed for these classes. Equipment would include things such as floor mats, yoga mats, exercise balls, hand weights, aerobic steps, etc. There is currently approximately $70,000 of CARE tax funds available and these funds are for parks and recreation. Staff plan on adding additional types of equipment, such as treadmills and spinning cycles once the basement of the rec center is completed. The Council approved the request for up to $20,000 to be spent on equipment.
Other items related to the rec center were discussed as well. Instructors are currently being interviewed and the plan is that all instructors will be contracted by the City to offer classes, they will not be hired on as city employees. The rec center will offer the space and some equipment, but all other equipment that may be needed for a class will need to be provided by the instructor. The Council made it clear that the classes offered needed to cover not only the cost of the instructor but also the cost of equipment purchased by the City. While the City will cover the upfront purchasing, the revenue generated needs to cover the equipment costs over the lifetime of the equipment.
Dissolution of Manila Water Company
The Manila Water Company is a small privately held company that has been providing water services to some residents in both Cedar Hills and Pleasant Grove. This company wants to dissolve and wants CH and PG to provide necessary services to their respective residents. This process has been going on for many years and CH and PG have not yet been able to come to an agreement. The concern is that PG currently operates Manila Water Company and so the longer this drags on, the more CH has lost over the years. A new agreement has been presented by PG and some of the key points are:
With all fire stations within Lone Peak Public Safety (LPPSD) now fully staffed the costs have risen and the Board decided to revisit how this would be funded and how each city (Cedar Hills, Alpine, and Highland) would be represented. A new agreement between the cities was created and contain the following:
1) The original agreement stated that the funding was based on population for EMS services and by property values for fire services. The new agreement assigns each city a 10% base fee, then 45% based on population and 45% based on Equivalent Residential Units (ERU's) for schools and commercial areas. 10,000 square feet equals 1 ERU.
2) The Board will consist of 7 representatives - 3 from Highland, 2 from Alpine, and 2 from Cedar Hills.
3) This new funding setup will go into effect on July 1, 2012.
This new agreement will result in an increase of $122,000 for Cedar Hills. This is a big jump for the City, but if we had not come to some sort of agreement with Highland and Alpine then the LPPSD could potentially be dissolved, leaving us with a bigger financial burden if we needed to create our own fire and EMS departments. Concessions were made by all so as to keep the LPPSD together. The new agreement was approved by the Council.
2012 Council Meeting Schedule
The meeting schedule for 2012 was approved with one change. I will post the meeting schedule in a separate entry.
Appointments to Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment
There are some openings that need to be filled on both groups. Mayor Richardson is still working on this so this item has been moved to January.
Civic Center and Splash Pad - Discussion Item
Both of these items have been approved in the 2012 budget, but the Council wanted to just mention a few points on each.
The Splash Pad will be funded by recreation impact fees, and $350,000 has been approved for this. However, nothing further has yet been done. There has not been a decision on where this will be located.
Building a new Civic Center would allow the Fire Department to have the entire Public Safety building for their use. According to Chief Freeman the FD does need additional space. Currently, they do not have any separate female facilities so cannot house and female firefighters (LPPSD does have female firefighters). They also do not have a physical training room, though each firefighter is required by law to engage in physical training every day on the job. Moving city employees out of the Public Safety building would allow the FD to create the space they need. However, the Council has not yet determined when or where to build a new Civic Center. There is the potential that employees could be moved to the Public Works building and the current plan is that City Council meetings could occur at the Community Recreation Center.
Discussion on these two items will be ongoing and no plans for either are currently in the works.
Audio files for council meetings are generally available one week after the meeting and can be found at www.cedarhills.org.
Have an item to discuss? Please join us on the online forum at www.aboutcedarhills.org.
Angela Johnson - Asked the Council to not start a municipal court and to not build a civic center. She feels that the money that has been saved up for a civic center should be used for something else and that the Fire Department does not need use of the entire Public Safety building.
Temporary Vendors - Discussion Item
The Council had asked the Planning Commission to make changes to the current code that will allow temporary vendors to do business in Cedar Hills (such as shaved ice, farmers markets, fireworks stands, Christmas tree lots, etc.). The Planning Commission has made changes and presented for approval. Some of the key points:
- Maximum duration is 6 months
- Approval through Zoning Administrator
- Only allowed in commercially zoned areas
Assisted Living Group Homes - Discussion Item
Jared Osmond had come to the Council previously requesting changes in the code that would allow for assisted living homes in residential areas. These facilities would house elderly people who needed full-time onsite care. Some of the key points:
- Homes cannot house more than 8 individuals unless approval is received by the zoning official. Even then, no more than 16 individuals can occupy the facility and having more than 8 requires additional personal and common space.
- The facility will only be occupied by individuals 60 years of age and older as well as paid professional staff.
- At least 3 off-street parking stalls are required and more may be necessary depending upon occupancy and visitors.
- Facilities must be at least 1/4 mile away from each other.
- Potential impact fees if the city will incur infrastructure costs to support these facilities.
- Signage regulations
- Calculation for more than 3 off-street parking stalls, if needed.
- Regulations on house pets.
CARE Tax Funds for Community Recreation Center
The Community Recreation Center is scheduled to be open in 2012 and staff plan on offering a variety of recreational classes immediately. The Council was asked to approve the use of up to $20,000 of CARE tax funds to purchase equipment needed for these classes. Equipment would include things such as floor mats, yoga mats, exercise balls, hand weights, aerobic steps, etc. There is currently approximately $70,000 of CARE tax funds available and these funds are for parks and recreation. Staff plan on adding additional types of equipment, such as treadmills and spinning cycles once the basement of the rec center is completed. The Council approved the request for up to $20,000 to be spent on equipment.
Other items related to the rec center were discussed as well. Instructors are currently being interviewed and the plan is that all instructors will be contracted by the City to offer classes, they will not be hired on as city employees. The rec center will offer the space and some equipment, but all other equipment that may be needed for a class will need to be provided by the instructor. The Council made it clear that the classes offered needed to cover not only the cost of the instructor but also the cost of equipment purchased by the City. While the City will cover the upfront purchasing, the revenue generated needs to cover the equipment costs over the lifetime of the equipment.
Dissolution of Manila Water Company
The Manila Water Company is a small privately held company that has been providing water services to some residents in both Cedar Hills and Pleasant Grove. This company wants to dissolve and wants CH and PG to provide necessary services to their respective residents. This process has been going on for many years and CH and PG have not yet been able to come to an agreement. The concern is that PG currently operates Manila Water Company and so the longer this drags on, the more CH has lost over the years. A new agreement has been presented by PG and some of the key points are:
- Cash assets will first be used to make necessary changes to the water system to allow each city to have an independent system and complete to each City's comparable service system, including meters.
- After the systems are made independent, PG will be reimbursed $134,022 for costs they incurred while maintaining Manila Water System.
- Any cash balance left after that will be split per number of users on the system, which will be PG getting 92.7% and CH getting 7.3%.
- PG will be given the water tank and 2 water wells with CH being compensated 7.3% of the value of the wells, which PG has determined to be $149,259 (CH portion would then be $10,895).
- Water rights associated with each property will be acquired by the City in which that resident resides.
- There are a handful of residents in both CH and PG that are hooked up to the other City's water lines. These residents will continue to be provided water as is, yet will be billed by the city in which they reside.
With all fire stations within Lone Peak Public Safety (LPPSD) now fully staffed the costs have risen and the Board decided to revisit how this would be funded and how each city (Cedar Hills, Alpine, and Highland) would be represented. A new agreement between the cities was created and contain the following:
1) The original agreement stated that the funding was based on population for EMS services and by property values for fire services. The new agreement assigns each city a 10% base fee, then 45% based on population and 45% based on Equivalent Residential Units (ERU's) for schools and commercial areas. 10,000 square feet equals 1 ERU.
2) The Board will consist of 7 representatives - 3 from Highland, 2 from Alpine, and 2 from Cedar Hills.
3) This new funding setup will go into effect on July 1, 2012.
This new agreement will result in an increase of $122,000 for Cedar Hills. This is a big jump for the City, but if we had not come to some sort of agreement with Highland and Alpine then the LPPSD could potentially be dissolved, leaving us with a bigger financial burden if we needed to create our own fire and EMS departments. Concessions were made by all so as to keep the LPPSD together. The new agreement was approved by the Council.
2012 Council Meeting Schedule
The meeting schedule for 2012 was approved with one change. I will post the meeting schedule in a separate entry.
Appointments to Planning Commission and Board of Adjustment
There are some openings that need to be filled on both groups. Mayor Richardson is still working on this so this item has been moved to January.
Civic Center and Splash Pad - Discussion Item
Both of these items have been approved in the 2012 budget, but the Council wanted to just mention a few points on each.
The Splash Pad will be funded by recreation impact fees, and $350,000 has been approved for this. However, nothing further has yet been done. There has not been a decision on where this will be located.
Building a new Civic Center would allow the Fire Department to have the entire Public Safety building for their use. According to Chief Freeman the FD does need additional space. Currently, they do not have any separate female facilities so cannot house and female firefighters (LPPSD does have female firefighters). They also do not have a physical training room, though each firefighter is required by law to engage in physical training every day on the job. Moving city employees out of the Public Safety building would allow the FD to create the space they need. However, the Council has not yet determined when or where to build a new Civic Center. There is the potential that employees could be moved to the Public Works building and the current plan is that City Council meetings could occur at the Community Recreation Center.
Discussion on these two items will be ongoing and no plans for either are currently in the works.
Audio files for council meetings are generally available one week after the meeting and can be found at www.cedarhills.org.
Have an item to discuss? Please join us on the online forum at www.aboutcedarhills.org.
Thursday, November 24, 2011
November 22, 2011 - Special Council Meeting
A special meeting was called by the council specifically to discuss the golf course operations and to get a better understanding of the details on some of the golf course financials. Konrad (City Manager) provided a partial history of the golf course and spent a considerable amount of time going through the most recent Statement of Cash Flows to provide specific information on how money is coming in and going out of the golf fund. There is frustration that money has been used from other funds to cover golf course losses and there hasn't been adequate communication on how this was occurring. At the end of the meeting it was evident that the city needs to provide the following:
I have met with Konrad on a few separate occasions and he has given me a detailed explanation of the history of the golf course, which I think is helpful in understanding how we ended up with it, what has happened over the years, what options we've tried and what has and hasn't worked. I am working on putting together a summary of the history that I will post on this blog so that any resident who is interested can gain a better understanding of what has happened over the years.
The council will continue to meet on this issue and the mayor has already stated that a special committee will be formed to address many of the concerns that have been raised over the past few months.
You can listen to the audio of this meeting at http://www.cedarhills.org/.
Have questions or further discussion? Please join us on our online forum at http://www.aboutcedarhills.org/.
- Better explanations on the finance terminology being used so that those who don't have accounting backgrounds can still understand the golf finances;
- A simpler format to share information with residents so that it is clear how the golf course is doing;
- A brief history of the golf course that provides insight into how we got to where we are now;
- Explanations as to what the golf course offers to residents other than an opportunity to golf, specifically the PI system and storm retention.
I have met with Konrad on a few separate occasions and he has given me a detailed explanation of the history of the golf course, which I think is helpful in understanding how we ended up with it, what has happened over the years, what options we've tried and what has and hasn't worked. I am working on putting together a summary of the history that I will post on this blog so that any resident who is interested can gain a better understanding of what has happened over the years.
The council will continue to meet on this issue and the mayor has already stated that a special committee will be formed to address many of the concerns that have been raised over the past few months.
You can listen to the audio of this meeting at http://www.cedarhills.org/.
Have questions or further discussion? Please join us on our online forum at http://www.aboutcedarhills.org/.
Wednesday, November 16, 2011
Council Meeting - November 15, 2011
There were four scheduled items on the agenda for this meeting.
2011 Fiscal Year Audit
The City's independent auditor, Allred Jackson, has completed their audit for fiscal year 2011 and Diana Cannell attended the meeting to present her findings. She covered a few of the financial statements and answered questions from both the council and residents in attendance. This discussion included the use of impact fees and Ms. Cannell confirmed that she had previously informed Cedar Hills that we were in jeopardy of losing recreation impact fees as the 6 year time frame was almost up, and she also confirmed that a letter was filed with the State that included our plans and timeline for using those impact fees. There was some discussion regarding the confusion surrounding the wording used on the golf course financials, specifically the term "outstanding checks in excess of deposits". Ms. Cannell seemed surprised that this would cause confusion as she said it is a common term used not only for government finance documents, but also a common term in a for-profit business. Nevertheless, she indicated the City could change the terminology if it would provide more understanding for those reviewing the financial documents. On a side note, during the public comment period one resident requested that the mayor form a committee to explore the golf course financials in more detail and provide input to the council. I believe this would be a wise thing to do and I know that everyone agrees that the City needs to provide more detail to residents and do so in an easy to understand format.
During the audit there was one finding made - The City's unreserved fund balance in the general fund exceeded the maximum amount allowed by State law. Ms. Cannell made the recommendation that the City transfer funds before the balance approaches 18% and the City has determined that excess funds will be transferred to the Capital Projects Fund. Ms. Cannell recognized our Finance Director, Rebecca Tehero, for the wonderful job she does and stated that Rebecca is one of the most knowledgeable people she has worked with in this field.
2011 Municipal General Election
During the public comment period there were many residents who expressed concern over the election. The most common concern was that poll watchers were not able to see the actual ballots as they were being counted. Concern was expressed by one resident that the poll worker calling out names in one precinct struggled with the difference of "Gary" and "Jerry". In an earlier written statement made by some of the candidates, there was concern expressed over the fact that city employees and spouses of current council members were used as poll workers. While no poll watcher had any specific complaints or concerns with regards to fraudulent activities, many residents asked that the City do a recount of the ballots to ensure the results were accurate and to give closure to any misgivings. I personally do not have an issue with candidates pursuing a recount if they feel there are any concerns with how the election was handled. I believe that the poll workers all acted appropriately and I have no doubts as to the validity of the outcome, but if there is any doubt amongst candidates then I support their efforts in pursuing a recount.
The election officer, Kim Holindrake, presented her findings. She contacted the county as well as the office of the Lieutenant Governor to get input and was told that the candidates were not eligible for a recount based on Utah law and that the City had no authority to do one; the ballot boxes can only be opened at the order of a district court judge. The mayor contacted multiple attorneys for opinion and was given the same information. Based upon the findings that a) the candidates didn't quality for a recount, b) there were no specific accusations made of any wrongdoing, c) there was nothing illegal or inappropriate in having city employees perform the duties of a poll worker, and d) the City had no authority to do a recount, the mayor and council proceeded to canvass the general election results. The final numbers were as follows:
Trent Augustus - 958
Ken Cromar - 816
Jerry Dearinger - 912
Gary Gygi - 1082
Jenney Rees - 1001
Paul Sorensen - 918
One final note, the three candidates who did not win the election have asked the City to pursue a recount through the courts. The mayor and council explained that they had no basis to request a recount and a judge was not likely to grant their request as such. However, at the suggestion of a resident the mayor agreed to provide a letter to the three candidates stating that he had no concerns with their requesting a recount. This letter was drafted today and signed by myself, Gary Gygi, Mayor Eric Richardson, and Councilmember Jim Perry. This letter will be given to those candidates who wish to pursue a recount on their own.
Municipal Court
Cedar Hills contracts with American Fork for police services. There has been some change in the court system which no longer allows any Cedar Hills cases to be reviewed at the American Fork courthouse and so officers and residents have to travel to Provo for court hearings. Because this puts an added cost and time strain on the American Fork police department they have requested that Cedar Hills apply for a Class III Justice Court. The benefit to this is that it would bring added revenue to the city (currently revenue generated from citations and such given in Cedar Hills is going to American Fork) and eliminate the need for officers to travel to Provo for court cases. However, there would also be added costs as the City would need to provide a part time clerk, a judge, and certain other requirements. The council has asked Konrad (City Manager) to provide additional information on the fiscal impact of this decision and will discuss this further at a later time.
City Manager Report
The main item discussed during this time was the Cedar Hills Commerical and Civic Center concept plan provided by Konrad. The council expressed concern over this plan as it may lead residents to believe that it is a definite course of action instead of just an idea of what could be. No definite decisions have been made for this area.
You can listen to the complete audio of this meeting by going to www.cedarhills.org. These audio files are generally available one week after the meeting.
Have a thought to discuss? Join us on the online forum at www.aboutcedarhills.org.
2011 Fiscal Year Audit
The City's independent auditor, Allred Jackson, has completed their audit for fiscal year 2011 and Diana Cannell attended the meeting to present her findings. She covered a few of the financial statements and answered questions from both the council and residents in attendance. This discussion included the use of impact fees and Ms. Cannell confirmed that she had previously informed Cedar Hills that we were in jeopardy of losing recreation impact fees as the 6 year time frame was almost up, and she also confirmed that a letter was filed with the State that included our plans and timeline for using those impact fees. There was some discussion regarding the confusion surrounding the wording used on the golf course financials, specifically the term "outstanding checks in excess of deposits". Ms. Cannell seemed surprised that this would cause confusion as she said it is a common term used not only for government finance documents, but also a common term in a for-profit business. Nevertheless, she indicated the City could change the terminology if it would provide more understanding for those reviewing the financial documents. On a side note, during the public comment period one resident requested that the mayor form a committee to explore the golf course financials in more detail and provide input to the council. I believe this would be a wise thing to do and I know that everyone agrees that the City needs to provide more detail to residents and do so in an easy to understand format.
During the audit there was one finding made - The City's unreserved fund balance in the general fund exceeded the maximum amount allowed by State law. Ms. Cannell made the recommendation that the City transfer funds before the balance approaches 18% and the City has determined that excess funds will be transferred to the Capital Projects Fund. Ms. Cannell recognized our Finance Director, Rebecca Tehero, for the wonderful job she does and stated that Rebecca is one of the most knowledgeable people she has worked with in this field.
2011 Municipal General Election
During the public comment period there were many residents who expressed concern over the election. The most common concern was that poll watchers were not able to see the actual ballots as they were being counted. Concern was expressed by one resident that the poll worker calling out names in one precinct struggled with the difference of "Gary" and "Jerry". In an earlier written statement made by some of the candidates, there was concern expressed over the fact that city employees and spouses of current council members were used as poll workers. While no poll watcher had any specific complaints or concerns with regards to fraudulent activities, many residents asked that the City do a recount of the ballots to ensure the results were accurate and to give closure to any misgivings. I personally do not have an issue with candidates pursuing a recount if they feel there are any concerns with how the election was handled. I believe that the poll workers all acted appropriately and I have no doubts as to the validity of the outcome, but if there is any doubt amongst candidates then I support their efforts in pursuing a recount.
The election officer, Kim Holindrake, presented her findings. She contacted the county as well as the office of the Lieutenant Governor to get input and was told that the candidates were not eligible for a recount based on Utah law and that the City had no authority to do one; the ballot boxes can only be opened at the order of a district court judge. The mayor contacted multiple attorneys for opinion and was given the same information. Based upon the findings that a) the candidates didn't quality for a recount, b) there were no specific accusations made of any wrongdoing, c) there was nothing illegal or inappropriate in having city employees perform the duties of a poll worker, and d) the City had no authority to do a recount, the mayor and council proceeded to canvass the general election results. The final numbers were as follows:
Trent Augustus - 958
Ken Cromar - 816
Jerry Dearinger - 912
Gary Gygi - 1082
Jenney Rees - 1001
Paul Sorensen - 918
One final note, the three candidates who did not win the election have asked the City to pursue a recount through the courts. The mayor and council explained that they had no basis to request a recount and a judge was not likely to grant their request as such. However, at the suggestion of a resident the mayor agreed to provide a letter to the three candidates stating that he had no concerns with their requesting a recount. This letter was drafted today and signed by myself, Gary Gygi, Mayor Eric Richardson, and Councilmember Jim Perry. This letter will be given to those candidates who wish to pursue a recount on their own.
Municipal Court
Cedar Hills contracts with American Fork for police services. There has been some change in the court system which no longer allows any Cedar Hills cases to be reviewed at the American Fork courthouse and so officers and residents have to travel to Provo for court hearings. Because this puts an added cost and time strain on the American Fork police department they have requested that Cedar Hills apply for a Class III Justice Court. The benefit to this is that it would bring added revenue to the city (currently revenue generated from citations and such given in Cedar Hills is going to American Fork) and eliminate the need for officers to travel to Provo for court cases. However, there would also be added costs as the City would need to provide a part time clerk, a judge, and certain other requirements. The council has asked Konrad (City Manager) to provide additional information on the fiscal impact of this decision and will discuss this further at a later time.
City Manager Report
The main item discussed during this time was the Cedar Hills Commerical and Civic Center concept plan provided by Konrad. The council expressed concern over this plan as it may lead residents to believe that it is a definite course of action instead of just an idea of what could be. No definite decisions have been made for this area.
You can listen to the complete audio of this meeting by going to www.cedarhills.org. These audio files are generally available one week after the meeting.
Have a thought to discuss? Join us on the online forum at www.aboutcedarhills.org.
Welcome!
First off, thank you for allowing me to serve as your representative. I look forward to the opportunities that we as council members have to do many great things for our city. This blog is intended to be a way for me to communicate with Cedar Hills residents regarding items discussed during council meetings as well as other issues we face as a city. This blog is administered by only me so is not intended to represent the views of the entire council. I have closed the comments as I encourage all residents to join in discussions via our online forum at www.aboutcedarhills.org. You are also welcome to email me directly at JenneyReesCHCC@gmail.com or call me at 801-358-8730. At the very minimum I will be updating this blog after each city council meeting, but will also create a post if I feel there is important news that should be shared earlier.
I again thank you and am excited to serve the residents of Cedar Hills over the next four years.
I again thank you and am excited to serve the residents of Cedar Hills over the next four years.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)