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.
