Council Meeting - December 2, 2014

Work Session

City Council and Planning Commission met together to discuss differences and similarities to congregate care and assisted living center. State and city code define what an assisted living is but there is no state code for congregate care. I searched the Utah Legislature database and the only reference I can find was a report filed by the Division of Child and Family Services where they reference congregate care with regards to a living center for youth in state custody. I would be more comfortable defining congregate care in our design guidelines, just as other cities have done, so we are on the same page as to what we consider congregate care. CM Zappala would also like this defined, similar to Pleasant Grove. CM Geddes and Augustus felt we could incorporate this into a development agreement instead of in the design guidelines. Land Use attorney from ULCT attended and gave some direction on how to determine if this facility is substantially the same as an assisted living, and it is mostly based on land use and impact on the community.

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Nobody signed up.

Presentation by Cultural Arts Committee

Anne Perkins presented. Will continue with concerts in the park and will publicize heavily during Family Festival. Working on Shakespeare in the Park. Met with Highland City Arts Council and are partnering together on activities and will promote together. Will work with Highland on a summer theater production. Talking about other ideas such as a kite day, a sledding day, slip and slide day, date night at the Vista Room, etc. Will be asking Council for funds for next budget year.

Consent Agenda

Minutes from the November 5, 2014 City Council meeting were approved.

City Reports

CM Rees – Bookmobile program has been setup and will start January 12^th. Will be in Cedar Hills every other Monday from 1:00-2:30 at the LDS church parking lot by the roundabout. YCC working on Santa’s Workshop program.

David Bunker – TSSD had board meeting and amended the 2014 budget to meet final budget numbers. They also approved the FY2015 budget. Looking to see if they can potentially reduce debt, which could then reduce fees. Jr. Jazz registration closed with 739 participants. Ski bus has 24 participants and has room for 24 more, chaperones are also needed. Golf clinics are being worked on. Added a new karate class in January as demand is high. Golf is shutting down and should be closed within the next week or two.

CM Zappala – UVSSD board met. They are discussing new dispatch center that is needed and is moving forward.

Mayor Gygi – UTA has asked to meet to get input routes that come through Cedar Hills. Mayor Gygi is asking for feedback from Council and residents. Questar Gas will be updating some lines throughout the city. Will be making new Council assignments soon.

CM Crawley – Next Monday is the annual city Santa party at the community center from 6pm-8pm. There will be cocoa and free pictures with Santa. Parks & Trails committee met to plan the Christmas party and service project for next year, as well as landscape for the roundabout near Walmart. Also discussed Bayhill Park as there isn’t much budget set aside for it. May want to do it all at once instead of in phases.

CM Augustus – North Pointe Solid Waste met to discuss budget and operational matters.

Review/Action on Conceptual Plans for Rosegate Development

Cory Shupe and Doug Young are asking the City Council to make a determination on a congregate care facility as it relates to an assisted living facility. Assisted living facilities and convalescent care are specifically listed as a conditional use in the office/retail subzone of the SC-1 commercial zone. In section 3.2 of the Design Guidelines it states, “If a proposed use is not listed in the use table below but it can be shown to be substantially the same as an existing item in the chart, then it can be treated as the item in the chart.” The applicants request the City Council to make a finding of fact regarding the similar nature of a congregate care center as it is related to assisted living as both are for the purpose of caring for senior individuals. Per the developer, both congregate care and assisted living provide a variety of services that are meant to ease the burden of aging, as well as improving the quality of life for the tenants. The difference between the types of facilities is in the level of care required for the tenants. While both are considered senior housing options, individuals in congregate care are typically more independent and active in the community than those in assisted living centers. Corey Shupe provided definitions that other cities have for what is considered a congregate care facility. A portion of the building sits in the commercial area where assisted living is not a permitted use. They are willing to push the building back to where it is only in the mixed use area but will possibly raise the building to four stories if they need to in order to get the same number of units. CM Crawley asked if there is a central dining area (the land use attorney indicated this would be a reduction in traffic which affects land use). Mr. Shupe did not have the answer to that but will find out. CM Crawley asked if medical personnel would be available at all time, but Mr. Shupe did not know the answer. CM Geddes asked if congregate care is licensed by the state, but Mr. Shupe did not know the answer to that. CM Zappala asked how the building would differ for assisted living vs. congregate care. Mr. Shupe indicated congregate care is made for seniors who can live and function on their own and order services a la carte. Assisted living centers are designed more like a hospital and there is not a need for a kitchen or laundry room in each unit. CM Zappala requested a list of a la carte services are offered by Doug Young’s group as Mr. Shupe did not know all that was provided. If the building is moved so that it is out of the commercial area it would move further to the south. CM Zappala feels, based on code, this is more like a residential building and not assisted living based on assisted living requirements, but he would prefer congregate care. He would prefer that we go to the Planning Commission and revise our code to define and allow for congregate care. Looking at city and state code (which has many requirements for an assisted living center) and the impact it would have on the community when it comes to traffic, it feels to me that this building is closer to residential use than assisted living. Congregate care is for 55+ adults, who I imagine would generate more traffic than residents at an assisted living center, such as the Charleston. The only similarity I can see is that there are age restrictions for both. However, I agree that the adults living in a 55+ community would add more benefit to the community with regards to shopping and volunteerism. CM Zappala asked for time to get feedback from residents but developer wants an answer tonight. Motion passed 3-2 with myself and CM Crawley dissenting that congregate care can be considered same as assisted living. My reason for voting no is that after reviewing the state definition of an assisted living center and considering traffic impact on the community, I don’t see many similarities other than age. Our code says that if something is not listed as a permitted use but can be found to be substantially the same as something that is a permitted use, the city may allow it. While I feel congregate care is a better fit, I don’t feel it can be considered substantially the same as assisted living. My opinion is that it is more residential in nature, which would have different restrictions for that zone.

Review/Action on Signage for Amsource Property

Planning Commission has reviewed the submitted signage for the Amsource site, and has made the recommendation to the City Council for approval. The proposed monument sign is constructed of the same materials (Old Virginia brick, Mountain Valley Sandstone) as the approved AFCU. The sign in 6’ high and approximately 13’ wide, with a planter box to enhance the landscaping. The Planning Commission gave feedback to Amsource to change the initial sign to match more closely the architectural themes of the Commercial Design Guidelines, and better compliment the AFCU building. Was approved with caveat that lighting at boundaries be within city code.

Review/Action on Fiscal Year 2015 Audit

Annually we contract with independent auditors to review the basic financial statements. The independent auditors are expected to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement and are fairly presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Biggest difference is that we shifted golf fund into two – one to show just operating revenue and expenses and one for the debt service. Audit was provided and presented by Allred Jackson. Total assets are $57,460,517 and total liabilities are $16,220,446. Financial situation is solid. No findings were found, everything was in compliance. The full audit will be available on the city’s website.

Review/Action on Adopting Municipal Wastewater Planning Program

As part of an annual system evaluation required by the Utah State Department of Environmental Quality, the city is required to pass a resolution stating we have prepared a Municipal Wastewater Planning Program Report, and have taken necessary actions to maintain effluent requirements contained in the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) permit. Completing this process gives our system additional points on the Utah Wastewater Project Priority List System, which is used to allocate funds under the wastewater grant and loan program. Also the results are used to focus the state’s technical assistance program. This was approved.

Review/Action on Ordinance setting Council Meetings for 2015

Council dates for 2015 were approved.

Review/Action to Approve Dispatch Building Agreement with Utah Valley Dispatch

As a member city of the Utah Valley Dispatch Special Service District (UVDSSD), the City of Cedar Hills will be a partner in the proposed Dispatch Building Agreement as attached. As per the agreement, the City of Cedar Hills would have an associated expected cash contribution of $62,279.00 paid either in one cash payment prior to June 30, 2015, or two payments, with the first on or before June 30, 2015 and the other on or before December 31, 2015. However, this amount is an estimated portion of the capital payment anticipated, and may be adjusted to reflect the actual cost of the completed project. The District has received qualified proposals from architectural design firms and has proceeded through an interview process. The District Board may wish to award a design contract within the first month or two of 2015. In order to proceed with the award, the District would like to have the member entities approve the Dispatch Building Agreement by the end of December 2014. Site they are looking at is in Spanish Fork, which includes other county buildings for law enforcement. If they can do this, they would lease the land from the County instead of purchasing it. That could make our portion lower. Finance department recommends that we use general fund excess for this project and would like to do it as one payment. Was approved with condition that the contract be reviewed and approved by Eric Johnson.

Blu Line Development

Blu Line recently presented new conceptual plans to the Planning Commission for an assisted living or congregate care facility. Here are the drawings from the night.

This first picture shows the exterior (and I apologize it's sideways - I cannot figure out how to rotate it in Blogger). The entire facility is three stories. The windows that appear to be a fourth story are decorative dormers and not living space. The height of the building to the ceiling of the third floor is 33 feet. I didn't get an exact height for the building to the top of the roof, but was told it was just under 50 feet.

This next drawing shows the setbacks from 4600, Cedar Hills Drive, and the homes to the south. The top of this picture is the north end of the building, which is the part facing Cedar Hills Drive. You can see the shape of this new concept plan is different from past presentations. I made a few notes on this drawing. You'll see a rectangle in the northeast corner, which is a separate building and there was talk of this possibly being office space, like the offices across from it. On the northwest corner is another building that would be commercial in nature, but there are no specifics on what kind of commercial would go here.

I rotated this picture to show the perspective from Cedar Hills Drive. It also provides a good view of what the landscaping would look like.

This last picture shows entrances and access areas. It also says "monuments" but I have no idea what is meant by that. On the east side of the building there are now two exits onto 4600, as requested by the fire department, as the entrance from Cedar Hills Drive will only be available to those heading east, but the fire trucks/paramedics would be coming from the east. There are four elevator areas in the building; two in front and two in back. The smaller dots on the building show access areas into the building.

Blu Line originally came back with this as an assisted living center as that is listed as an permitted use in our design guidelines. However, after talking to the Planning Commission and the site plan review committee, they are asking whether an assisted living center or congregate care facility (55+ housing) is preferred. The direction from the Planning Commission was that the congregate care facility was preferred as it was felt those residents would provide more of a benefit to the community with regards to volunteerism and tax dollars.

The total number of units is somewhere between 250-300 (they didn't have an exact number that night) and approximately 340 parking stalls.

I believe that Blu Line plans to present these conceptual plans to the City Council in December. I encourage residents to stay involved and give feedback, especially with regards to the assisted living versus congregate care.

November 5, 2014 Meeting

Work Session

Discussion of voting by mail was started by County Recorder Colleen Mulvey. Some cities are doing all voting by mail. It is saving cities money and increasing turnout from 14% to 35%. Colleen is interested because it’s very difficult to find poll workers at each election. We would send a ballot to every registered voter in the city. It can still be securely controlled. Ballots are mailed out with enough time to handle mail returns. Provisional ballots at city office would still be available. Talked to Lt Governor’s office and they would be willing to come talk with us and answer any questions. Even with the printing and mailing of those ballots, Colleen feels we would save money with not hiring as many poll workers and not needing duplicate supplies for both current voting locations. If approved, there would need to be a lot of communication with residents so they are aware this would be occurring. Colleen is also communicating with the County to see if they have any concerns or issues we should be aware of. She will also pull together some numbers on what kind of savings we could expect.

Discussion on sharing utilities with Pleasant Grove and American Fork. Presented by David Bunker. We currently have an agreement to share sewer and water services with American Fork. Sewer agreement goes back to 1985 when we connected to the AF sewer line. We pay AF an annual fee for this connection. TSSD has meters on these so they know what portion of the sewage belongs to us versus AF and can bill for that accordingly. On water, AF has had issues getting adequate pressure above the Murdock Canal. When Lone Peak was built, there was an agreement that Cedar Hills would supply water to the school though American Fork is the servicing entity. As part of this, AF and Cedar Hills agreed that we would get a connection to a portion of AF’s culinary water. We boost this into our water system. We pay for this water, but we also supply water to Lone Peak and the AF subdivision that includes Warinski funeral home, Highland Gardens, and about 9 residential homes so the amount we pay for is adjusted. We try to balance the amount of water we take from AF with how much we supply to those in their boundaries. Over time we upgraded our water system with wells and water tanks. We also supplied secondary water to AF for those same areas, so it’s been a give and take relationship.

Pleasant Grove wants to tap into our sewer line for a portion of their residents instead of adding a duplicate sewer line in the same road where we have a sewer line and there are both CH and PG residents on that street. There is no give and take with the agreement they propose like there is with AF. There were also some issues with PG when Manila Water Company dissolved, and these issues are still unresolved.

Council Meeting

Public Comments

Sherry Loosli – Would like to pave the city-owned access road that exists between her house and her neighbor. They will pay for it at their own cost if the city will allow them to use it to access the backyard of their property.

City Reports

David Bunker – TSSD is in the process of updating their final budget for 2014 and 2015. Overall budget will increase. Met with Avanyu homeowners and final improvements for drainage has been installed. This project is now complete. Jr Jazz registration is currently open. Golf is winding down and had a fantastic October. December Vista Room rentals are high, we only have four open dates for the month left. February 23^rd will be Cedar Hills night with Utah Jazz and tickets can be purchased from the city offices. Working on a Cedar Hills night with BYU basketball.

CM Rees – Issued one press release regarding the refinancing of the 2006 Utility Bonds. State of the City is complete and is being mailed this week. YCC is hosting Cedar Hillbilly Day on November 15^th at Heritage Park and needs City Council at 3:30 for chili judging. I contacted the bookmobile program again to follow up from an original conversation I had with them in 2012. They have an opening available starting January every other Tuesday from 9:30-11:30 or so. It used to be that Utah County billed each city an annual fee when they signed up for this program but no longer do so, so this would be free for our residents and at no cost to the city. I would like to proceed with scheduling this unless there are concerns.

Mayor Gygi – Cedar Hills West Stake is having a Veterans Day program that all residents are invited to.

CM Augustus – Had first meeting with General Plan Committee to update the city general plan. Process should take about 8-12 months.

CM Crawley – Parks & Trails Committee is increasing Christmas lights at roundabout this year. Have been discussing Bayhill Park. Santa night is December 8^th for the city. This is a time for kids to visit with Santa, get treats and pictures, and is no cost.

CM Geddes – PC had discussion on accessory apartments and will continue to discuss.

Consent Agenda

The mayor shall make a recommendation to the city council on appointment of new regular or alternate members to the Board of Adjustment. Currently there is a vacancy on the Board of Adjustment. Also, a pending application to meet with the Board has been received, necessitating a meeting with the board during November. Mayor Gygi has received and reviewed the application of Charelle Hagen. The Mayor wishes to appoint the Mrs. Hagen as a regular member of the Board of Adjustment. This was approved.

Minutes from the October 22, 2014 City Council meeting were approved.

Review/Action on Agreement with New Hope Bible Church

For the last month New Hope Bible Church has been renting the basement rooms from the City for their church services on Sunday mornings for 2 ½ hours each week. They love the set up and the space so as a result Pastor Chris Dodson has approached staff about paying to continue with the same setup for two years and are wanting to pay the City $12,000 upfront. In addition they want to assist the City by adding some Community Events for anyone in the City every other month in the downstairs area. The ideas they have thrown out are movie night, first aid fair, financial seminar, Young Mother classes, etc. They will take care of all the advertising once the dates are verified through Natalie two weeks prior to the events and they will happen during the weekdays. They currently have approximately 25 members who attend weekly. During the summer month’s staff does not have to be here since golf staff is here and can open the doors for them, during the winter month’s staff will need to be here to open the doors and help them during the time they will be using the rooms. This was approved.

Discussion on Community Center Concessions

Recently members of an evaluation committee met to review the concessions contract for the

Recreation Center food services (Sammy’s). The current contract calls for a 60 day notice of termination if the contract is not renewed. The committee met to discuss the contract and services provided based on customer reviews, and recommended non-renewal. The Council discussed the process to secure an alternate occupant, considering internal operations, or temporarily discontinuing the food services program. We gave 60 day notice but Sammy’s is pulling out this week so our staff will operate on a very limited scale until the golf season ends and we decide on an alternative. Council suggested we go through the process of looking for another outside vendor. Staff will work on this.

Review/Action on Ordinance Regarding Impact Fees

The City of Cedar Hills adopted a new impact fee analysis in March of 2014. The analysis was done by Zions Bank Public Finance, and implemented a new fee structure for the various impact fees. The new analysis outlined a new way to compute impact fees that differed from years past. Cedar Hills City Code, Title 8, Chapter 2, Articles B-G detail each specific impact fee, and how to compute the fee. Staff is proposing that articles B-G be condensed to remove the repetitive code and create one article that references all impact fee studies. The computation method currently found in the City code will be removed, and replaced with a reference to the analysis of March 2014. This was approved.

October 7, 2014 City Council Meeting

Work Session

Discussion on Transfer of Canyon Road

Terry Newell from UDOT, Andrew Jackson from MAG, Commissioner Ellertson, and Rich Nelson from Utah County were all in attendance to answer questions. Last meeting when these entities met, UDOT proposed that Utah County takes on Canyon Road and UDOT will take over North County Blvd. They felt having the cities take over the road would allow them more flexibility with what the cities wanted, but after several discussions they are proposing transferring it to the County. Part of the original agreement with the State with regards to North County Blvd was that some of the funds that were used to create that road could only be used if it eventually would become a State road. UDOT agreed to this if the County would take Canyon Road. The funding available for Canyon Road through the County is in part coming from MAG, which will be $4.5 million. That isn’t enough to fix all of the issues that have been raised. Also, this money will be given to the County and they will make the decision on how to use those funds and what improvements will be made. Commissioner Ellertson stated that the original discussions took place six or so years ago, and the agreement with UDOT was that the County would take ownership of Canyon road and would maintain it as a County road, which would not include improvements. Commissioner Ellertson stated that if the County takes it over they will turn down the MAG money and maintain the road as is, with no improvements at all. They are not interested in maintaining it to a higher standard than what currently exists as they feel that the road functions just fine as is.

Discussion on PI Rates for Residents Who Don’t Have Access to PI

Tabled until the next meeting as the discussion on Canyon Road took the entire hour.

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Marisa Wright – Daniel Zappala called her and asked if she would help with Amsource design as she’s been through this process. Doesn’t think this Council will be as fussy as her Council. Feels color is a great way to be easy on the developers. Brick should be a deep red. The brick on her house is a true colonial red and feels red being presented by Amsource isn’t red enough. Would like more of a true colonial feel. She is pleased with how Chase and McDonald’s looks. Wants us to hold Amsource to the same standards.

Ken Cromar – Filed a GRAMA request for a month of emails and received an incomplete request. There was no letter and there were missing emails that were discussed in Council meetings so he feels they should be part of the request. He read an email that he had previously sent to the Mayor and Council. Feels city report has not come clean on 10 years of golf course financials.

Stephanie Martinez – Cedar Hills has small commercial district. With AFCU coming it is minimizing it more. Encourages Council to approve a mixed use for Blu Line instead of assisted living in order to bring in more sales tax revenue.

Consent Agenda

Minutes from the September 16, 2014 City Council meeting were tabled as CM Crawley has changes to send to Colleen.

City Reports

CM Rees – Pumpkin Walk occurring in October and Cedar Hill Billy Days in November. State of the City is almost complete and an updating copy should be to the Council tomorrow or Thursday. Goal is to send it to printer early next week.

David Bunker – Questar Gas is proposing to reconstruct main high pressure gas main, which goes through portions of the golf course, Bayhill, Canyon Road, Cedar Hills Drive, and 4000 West. They will give us more information soon. October 15^th at AF citizens center there is a regional transportation meeting from 4:30pm-6:30pm with UDOT and MAG and this is good opportunity to give feedback on regional transportation issues. LPPSD has let us know EPA will potentially allow for open burn permits during month of October. We need to give feedback to Chief Freeman on whether or not we want to allow it. A permit would need to be obtained from the city. We have had a few residents express an interest in obtaining one. Fire Marshall Bailey stated past burns have gone fairly well with no issues. Problems occur with people who make big pile and it sends smoke over the neighborhood and is a nuisance for neighbors. Would like us to recommend that people be considerate of their neighbors. Alpine has decided to not issue any permits due to nuisance and still have concerns about out of control fires. Highland has stated they will allow permits in October. Chief Freeman says we are still considered at high fire risk. He also stated that EPA will be outlawing this practice soon. CM Geddes expressed concerns with the nuisance issue. I also have concerns as we hear a lot about air quality issues in Utah. Fire Marshall Bailey stated some issues are with people who are burning things that aren’t approved. Final decision was to not allow burn permits.

CM Geddes – Planning Commission meeting last week went well. We will hear from Blu Line tonight. Wilson-Geddes conceptual plan was approved by Planning Commission. They will continue to talk about accessory apartments.

CM Crawley – Beautification Committee is planning on improving on Christmas lights in the roundabout near Walmart. Also discussing upgrading landscaping at that roundabout. Working on plans for Bayhill Park. There are some obstacles due to slope and large power lines going through it.

CM Augustus – Will update on North Pointe meeting when he gets his notes. Wants to clarify that Planning Commission is only a recommending body and doesn’t approve plans.

Review/Action on Resolution Authorizing Refinance of Utility Revenue Bonds

Following City Council direction, Marc Edminster with Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham approached the bond market in multiple ways including direct placement and competitive sale, to receive offers to refund and refinance the Series 2006 Utility Revenue Bonds. An offer has been received from JP Morgan Chase Bank that our financial advisor Marc Edminster feels is a very competitive offer. Based on that submission, the team that was prepared to travel to San Francisco to present our bond offer to a ratings group and insurance group cancelled the travel plans and appointments. Mr. Edminster outlined the cost savings due to the refunding and refinancing of the series 2006 Bonds. The total net present value savings is $402,203 at interest rate of 2.68%. This is a higher savings than we expected. Chase has locked the rate but can’t hold it much longer so needs approval tonight if we want to move forward. This was approved.

Discussion on Proposed Amendment to Interlocal Agreement with Lone Peak Public Safety District

Lone Peak Public Safety District has proposed an amendment to contract item #8, Term of Agreement” as part of the Interlocal Agreement. The proposed amendment would include a provision that members of the Safety District provide a 48 month notice prior to withdrawal from the District. The previous notice requirements included a 12 month notice. It is anticipated that the additional period for notice of withdrawal will add stability to the District and aide the Fire Chief with proper management of District resources and personnel knowing that one city doesn’t have the power to completely dissolve the District in a year’s time. This affects morale amongst staff as they feel no job security. We end up working as a training base for other cities as firefighters feel there is no stability here and leave for other cities. This will go back to the LPPSD board for further discussion and clarification.  

Discussion on Participation with Utah Valley Dispatch

A discussion was held at the most recent Lone Peak Public Safety District meeting centered around continued participation with the Utah Valley Dispatch Special Service District (UVDSSD). As a member of LPPSD, we have a voice in the direction the District takes with regards to dispatch services. UVSSD is considering constructing a new facility to improve service to members of their organization (see previous notes on this blog for more info). The new facility is proposed to be financed with existing funds of approximately $1.5M and additional charges to member cities. The City of Cedar Hills would have an associated expected cash contribution of $62,279.00. This amount may be paid in two equal parts: first half in FY 2015, and the second half in FY 2016. We could go with another dispatch company, but that is a huge risk as AFPD will continue with UVDSSD and we would have a different dispatch company for fire/paramedic and police. Staff will come back with proposal on how this will be financed.

Review/Action on Final Approval for AFCU Located on Amsource Property

Amsource has submitted their designs for the property located at 4800 W and Cedar Hills Drive for final approval. This project consists of an American First Credit Union located on the corner with two additional buildings that will be available for retail shops. Planning Commission has given their final recommendation for the site, subject to changes that have been made in the Development Agreement and final engineering to meet City Design standards. CM Zappala had a list of suggestions to maintain colonial style:

·      Would like to see the windows in AFCU building broken up so not one big wall of windows, with some white trim and brick in between. Amsource felt this could work.

·      Would like to see more colonial design to the roof instead of just dark slate. Likes idea that Marisa gave of having eagles like what is done on the east coast or dormers. AFCU has had maintenance issues with dormers and asked they not be included.

·      Would like decorative dental floss in the triangle archways.

·      Would like deeper red brick.

CM Geddes worries about everything looking the same and doesn’t want to push builders into a box, likes for them to have some creativity. CM Augustus feels the drawings are kind of colonial but not quite enough to match the rest of the area. Would like to get closer on the coloring and feels rooflines can be adjusted to be a little more colonial. Would rather have peaked roof for retail buildings. CM Geddes feels flat roof fits in fine with Walmart and McDonald’s. The picture in our design guidelines shows flat roofs for retail buildings.

Amsource doesn’t want AFCU to look just like Chase Bank. Went through our design guidelines and felt they met those guidelines. Felt they met 75% of the items that our design guidelines listed as suggestions.

Development agreement includes tenants being responsible for snow removal on sidewalks, water rights, utility extensions, similar to development agreements we have with other commercial entities. Some differences include Amsource being responsible to pay Harts for their portion of utility improvements made on 10040 North and no overnight parking allowed.

Item was tabled until Amsource can come back with suggested updates.

Discussion on Blu Line Development on Smart Property

Doug Young (Blu Line) has requested to have a discussion with the City Council regarding the latest proposal, and the possibility of converting the project from a congregate care facility to an assisted living facility. Where a congregate care facility is not specifically mentioned in the Design Guidelines as a possible conditional use, an assisted living facility is listed as a conditional use. Cory has discussed this new proposal with the Planning Commission on two separate occasions. Have discussed options with Smart family and also what resident hesitation was. Felt there was a miscommunication on what a congregate care facility truly is and how it would function. Has investors who want to invest in a congregate care or assisted living center in our area based on numbers of 55+ adults in the area looking to live in this type of facility. There will be no burden to local schools. Planning Commission expressed that they are more interested in congregate care than assisted living as adults in congregate care are more active participants in the community. Currently working with architect on new designs. Working with our guidelines and ordinances as a strict guide to meet all of our regulations. They would like to have a joint Planning Commission and City Council meeting to discuss designs. Will be within 50 feet height and three stories, as allowed in design guidelines. Still working on commercial aspects. Feels building will be around 270 units. Reached out to commercial entities and nobody was interested in building in our area.

CM Zappala wanted to know if they had any interest in doing a land swap with the City for nine acres owned as residents in Decisions survey expressed desire to keep some of that land for recreational purposes and that would be better suited to the Smart property, not land on 4800 West. 

City Council Meeting - September 16. 2014

Work Session

Chandler discussed accessory apartments. Right now there is no requirement when someone buys a house with an accessory apartment to come to the Planning Commission for rental approval and we are currently unaware of how many accessory apartments are being rented in the city. As part of our housing plan we have to identify how many are in the moderate income level, which applies to accessory apartments, but we have no data on that. Staff recommends we update building requirements for accessory apartments for utilities and public safety concerns. PG had an issue responding to a 911 call made from an accessory apartment but they were unaware that it existed and were trying to locate the place of the emergency at the main residence. Staff will continue to discuss this with Planning Commission.

There was a lively debate on the discussion item regarding the training our city attorney gave on February 18^th. I objected to the way this was being handled for the following reasons:

·        CM Crawley had publicly made several accusations against our attorney, Eric Johnson. This had occurred on a public forum and via emails to residents and members of the press. The state allows for discussions regarding the character and competence of an individual to be handled in closed executive session. I felt any concerns that a council member has with an employee of the city should be handled in a closed session.

·        CM Crawley indicated he had reached out to another attorney who read a transcript from a portion of the meeting and determined our attorney had given us bad legal advice. Shortly before Council meeting he notified the rest of us that he had asked his attorney, Mr. Reutzel, to come to Council meeting to present his opinion on some of the issues Eric discussed in February. I asked, as did the Mayor and other council members, that Mr. Reutzel first provide his opinion in writing to the Council and to our attorney so that we could first review it. Mr. Reutzel was given this same courtesy as he was given Mr. Johnson’s statements in writing and was given time to review and research. Our city employees should be given the same courtesy.

·       There was a discussion on allowing CM Crawley to ask some basic questions of his attorney but after hearing the questions I still objected as every question was related to something Mr. Johnson had said that CM Crawley disagreed with, therefore I felt it was again related to character and competence, which should be held in executive session.

·       When asked why I was fighting this and if there was something to hide I stated that I would fight against this kind of treatment for any of our employees. In my opinion, if a council member has an issue with something that an employee has said or done then that should be discussed in executive session. We should not be hauling employees into a public meeting, telling them the reasons we feel they’ve done something wrong, bring in witnesses to back up our feelings, and ask them to defend themselves in a public meeting. That isn’t appropriate and it wouldn’t be handled this way in the private sector either. Our employees deserve the same respect and treatment that any employee does. To me, handling disagreements with Eric in this way is no different than asking a city manager from another city to come tell us in a public meeting all the reasons he disagrees with David, our city manager. Again, these types of discussions belong in executive session.

·       When asked if we wanted to find the truth I objected to that statement as just because another attorney has a different perspective on an issue, it doesn’t mean he is telling the truth and our attorney was not.

·       My recommendation was that CM Crawley’s attorney should submit his opinion in writing to the Council so we had time to review it prior to a meeting and then the discussion regarding Eric’s character/competency should be held in executive session.

CM Zappala and Geddes also expressed concern with the way this was being handled and also stated they would prefer that Mr. Reutzel submit his opinion in writing and that any competency issues be handled in executive session. It was decided 3-2 that Mr. Reutzel would not be presenting on this topic.

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Mr. Wilkinson – Has questions on how many chickens a household can have, how many animals each can have, and if the golf course has ever made money. Mayor Gygi let him know the golf course is subsidized every year.

Appointment of Members to Arts Committee

The Cultural Arts Citizens Advisory Committee was created in January of this year to assist the Mayor, Council and staff with various cultural arts events. The committee is to consist of five to seven regular members, city staff and Council representation. The following people are being recommended to serve as members of this committee: Emily Cox, Nicole Allen, Anne Perkins, and Shannon Williams. This was approved.

Consent Agenda

The minutes from the September 2, 2014 City Council meeting were approved.

City Reports

David Bunker – Flag football is going well. Soccer is about halfway through and is also going well. Received new golf score cards with new design. This is in conjunction with our advertising and branding campaign. Council was provided with 2015 budget document, which will be submitted for GFOA Distinguished Budget Award. Finance has done a great job with this. Last week was ULCT conference. There were several great topics. TSSD continues policy to not accept green waste at this time. They were overloaded and are trying to deplete current amount. Several streets have been resurfaced. Type of resurfacing is different from past. It is a micro-surface, which had aggregate in it. Street sweepers will get any loose gravel. Has better co-efficient of friction. Met with Highland about golf course property in Highland, regarding our suggestion for a boundary adjustment. Lower nine holes were included in open space in Highland subdivision. They are not in favor of boundary adjustment because they want it to remain dedicated open space. CM Zappala asked if we could put in writing our agreement to keep it open space. CM Geddes said this was an option given to the Highland Council. Area where maintenance building is located was discussed. Highland City is in need of building to house lawn mowers so are interested in possibility of a joint facility. This may help offset some of our costs. These are initial discussions and will continue.

CM Zappala – LPPSD and Utah Valley Dispatch boards meeting soon. Has updated his blog about the secondary water system. Would like help spreading the word to keep residents updated.

Mayor Gygi – Meeting with legislatures tomorrow to discuss upcoming session so we can email with any items we’d like discussed. Preparing to go to San Francisco for bond refinance, which will save the city money.

Review/Action on Amending Fees Related to TSSD

Modifications need to be made to the City Fee Schedule in order to implement the following changes/additions:

·        The TSSD amended fee - the fee will decrease to $2,475/Equivalent Residential Unit (ERU);

·        Add a Building Permit renewal/extension fee. Building Permits expire if work has not commenced or has been suspended / abandoned for more than 180 days. The Building Official can grant extensions upon written request with a justifiable reason. The review and documentation of such requests has an impact to City resources. The cost of this impact should be offset with a fee. It is estimated that the cost to the City is approximately $50.00 (fifty dollars).

This was approved.

Review/Action on Release of Durability for Woodis Subdivision

City staff conducted an inspection of the Woodis Subdivision (comprised of two lots) which produced a punch list of items to correct. Following the correction of these items, staff re-inspected the subdivision for compliance with City standards. At this time all improvements have been installed per development regulations and agreements. Staff recommends we approve the release of the Performance Bond ($32,744.00) and accept the Durability Bond in the amount of $6,548.80, and begin the durability period. This was approved.

Discussion on Accessory Apartments

See notes from Work Session. The City of Cedar Hills allows accessory apartments as long as they meet the City Code which is as follows:

·       10-2-1 Accessory Apartment: A subordinate dwelling within an owner occupied main building, which has its own eating, sleeping, and sanitation facilities, within a main residential building and having no separate address or utilities, and having a separate entrance.

·       10-5-32 Occupancy shall be limited to two (2) persons per bedroom with a maximum of four (4) people. The residence must provide off street parking for all occupants of the main building. (Ord. 11-9-2010B, 11-9-2010).

Accessory apartments are listed as a conditional use (which is granted by the Planning Commission) and they must be owner occupied residences. Items that need to be addressed and possibly codified are the building code requirements for this type of residential unit, public safety response, inspections, separate addresses, and any possible licensing from the City. This type of housing qualifies as moderate income housing as part of the General Plan Housing Element. Council would like staff to get with Utah County Association of Realtors to get feedback on how handled by other cities and review other city ordinances on this topic. This will continue to be discussed with Planning Commission as well.

Discussion and Review with City Attorney Regarding Training Provided in February

See my notes from Work Session above. CM Crawley asked for this to be on the agenda. Feels there is stuff presented that didn’t feel right to him. He would like clarification. He came to the Council skeptical with the direction the City has taken on some issues. For instance, legal review fees spent on GRAMA requests. Says he gets unreasonable responses from both sides of the issue.He received an opinion from another attorney who told him the information he received from our attorney was incorrect. I provided two other attorney opinions from attorneys who have experience with municipal law and neither felt Eric had given bad legal advice. Though CM Zappala objected to CM Crawley’s discussions of character/competence in a public meeting, our attorney Eric Johnson stated he would rather do this publicly as accusations had already been made against him publicly and he wanted an opportunity to respond to those accusations. Eric gave info on his background. He represent 200+ communities throughout the state in various matters. Gave several explanations and examples of attorney-client privilege. He answered the questions CM Crawley had and explained that there was clearly a miscommunication between the two of them. He would prefer that council members who have concerns first come to him and try to resolve it. After hearing what Mr. Johnson had to say it was clear to me (and I believe most on the Council) that Eric was not guilty of the things he was being accused of (bad legal advice, being politically motivated, being biased, etc) but was doing his best to represent the city as voiced through the majority vote of the Council.

For those interested in listening to the entire audio of that meeting, the file are available on the city website www.cedarhills.org.

September 2, 2014 Council Meeting

Work Session

Presentation on Refinancing Options on the Utility Revenue Bonds, Series 2006 by Lewis Young and Zions Bank. Mark Edminster presented on behalf of Lewis Young. Currently bonds have between 4.0-4.625% interest rate. The net present value benefit of refinancing is $334,184.42. Resolution tonight doesn’t commit the city to refinance, but allows us to move forward when ready, if we so choose. Typically takes about 45 days for a refinance. Sends a Request for Proposal to underwriters so we can compare options. Bulk of savings comes from lower interest rates. If interest rates go up before closing we are not committed to the refinance. Mr. Edminster recommends we move forward with the RFP process and to obtain direct purchase bids from banks.

Jonathan Ward presented on behalf of Zions Bank. Preference is to sell bonds competitively by soliciting underwriters. Zions estimates net present value at $278,239.70. The process and timeline is similar to Lewis Young.

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Rhonda Bromley – She is the principal of Lone Peak High School. She introduced her administration. Thanks Council for service in the community. Proud of YCC members. Have over 2,550 students this year and theme is student success is a team effort. Has worked a lot with David Bunker and Greg Gordon on recreation and appreciates the partnership. Looks forward to working with the city in the future. Often works with AFPD and appreciates working with them.

YCC Presentation

In accordance with the bylaws, candidates for Youth City Council, and YCC mayor, apply and present themselves to their peer group for consideration. The YCC advisor, with the recommendation of the YCC and adult advisory committee, submit the names to the Mayor. The Mayor then appoints the YCC mayor. Kyle Swenvelt presented as he is the YCC Mayor this year. There are 35 total members. They are excited for activities this year. Planning on a food drive for the local shelter and serving Thanksgiving Meals at the shelter, a day of service, fundraiser for cancer survivors, random acts of service, etc.

Review/Action Recognizing Jerianne Conroy as a Cedar Hills Champion

As part of the Cedar Hills Champions program, the City Council will recognize Jerianne Conroy for her efforts and successes serving as the Family Festival Committee Chairperson for the past two years. Jerianne has been a resident of Cedar Hills for eight years. In 2012 she was asked by City officials to chair the newly formed Family Festival Committee, which consists of several volunteers from throughout the community who work with City staff to plan and implement the week long events and celebrations. Jerianne has dedicated many hours and weeks to this role and, with her team and staff, put on two very successful festivals. September 3, 2014 is declared Jerianne Conroy Day in Cedar Hills.

Consent Agenda

Minutes from the August 5, 2014 and August 19, 2014 Council meetings were approved.

City Reports

CM Rees – New YCC is starting up and we are excited about this new group. Keith Irwin is chairing the Family Festival Committee this year and is working on locking down dates now with a new carnival company. It will be scheduled for the first week in June, which helps as we don’t compete with nearby cities. One press release was issued and the State of the City should be going out at the end of this month.

David Bunker – At last TSSD the board did approve an adjustment to impact fee for connection to TSSD special treatment plant, which will decrease from current rate. This is the second decrease to that impact fee. North Utah County Water Conservancy District is working on some rehabilitation projects of dams they owned. First one in 2015 will be at Silver Lake, then will move on to others. PI consumption went up last week. In September the State recommendation is less water usage so we will be asking for residents to reduce water usage to once every six days as weather becomes cooler. Flag football starts next week. Utah Golf Association had annual tournament in Cedar Hills, and all gave glowing reports about the condition of our course. Tot soccer is now happening. Vista Room is being utilized often, about 75% of all events are paying events as opposed to city events, meetings, community events and meetings, etc.

CM Zappala – Utah Valley Dispatch is moving forward with new building. Our current annual fee is $32,000. The cost to Cedar Hills to contribute to new building is one time charge of $62,000 so we need to determine if we want to pay that in cash or financing.

Mayor Gygi – Finance Committee met and discussed the refinancing of Utility bonds.

CM Crawley – Parks and Trails Committee met to discuss improvements for next year City breakfast. Had over 200 people attend this year. At last Council meeting he had a disagreement with the Mayor regarding the Decisions Survey. He wants to know why Mayor has met with other Council Members outside of Council meeting to discuss these disagreements.

CM Augustus – Attended Finance Committee meeting. Planning Commission discussed Wilson Geddes conceptual plan for development on east side of Canyon Road. That will again to Planning Commission for approval. Also discussed updating general plans for commercial development.

CM Geddes – Unable to attend Planning Commission meeting.

Review/Action on Intent to Refinance Utility Revenue Bonds

See notes from Work Session. This is a resolution approving the Notice of Intent to issue Refunding Bonds for the 2006 Utility Revenue Bonds, with the maximum amount of $5,250,000; with a maximum interest rate of 5.25 percent; for a maximum of 20 years; with a maximum discount of three percent; providing for the running of a contest period; and related matters. This was approved. Lewis Young was chosen as advisor for this process.

Review/Action Authorizing Mayor to Sign a Notice of Approval of Exchange of Title for Property

Property owners, Cory L. & Jill B. Griffiths own two adjacent lots in the Cedars West subdivision (Plats D & F). They are wanting to do an Exchange of Title on Lot 9 of The Cedars Plat F, exchanging 11098 square feet, and combining it with Lot 48 of The Cedars Plat D. This exchange does not alter any existing easements; both lots remain in compliance with Cedars CCR’s, setback requirements, frontage requirements, and lot size requirements. There is no impact on neighbors and does not create a new buildable lot. This was approved.

Review/Action Creating Citizens Advisory Committee to Update General Plan

This Citizen Advisory Committee of 6-10 members will review the needs of the community relating to updating the General Plan. This type of committee will provide invaluable assistance in the planning process and should include key community leaders and active citizens. The Committee should establish preliminary goals, an action plan, and a timeline for completion of the General Plan revision, at which point the Planning Commission will hold multiple discussions and a public hearing before making a recommendation to the City Council. Two Planning Commissioners have volunteered to be a part of this Citizens Advisory Committee, Craig Clement and David Driggs. Additionally, Ken Young, a Cedar Hills resident and former Planning Commissioner has also volunteered to be a part of the Committee. CM Zappala, Geddes, Crawley and Augustus are all interested in sitting on this committee. Mayor Gygi will continue to work on appointments to this committee. This was approved.

Discussion on Canyon Road

CM Augustus wants to clearly know what is happening and what direction the Council has. Mayor Gygi stated he has met with UDOT and County Commissioners on Canyon Road and has always reported back to the Council. At this point there is no proposal. Council and Mayor have stated that we have no interest in taking ownership of the road or being responsible for any maintenance of the road. Either the County or UDOT should own the road. Scott Darrington with PG is taking the lead on presenting a letter to the County stating we are not interested in taking ownership or any financial responsibility for Canyon Road. It’s now between the County and UDOT to decide who will take ownership and what maintenance and repairs will be done.

Discussion on Duties of Mayor & City Manager

CM Augustus feels that the Council has struggled over the past year. Feels there has been a change since Mayor Gygi has become Mayor and how he works with the City Manager. Feels it’s having a negative impact on residents and staff. Wants to come to some sort of an agreement on responsibilities of both. Eric Johnson (city attorney) presented some remarks. Role of City Attorney isn’t to tell Council what to do, but tells them scope of their powers. There is no set of rules or laws that can make a Council get along. There is a division of duties between mayor and council to provide checks and balances, but there is considerable overlap. Each elected official needs to understand scope of powers and determine how they will act within that scope. Feels that each official should be working through issues that arise. If city code is inconsistent with state code, then state code prevails. Codes of both should be read to be in harmony with each other instead of fighting against each other. Asks if creation of city manager position in 2001 was intended to remove administrative powers of the mayor given by State law. In order to remove administrative powers from the mayor, it must be clear that was the intent of the Council. Mr. Johnson’s conclusion is that it is not clear that the Council intended to strip the Mayor of his statutory powers, which would require a unanimous vote of the Council. He read through the minutes from that meeting which states the city manager is intended to work under the supervision of the Mayor. The ordinance lists duties of city manager and states they are to occur under the supervision of the Mayor. CM Zappala feels disagreements are on managerial policy and these need to be worked out. He disagrees with Mr. Johnson's conclusions. CM Augustus said that members of staff feel micromanaged by Mayor Gygi and it needs to be figured out. I reminded the Council that in 2012 we worked together to develop a grievance policy, which states that employees with grievances should first go to their direct supervisor, then the city manager, then the mayor, and finally the entire Council if it isn't resolved in those earlier steps. Going to individual council members to share grievances and then having that council member blast the mayor is ineffective. The established grievance policy should be followed and if an issue needs to go to the Council then it should be done in the proper order and in executive session for discussion. We then went into executive session.

City Council Meeting - August 5, 2014

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Adam Brown – Had some concerns with intersection at Canyon Heights and Hillside. Because of the way the road curves and the landscaping, those on Hillside don’t have a good view of oncoming traffic. There is a pedestrian crosswalk there and a bus stop so it is dangerous for pedestrians. Last year the foliage was cut back and a speed table setup temporarily, but this remains an issue. Foliage is supposed to be cut back 45 feet from intersection but it isn’t. Canyon Heights traffic can’t see around foliage to see what is occurring at the intersection. Gave some recommendations about speed limit sign, removing foliage, making incline and curve part of Canyon Heights Drive a no parking zone, and add flags for crossing pedestrians. Staff will do some research on these issues and come back with a recommendation.

Eagle Scout Project – Cedar Hills Sign

Carson Moon has been working with Public Works on a rock sign on Canyon Road welcoming people to Cedar Hills. The City owns a parcel of land that is mostly locked up by an aqueduct, utility, and federal easements near Murdock Canal trail, where the sign could go. Would look similar to the one on Timpanogos Hwy. The issue is that there are so many easements in this area, including the federal easements, which could take staff many hours to be involved in obtaining. Staff will continue to work with the scout on this and will also recommend other locations.

Decisions Survey Presentation

The results from the recent Decisions Survey were presented. The Executive Summary is as follows:

·         The highest percentage of residents – 18% - believe that commercial development would provide the greatest improvement to the City. 21% believe commercial development is the biggest issue facing the City, and 22% would like the City to encourage more commercial development.

·         17% of residents believe that improving communication would solve many city issues. Moreover, 58% agree that the city tries hard to communicate with its residents, but less than a third say that the City does well when it comes to listening to what they say. And though social media is increasingly popular as a means of communication, residents prefer traditional means of communication, such as email, City newsletters, and the City website, to receive updates on City events.

·         The vast majority of residents are in favor of improvement projects, such as a library in the basement of the recreation center or a pool on the land on North County Blvd, but in both cases, roughly only a quarter are willing to pay more than $5 or $10 per month in additional property taxes to fund the projects. On another note, 38% of residents indicated that the City services have improved since they moved to the City.

·         When residents were asked what they would do to improve the City if they were mayor, nearly 100 of those comments mention issues with the golf course. Golf course issues are the second most important of all City issues, and 11% suggested that the City either close or sell the golf course.

·         The top reason indicated for living in Cedar Hill is the family-friendly community.

·         76% of residents preferred email communication from the City.

Consent Agenda

Minutes from the July 1, 2014 and July 15, 2014 Council meeting were approved.

City Reports

David presented new ideas for a sign for the golf course on Canyon Road. Suggestion is that there be a more prominent arrow.

CM Geddes – Planning Commission approved Amsource plans for America First Credit Union.

CM Rees – YCC staff working on master calendar for the new YCC with a combination of service projects and fundraisers. YCC kick-off will be next week. Family Festival committee is already meeting with carnival companies to lock in dates for next year.

CM Zappala – Working with Utah Valley Dispatch on a new building. They are looking at funding sources and may be able to do it without any financing. Firm number will be provided in a few months so cities can review and make decisions.

Mayor Gygi – One of the LPPSD firefighters passed away recently. We are grateful for his service. On Canyon Road he is trying to get more money from the State legislature for improvements or maintenance.

CM Crawley – Parks & Trails committee is hosting a community breakfast on Saturday, August 16^th. In search of additional griddles.

CM Augustus – UDOT did a horrible job on Canyon Road.

Discussion of 2014 Family Festival

We start planning a year in advance as carnival companies book up fairly quickly. Because we are a small city we have issues at times with getting carnival companies to commit to us before they’ve reached out to their larger clients. Keith Irwin will be the chair for 2015 and he is already meeting with potential companies. Committee did a fantastic job of arranging everything. Goal is to have it the first week in June. One thing we did this year that was new was a service project. No other city does it and we got good press from it.

Review/Action Amending Bylaws for Family Festival Committee

There was confusion on whether this committee was to be the ones executing the plan or just advising on the plan. The resolution was updated to state that the committee is executing the plans and keeping council and staff apprised of progress. Also that one council member will be a liaison instead of two. Lastly that the chair will assign committee members to tasks. Mayor recommended that we add that staff will sit on committee to act as treasurer. Resolution with changes was approved.

July 1, 2014 City Council Meeting

Work Session

We discussed the action item for Landon Court. A walkthrough has been done and the developer has met all criteria for the release of the durability retainer. The amount is $28,727.

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Nobody signed up.

Consent Agenda

Minutes for the June 17, 2014 City Council meeting were approved.

City Reports

David Bunker – Thanked everyone for successful Family Festival. Was very successful. Attendance for most events was higher than in the past. Fireworks season is here. Restrictions only for the east side of Canyon Road were put into effect – no aerial fireworks or open fires. Chief Freeman presented and stated fire conditions are getting worse. Feels current restrictions need to be changed to not allow any fireworks east of Canyon Road. My concern is that we’ve already communicated the current restrictions to residents and they’ve purchased fireworks based upon that recommendation. Instead we can provide education for responsible usage of fireworks for the Fourth of July.

CM Zappala – UV Dispatch has decided that expanding in Sherriff’s office isn’t feasible. Looking at other options for building of a new site. Would like to issue an RFP in the fall so they can start construction in the spring. They do have some cash available for this building, but there would be some increase to the cities as well. Daniel will keep us updated. Daniel has started a petition regarding issues with Canyon Road. So far it has 96 signatures. Needs help getting the word out. Would like us to share it on Facebook and ask our friends to share it.

CM Geddes – Planning Commission meeting for June was cancelled as we are waiting for some items from Amsource.

Mayor Gygi – Amsource is interested in possibly developing the city’s commercial property and are discussing with the Mayor. Conversation has been brief. Saturday was the first summer concert series event, more will occur throughout the city.

CM Crawley – Parks and Trails committee is looking for more committee members. Has had one more person join.

CM Augustus – North Pointe did meet. Cities are looking at having more consolidated landfill program.

CM Rees – Family Festival was a huge success and the committee did a great job. YCC members have been selected for next year. Emily Cox (YCC liaison) has met with Lone Peak and let them know our YCC is interested in collaborating with the school on anti-bullying, anti-pornography, and suicide prevention programs. Lone Peak is very happy our YCC wants to do this.

Review/Action on Release of Durability for Landon Court Subdivision Plat A

A final walkthrough of the Landon Court Subdivision Plat A has been conducted. City staff conducted an initial inspection which produced a punch list of items to correct. Following the correction of these items, staff re-inspected the subdivision for compliance with City standards. At this time all improvements have been installed per development regulations and agreements. Staff recommends we release the durability retainer of $28,727, as is required. This was approved.

GRAMA

Cedar Hills has once again been in the local newspaper for issues regarding a GRAMA request so I thought I'd again give a summary of what GRAMA is and an update on the most recent GRAMA requests.

What is GRAMA?

The Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) allows the public access to public records while at the same time protecting certain records that are considered private, controlled, or protected. Most records are public and are available to anyone who requests a record.  The person requesting records is required to describe the desired documents with reasonable specificity.

The City generally is allowed up to ten business days to provide records once a GRAMA request has been submitted; however, the City is allowed to exceed the ten days under extraordinary circumstances, such as if the request contains a voluminous quantity of records, or if the City is processing a large number of requests all at the same time.

Can the City charge a fee?

The City may charge a reasonable fee to cover the actual cost of providing a record. If the City compiles a record in a form other than that normally maintained by the City then the fee may include:

·         the cost of staff time to compile the data,

·         the cost of staff time to search and retrieve the records contained in the request,

·         in the case that the record is the result of a computer output other than word processing, the actual incremental cost of providing the record together with a reasonable portion of the costs associated with formatting or interfacing the information.

What records are not public?

Some records are considered private, controlled, or protected. The City is not allowed to provide access to any record that fits into these three categories and any person who knowingly does provide these records can be subject to criminal penalties. The GRAMA law contains 10 pages of items that are considered private, controlled and protected. A very brief summary of those types of records is as follows:

Private Records – Examples of private records include, but are not limited to records about a person’s welfare benefits; medical history; library records; current and former employee’s home addresses, social security numbers, and marital status; email addresses; and driver license numbers.

Controlled Records – Examples of controlled records include records that contain medical, psychiatric, or psychological data about an individual.

Protected Records – Examples of protected records include, but are not limited to trade secrets; test questions and answers used for licensing or employment; records that contain information which, if disclosed, would impair governmental procurement proceedings; records that contain information which, if disclosed, would impair the acquisition of property; information on security systems; records prepared for or by an attorney; and records involving a criminal investigation.

What is the history behind a recent request for emails? 

There are six different GRAMA requests for emails that have been mentioned. The first was filed by Ken Cromar in March of 2012. That request has been fulfilled. A detailed timeline of that request can be found in the 2012 State of the City magazine that was mailed to all residents and is also online at http://www.cedarhills.org/state-of-city. It starts on page 19. Mr. Cromar received approximately 6,000 pages of emails with that request.

A second request for emails was filed by Mr. Cromar on October 1, 2013. In that request he asked for all email and text records, from whatever source city, and/or personal email and text accounts etc. from April 1, 2012 to present, in their current form, between any and/or all of the following individuals before, after, or during their term of Cedar Hills public employ: Mayors and City Council Members, City Managers, Assistant City Managers, City Recorder or any assistants, Finance Director and/or CFO positions and department assistants, Golf Course managers and assistant managers, Greg and Gretchen Gordon, and Brad Sears. Mr. Cromar wanted all of these records provided for free.

There were several issues with this request and so the city issued a denial on October 14th. Some of the issues include:

• The request is for all emails and text, even personal email on personal accounts;
• The request asks for text messages, which the city doesn't have access to and isn't required to as they are transitory in nature;
• The request asks for texts and emails on personal accounts of a private citizen;
• The request asks for emails that extend beyond the city retention policy;
• The request asks for emails and texts in their current form. This is not possible as redaction of private, controlled, and protected information must occur before the records are provided;
• The request asks for all records to be provided at no cost, even though the State Records Committee had previously told Mr. Cromar that the city could require prepayment of compilation costs prior to fulfilling a request.

After receiving the denial Mr. Cromar requested a phone call with the city and the State Records Ombudsman, who serves as a mediator. This call occurred on October 18, 2013. Mr. Cromar was given the opportunity to appeal the denial, but chose not to so the request expired.

On December 9, 2013 Mr. Cromar filed another request for emails. This time his request was to inspect free of charge all email and text records, from whatever source city, and/or personal email and text accounts, etc. from April 1, 2012 to present, in their current form, between any and/or all of the following individuals before, after, or during their term of Cedar Hills public employ: Mayors, City Managers, City Recorders, Golf Course Managers, Greg & Gretchen Gordon, and Brad Sears. The issues with this request are the same as listed above so the city issued a denial on December 20, 2013.

Mr. Cromar then asked for a meeting between himself, Jerry Dearinger, the city manager David Bunker, Mayor Gygi, and myself. He reached out to me on Christmas Day asking if I would be willing to meet the next morning. We agreed and had a meeting on December 26th. We explained the issues with the request and the process for fulfilling these requests and again stated we were willing to provide the public records once the compilation costs had been paid, but would not begin working on the request until that time.

Mr. Cromar did not agree to pay anything and filed an appeal on January 17, 2014. He also asked for another mediation meeting to occur. We agreed to another meeting only if Mr. Cromar would provide the following:

1. A written proposal with a clear and distinct solution to resolve the GRAMA request, which includes his desired outcome, what he believes the city should do to fulfill the request, and an acknowledgement that he will be responsible to prepay the compilation costs prior to fulfillment;
2. The proposal had to include an acknowledgment that a fee would be required for compilation;
3. That the mediation meeting would include Mayor Gygi, city manager David Bunker, and city attorney Eric Johnson;
4. The City Council would identify which two council members would attend the meeting;
5. An acknowledgement that emails cannot be provided "as is" as redaction of private, controlled, and protected information is required by law.

This was not agreeable to Mr. Cromar and he received another denial from the city on January 22, 2014. On February 21, 2014 he filed a request for a hearing before the State Records Committee. The city provided a response to the appeal on March 13, 2014 and the hearing was scheduled for April 10, 2014. On March 31, 2014 the city received a letter from the State Records Committee changing the hearing to May 8, 2014. The city and the city attorney spent many hours preparing for the hearing.

During the first week in April Mr. Cromar reached out to the State Records Committee and the city asking that his hearing be cancelled because he found a better way to have his request fulfilled. The hearing was cancelled and on April 8, 2014 the city received three identical GRAMA requests; one from the Daily Herald, one from Sam Bushman and Tim Alders, and one from Jerry Dearinger and signed be several other individuals. Mr. Cromar's request was now expired as he cancelled his appeal.

The new requests asked for all city business related emails and text records, from whatever source, including but not limited to city and/or personal email and text accounts, from April 1, 2012 to present as "normally maintained" between any and/or all of the following individuals before, after, or during their term of Cedar Hills public employ: Mayors, City Managers, City Recorders, Golf Course Managers, Greg & Gretchen Gordon, and Brad Sears.

Again, there were issues with the requests. Bushman and Dearinger were each only willing to pay $87 for fulfillment and the Daily Herald was asking for the records to be provided at no cost. Again, the request asked for email on the personal account of a private citizen and again asked for text messages.

The city reached out to all of the individuals to setup a meeting to discuss the issues. The Daily Herald agreed and a meeting was scheduled for April 15. 2014. During that meeting the Daily Herald editor understood the issues and revised his request to eliminate text messages, any emails on the personal email account of a private citizen, agreed that the records must be reviewed and redacted before being provided, and agreed to pay approximately $900 for the request. The city agreed to provide all public records once payment was received. As of today the city has not yet received payment from the Daily Herald, but has been told it is being processed by their corporate offices.

Our city recorder worked to setup meetings with the other requestors but also issued a denial on April 22, 2014 due to the points I mentioned above. On April 28, 2014 Mr. Bushman issued an appeal of the denial. There were some conversations back and forth regarding the request and the city issued another denial on May 14, 2014. During this time the Mayor reached out to those who signed Mr. Dearinger's request to setup a mediation meeting. I was not involved in those conversations so don't have all the dates they occurred. A mediation meeting was setup with the State Records Ombudsman to meet in Salt Lake with Mr. Bushman and Mr. Dearinger. Some of the signers of the request asked that Mr. Dearinger represent them at the mediation, at least one other stated she did not ask for Mr. Dearinger to represent her and wanted to be at the meeting scheduled in Cedar Hills. Eventually the Salt Lake meeting was cancelled as Mayor Gygi requested that a mediation meeting be held in Cedar Hills in the evening so that all the requestors could attend. There was concern expressed that Cedar Hills wasn't a "neutral" location so it was agreed that the mediation would take place at the Highland fire station on the evening of June 11, 2014.

That mediation took place. Included were Mr. Bushman, Mr. Dearinger, the MacPhersons, the Fotheringhams, Mr. James, Mrs. Loosli, Mr. Cromar (even though he is not one of the current GRAMA requestors), the city attorney, the city manager, Mayor Gygi, myself, CM Zappala, the city recorder, Rosemary (the mediator) and Cathy Allred with the Daily Herald. I am going from memory so I may have missed a few names, but needless to say not everyone who signed the request attended the mediation. Details of the mediation are intended to be confidential, but in the end the city agreed to provide the public records that it had always agreed to provide once all of the payments have been received. Mr. Bushman did ask that those listed in the GRAMA request sign affidavits stating that they did not have any city related email or text messages on their personal accounts that had not been turned over to the city as per GRAMA law and the city agreed to this. Originally the city provided signed declarations but this wasn't enough for the requestors as they weren't notarized and didn't state "under penalty of perjury". The affidavits have been updated to include both items and will be resent once we receive word from the mediator that she is fine with the language. All current employees and officials listed in the request have agreed to sign. I do want to point out that this is not required by GRAMA law and that staff and officials are already obligated to uphold GRAMA law, which includes sending to the city recorder any emails and/or texts that are required to be kept as a record. All city employees and officials are adhering to GRAMA laws so the affidavits are a goodwill gesture above and beyond what the law requires.

At this point Mr. Bushman and Mr. Dearinger have both paid their $87 and the city is waiting for the Daily Herald payment of $900 before fulfilling the request. As we've mentioned in the past, the biggest cost comes in the review and redaction of each and every email. This cost cannot be passed to the requestor so is paid for by you, the taxpayers of Cedar Hills.

The city has never denied anyone the right to receive public records. We have consistently stated that all requested records that are maintained as part of our retention schedule will be provided once compilation costs are paid, as allowed by law. This is how every GRAMA request is treated, regardless of who the requestor is. There are some who claim the city is hiding information and/or withholding the public record. That is simply not true.

As always, you are welcome to contact me or any other member of the Council with questions.