Work Session
Discussion on Community Recreation Center Sign on
Canyon Road
Better sign needed for direction and to bring more
awareness to the facility. Funding was approved for this in the FY 2014 budget.
Options were presented for signs on Nielsen and on Canyon Road. Proposed sign
for Canyon Road has LED portion for advertising of events and announcements. My
preference is to not have the LED portion as this is a residential area, not commercial,
and I feel the LED would give it too much of a commercial feel. I would like to
get feedback from those who live in that area as to how they feel about the LED
portion. Right now our sign ordinance does state that the following is
prohibited “ANIMATED
OR FLASHING SIGN: A sign that includes movement or optical illusion of movement
or rotation of any part by mechanical, artificial or atmospheric means or a
sign that displays flashing or intermittent lights. Time and temperature
devices and banners and flags shall be exempted from this definition.”
Council Meeting
Public Comment
Angela Johnson – Blu Line has done their homework and she’s
excited to see what is proposed to Highland. She is opposed to high density
housing in our commercial area and wants it primarily commercial. Feels high
density is contrary to design guidelines and city codes. We lose sales tax
revenue and commercial property tax revenue if residential is built there.
Feels Highland development will make our commercial area more attractive to
commercial entities. We have very few businesses that generate sales tax and
doesn’t want us to eliminate potential for future commercial growth. Would also
like commercial developed before any mixed use development.
Deborah Gibbons – Have obtained 176 signatures on a
petition asking that the Council not allow high density in our commercial zone.
Wants us to stick with design guidelines that residential is secondary to
commercial, and less than the commercial. Feels it is not appropriate use of
our limited commercial space.
Budget Award Presentation
From the press release: On March 28, 2014 the Government Finance Officers
Association (GFOA) presented the City of Cedar Hills with the GFOA’s Certificate
of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for its comprehensive
annual financial report (CAFR).
According
to the GFOA, this certificate “is the highest form of recognition in the area
of governmental accounting and financial reporting, and its attainment
represents a significant accomplishment by a government and its management.”
This is the first year that Cedar Hills has received this certificate. The CAFR
was judged by an impartial panel to meet the high standards of GFOA’s program,
including demonstrating a constructive “spirit of full disclosure” to clearly
communicate its financial story and motivate potential users and user groups to
read the financial report.
“We
wish to thank Mr. Louw and our entire financial team for performing all of the
work required to obtain this prestigious award,” stated Mayor Gary Gygi. “We
are fortunate to have excellent people working for the City and are happy they
are being recognized for their hard work and dedication.”
As
the person responsible for preparing the award-winning CAFR, Finance Director
Charl Louw will be recognized at the May 6, 2014 City Council meeting, which is
held at the Cedar Hills Community Recreation Center, 10640 N. Clubhouse Drive,
at 7:00pm.
The
Government Finance Officers Association is a nonprofit professional association
serving over 17,500 government finance professionals throughout North America.
Consent Agenda
The minutes from the April 1, 2014 City Council Meeting
were approved.
City Reports
CM Rees – The Easter Egg hunt was once again a huge
success and we thank the YCC and all volunteers who spent hours putting eggs
together. Mayor Gygi and I presented awards to YCC members at Lone Peak at the
Night of Recognition. I will be working with the YCC advisor and staff member
to interview candidates for next years YCC members. The Family Festival
Committee continues to be very busy. The activities will be as follows:
Saturday June 21st is the AF half marathon and 5k, Monday the 23rd
is Swim Night at the PG pool (dinner will be provided by Macey’s), Tuesday is
the Firecracker Golf Tournament, Wednesday is our first annual Community
Service Project where we will be assembling hygiene kits for women in Mexico,
Friday is the 1 mile fun run, Dinner & Movie in the park, and the Carnival,
Saturday is the parade and carnival. The theme is “There’s No Place Like Home”.
Nathan Osmond will be performing Saturday night and kicking off our summer
concert series. Herb Wilkinson is our Grand Marshal. One press release was
issued regarding the awards earned by our Finance department.
David Bunker – TSSD board met and approved a rate
increase beginning July 1st of 13.8%. This is to meet debt
obligations. Tball registration continues through this week. Soccer
registration is now open. Resident Golf Appreciation Day is this Saturday.
Governor Herbert has declared May Utah Golf Month.
Mayor Gygi – Met with County Commissioners regarding
Canyon Road and will meet again to discuss ownership of the road. He will be
attending Highland Council meeting to make a proposal for annexing property
where the golf shed is currently located.
CM Crawley – Parks and Trails had their service project
last Saturday. Chose 5 families in need for landscaping service. There were
several volunteers who participated. Finance Committee met and discussed
changes in budget that will be presented tonight.
CM Augustus – One staff member at North Pointe has
resigned after making allegations regarding other staff members. Will have more
info later.
CM Geddes – Planning Commission met and those items will
be discussed tonight.
Discussion on Decisions Survey
Staff updated the City Council on the timeline and
process to complete the Decisions Survey as prepared by the Cicero group (Dan
Jones & Associates). This is a bi-annual survey done to get feedback from
residents on a variety of topics. It is intended that the feedback can be used
for decisions moving forward. Last survey was done in 2011. Sending a postcard
will allow every resident the opportunity to take the survey online. Goal is
300 interviews, though more is always better.
TIMELINE:
1: April
28 - May 2 Review and Update Questionnaire
2: May 5
- 9 Program, QA, and Pretest. Design Postcard
3-4: May 12 -
16 Field Questionnaire, May 19 - 23 *Phone *Email * City of Cedar Hills sends
postcard
5: May 26
- 30 Post-coding and analysis
6: June 2
- 6 Reporting
Review/Action on Preliminary Plan for Amsource
Property, located on the corner of North County Blvd and Cedar Hills Drive
Nobody signed up for the public hearing. Amsource has
submitted preliminary plans for review to the City Council for consideration.
The Amsource property is located at 4800 W Cedar Hills Drive. The proposal includes
the construction of an American First Credit Union, and an additional two
retail pads. Amsource has submitted the required studies to the City, and paid
the application fee. Amsource is hoping to break ground as soon as possible in
order to have the retail pads open for the coming holiday season. The credit
union is planned for 2015. Bill Gaskell from Amsource presented. They currently
have retailers interested in the two retail buildings and leases will be completed
once approval is received.
Of concern to the City is the construction of the access
road that runs adjacent to the Smart property and the Amsource property. The
entrance to that road is on the Smart property, but staff recommends that the
road should need to be installed in order for Amsource to build according to
their plans. Amsource is currently discussing this with the Smart family. They
are willing to acquire that portion of land needed for the road. Chief Freeman’s
concern is that currently the only access point to the area from the Cedar
Hills fire station is from North County Blvd onto 10400 North.
Preliminary plans were approved contingent upon two of
the crosswalks being raised and additional landscaping along 10040 North and
the future road.
Review/Action on FY 2014 Budget Amendments
Motor Vehicle Fee, Delinquent taxes, Interest
re-allocation based on property tax rates. In the past, motor vehicle taxes,
delinquent taxes, and penalties & interest have all gone to the General
Fund. Instead it should be going to the Golf Fund as the property tax rate for
the General Fund is different than the tax rate to cover the golf course bond.
This shows as a separate line item on resident property tax notices. Those
three tax sources are based upon debt levy, so this will be separated moving
forward.
General Fund
10-31-150 Motor
vehicle taxes $36,410 decrease
10-31-200 Delinquent
taxes $9,930 decrease
10-31-250 Penalties
& Interest $166 decrease
Golf Debt Service
Fund
30-31-103 Motor
vehicle taxes $36,410 increase
30-31-104 Delinquent
taxes $9,930 increase
30-31-105 Penalties
& Interest $166 increase
Revenue adjustment from construction related activities,
grants, and garbage collection
General Fund
10-32-200 Building
Permits $25,000 increase due to Bridgestone project
10-32-210 Plan
Check Fees $7,000 increase due to Bridgestone project
10-33-450 Emergency
Management Grant $7,500 increase
10-34-110 Garbage
Fees $20,000 increase due to houses with 2 or more garbage cans
10-34-120 Recycling
fees $5,000 increase due to new growth
Capital Projects
Fund
40-30-100 Impact
fees-park development $32,000 increase due to Bridgestone
40-30-110 Impact
fees-park land $110,000 increase due to Bridgestone
40-30-130 Impact
fees-public safety $13,000 increase due to Bridgestone
40-30-140 Impact
fees-streets $7,000 increase due to Bridgestone
Water & Sewer
Fund
51-37-350 Impact
fees-water $35,000 increase due to Bridgestone
51-38-115 Sewer
fees-nonresident $35,000 increase due to meter relocation
51-38-160 Sewer
lateral inspection $1,600 increase due to Bridgestone
51-38-670 Impact
fees-sewer $15,000 increase due to Bridgestone
Higher activity for event rentals, recreation programs,
and change in staffing
General Fund
10-35-112 Event
center rentals $15,000 increase
10-35-130 Park
reservations $2,500 increase (this is a newly created account)
10-65-110 Salary
& wages (FT) $38,280 decrease due to elimination of a position
10-65-120 Salary
& wages (PT) $9,000 increase as replaced FT person with PT person
10-65-150 Employee
benefits $6,700 increase
10-65-200 Materials
& supplies $8,000 increase for linens and blinds
10-65-300 Rec expenses-fitness classes $28,000
increase as contract was finalized after budget approved
10-65-400 Rec
programs $7,000 increase in gym rentals
10-65-401 Rec
equipment $15,000 decrease
10-65-601 Other
events $1,500 increase for summer concert series
10-65-610 Advertising
$2,950 increase for wedding expo and contract with Sammy
10-65-620 Building
maintenance $8,000 increase in cleaning and maintenance
Golf adjustments due to higher utility costs and trades
for services
Golf Fund
20-30-500 Snack
shack & concession revenues $5,500 increase
20-43-290 Communications/telephone
$1,000 increase
20-50-200 Utilities
$10,000 increase (expected savings in electric bill for new carts wasn’t realized)
20-50-500 Snack
shack & concession expenses $4,500 increase
20-60-100 Repair
& maintenance-course $4,000 decrease
20-50-100 Golf
supplies $5,000 decrease
20-70-100 Dues
& subscriptions $1,000 decrease
20-30-600 Corporate
season passes $22,500 increase
20-60-100 Repairs
& maintenance-course $7,500 increase
20-70-600 Advertising
$15,000 increase
This item was approved.
Review/Action Adopting Tentative Budget for FY 2015
The City reviewed the revenues and expenses proposed for
the Golf Fund for the 2014-2015 Budget. The City is also required to approve a
tentative budget for 2014-2015 by the first Council Meeting in May based on
Utah Code 10-6-135. As the Council is aware, the final budget will not be
approved until June, so there is still time to review any questions or
concerns. Here is a summary:
New or Increased Expenses
·
Fund 10 & 51 public works full-time staffing
approximately $30,000 combined increase
·
10-62-440 Road maintenance increases $10,000
·
40-78-732 Harvey boulevard roundabout $300,000 (This
is a placeholder as it hasn’t yet been researched or presented to the Council.
Would be paid for with impact fees).
·
Fund 51 Secondary meters design, installation,
and related financing $1,500,000 (This is also a placeholder as more research
needs to be done). Requested that Siemens come present to the Council again and
also get an analysis on what it would cost for the city to do it on our own.
·
10-55-400 American Fork Police annual contract
increases 3.5%
·
10-55-300 Fire Services-Lone Peak increase
estimated at 4.2% but still waiting for LPPSD board approval so number could
change
·
Fund 10, 20, and 51 City employee merit estimated
increase 3%
·
Fund 10, 20, and 51 Employee healthcare market
estimated increases 6%
·
40-95-135 Golf maintenance shed $300,000 (This
is a placeholder as bids need to be obtained)
·
10-65-601 Other events/Cultural Arts
Committee—concerts, quarterly breakfasts, $4,200 increase
·
10-64-245 Beautification, Recreation, Parks, and
Trails Citizen Advisory Committee projects $1,200 increase
·
10-64-240 Park maintenance contract increases
and new projects $18,100 increase
·
40-80-817 Bayhill park phase 1 $50,000 (would
include a playground area towards the street and some grass in that area, on
the south side of the lot)
·
51-73-330 Professional/Technical for water to increase
$40,000 (This is a placeholder to cover costs of design and study for metering
PI water)
Reduced or Eliminated Expenses
·
Allocation of motor vehicle fees, delinquent
taxes, interest causes $50,000 decrease to debt levy property tax rates
30-31-101 & 30-31-102
·
Fund 51 delayed Canyon Road sewer project
decrease $400,000
·
51-74-470 absorbed TSSD rate increase of 13.8%
or approximately $63,000 increase in costs, and delayed Bowen & Collins
sewer rate increases for 1 year
·
10-40-331 Decisions survey $10,000 decrease
·
10-40-510 Insurance $12,000 decrease (General
Liability insurance and property)
·
10-45-400 Elections $12,000 decrease
·
10-40-305 Legal services $5,000 decrease
·
10-40-240 Computer/IT services $3,000 decrease
·
10-40-290 Communications/Telephone $5,000
decrease
·
10-69-913 Subsidy to Golf fund reduced $26,853 (I
have requested that this go back to the Finance Committee. I am worried that
anticipating golf revenues higher than last year and a subsidy lower than any
prior year is unrealistic and puts us in a bad situation late in the budget
year of having to cut other items in order to cover a higher than anticipated
subsidy).
This was approved.
Discussion on Blu Line Proposal
Doug Young and Blu Line have presented a potential
proposal to the Planning Commission regarding the property located at 4600 W
Cedar Hills Dr. Doug has held a neighborhood meeting and has solicited feedback
from staff, residents, Planning Commissioners, and City Council members in
order to address the various concerns raised by this project. Doug would like
to continue that discussion with the City Council tonight. The current proposal
has reduced the number of units to around 250, and removed the 4th floor.
Chandler has contacted the Utah County Assessor regarding
how the facility would be taxed. Previously it was indicated that it would be
taxed at a commercial rate, which is how it is taxed in Salt Lake County. Utah
County has indicated it would be taxed at a residential rate, not a commercial
rate. There was misinformation provided in past meetings as to how this
facility would be taxed as the information obtained wasn’t clear.
Blu Line is planning on bidding on acquiring property on
the Highland side in the development recently approved by the State. Likes the
proposal for an east/west connection to Highland as it will improve access to
our commercial area. Blu Line is willing to pay for an economic analysis for
the Smart property and city-owned property to determine how the property could
be developed and to figure out what actual possibilities exist, just as was
done on the Highland side.
Resident Deborah Gibbons provided the Council with a
petition signed by 176 residents who are opposed to high density/residential in
our commercial area.
CM Zappala – Likes idea of having a street from the
Highland Development into the middle of our commercial area better than what
State has proposed. Plans on speaking with Alpine School District to discuss
their concerns regarding the Highland area proposal. Encourages Blu Line to do
their development of a senior facility on the Highland side as it’s a better
fit for what they are trying to do. CM Zappala has highlighted some key points
in City Code regarding our commercial zone. His complete analysis can be found
on his blog at
http://cedarhillsblog.org/another-review-of-city-code/
and I encourage residents to read it. Feels our code needs to be updated to be
more clear as it doesn’t discuss congregate care facilities and whether or not
they are/should be allowed and where.
CM Augustus – Has spent a lot of time researching options
for our commercial area. Many entities expressed that our commercial area is
less than ideal due to our location and limited pull radius. Everyone he has
talked to indicates that our area is not prime commercial real estate. Best
possible location is right along North County Blvd. The Smart property is the
least likely area for commercial development as it can’t be seen from main road
and will be behind any businesses located on North County Blvd. Lexington
Heights building has a difficult time keeping tenants and building full. Commercial
doesn’t always bring commercial, especially in that back lot. Limited as to
what types of businesses will want to be there as it’s hard to compete with
Walmart. Looking for something that is viable for that area.
I appreciate Doug’s willingness to listen to feedback
from the Council and from residents and to make changes. However, I agree with
concerns that Daniel brings up with regards to city code, but I also agree with
Trent that this isn’t an ideal commercial spot. I recognize that I sit at this
table to represent residents and I can’t ignore a petition signed by 176
residents and all of the residents who’ve reached out via email and in
neighborhood meetings. I haven’t seen overwhelming support for the facility but
have received a lot of feedback opposed to high density and opposed to this
facility. There are concerns regarding the code and regarding the location, but
the number one driving factor for me is resident input and 98% of the feedback
I’ve received from residents has been opposition to high density or mainly
residential in the commercial zone.
CM Geddes – Feels this is a good facility and good for
this area. Understands that many residents are opposed but feels many who
signed the petition may not be fully informed. Feels government should be less
involved and property owners have rights. Feels a lot of time has been wasted.
Discussion on Canyon Road
Nothing has changed from the last update.
