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 18th. 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment