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 12th. 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.
