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.