Council Meeting - August 25, 2015

Work Session
We discussed items that are presented in Council meeting, so all of my notes are below.

Council Meeting

Public Comment
Rhonda Bromley - Principal of Lone Peak High School. Thanks city for all that is done. Excited and proud of 95% graduation rate, which is above state and district average. Appreciates meeting with David and Greg on city programs. Feels partnership is formed with the city. Excited about the addition of a full-time social worker at the school to help with mental health issues students face. Started a Hope Squad at the school. Has 2600 students this year. New school being built will not affect Lone Peak's boundaries. Appreciates the partnership they have with AFPD.

Ken Cromar - Grateful for Lone Peak with regards to soccer. Has a hard time getting field time in the city so uses school property. Sign up sheet for public comment asks if they want to be contacted and he often says yes, but never hears back. Gratified by efforts made by Colleen with regards to elections. Feels ballot box was not 100% secure. September newsletter needs to have year by year tax payer subsidies of golf course so residents can use this data when voting.

Marisa Wright - Has every faith in the system and the voting process, in Colleen and Gretchen. Their integrity is of the upmost and for anyone to state that something is wrong is insulting. City has done an amazing job with honest elections. Most citizens believe in this process and know it is done in a fair way.

Review/Action Recognizing Cedar Hills Champion, Joseph Chou
From the press release issued - On August 25, 2015 the City Council recognized Joseph Chou for his commitment and dedication to the scouting program after receiving all 141 merit badges as well as all cub scout awards available. 

Joseph Chou, age 17, is the first scout in his family. A few of his favorite merit badges are aviation, nuclear science, animation, inventing, and game design. The most challenging ones for him were bugling, scuba diving, and water sports.

We are impressed with Joseph’s incredible accomplishment. Completing the requirements for an Eagle Scout is no easy task, but completing every merit badge requirement is impressive and commendable. To recognize him for his efforts, the City Council selected him as the most recent Cedar Hills Champion and declared August 26, 2015 as Joseph Chou Day in Cedar Hills.

Consent Agenda

The minute from the July 7, 2015 City Council meeting approved. Brent Aaron, David Driggs, and Mark Horne were appointed to the Golf Course Finance Committee. These were both approved.

City Reports
CM Rees - The Planning Commission met last week. They reviewed and approved the preliminary plans for the proposed congregate care facility located in the SC-1 commercial zone. Detailed notes are available on my blog. This will now come to the City Council for consideration. They also discussed the Levine property, which is located on the Cedar Hills/PG border. Mr. Levine would like to subdivide his property but is running into some issues with regards to the city's requirements for curb, gutter, and asphalt. Mr. Levine is asking for an exception as the cost to complete these requirements is very high due to the fact that telephone polls are located on that property and he would have to pay to have them relocated. The Planning Commission discussed, but this will need to to the the Board of Adjustments. Lastly, the PC agreed to hold a special meeting to discuss changes to the Design Guidelines.

As far as communications, we issued a press release regarding Joseph Chou. The State of the City files have been sent to each council member for review. We are still expecting to have this completed in September.

David Bunker - TSSD Board met last week. Amended budget due to an increase in legal fees and a settlement regarding the plant expansion project. Increase in legal fees is partly due to lawsuit Pleasant Grove has filed against TSSD. Regarding fire above Alpine, it is about 30 acres. LPPSD is not responding because it is not in their jurisdiction, but within the Forest Service jurisdiction. LPPSD has no authority in this area. Forest Service is watching it closely.

CM Zappala - Wants input from Council on giving residents the ability to provide public comments online. Mayor suggested he first discuss this with legal counsel.

Mayor Gygi - Disappointed with County Commissioner's and County Auditor's decision regarding voting this year on gas tax. They decided that they will not allow this ballot issue to be on any vote-by-mail ballots as they feel it gives an unfair advantage to those cities who do all vote-by-mail. This means Cedar Hills residents will have to vote twice, once on the mailed city ballot and once in person on the County ballot. Mayor feels this will cause confusion for us and other cities who are all vote-by-mail. Attended a meeting with the County officials and representatives from other cities to discuss concerns, but County is unwilling to budge. We will work to communicate this to residents.

CM Crawley - Golf Course Finance Committee has been meeting every week. Feels it has been helpful and more information is coming out. Discussing legal issues. Will meet again tomorrow night at 8pm.

CM Geddes - Parks & Trails committee met and will be requesting funds to start a design with a landscape architect for the roundabout on Cedar Hills Drive. Would like it to be more of a focal point. City breakfast was very successful, estimating just under 500 attendees. Will discuss Bayhill Park at their next meeting. Meeting with Utah Valley Dispatch tomorrow to discuss the proposed new dispatch center as the bids received were much higher than anticipated.

Review/Action on Canvass of Election Returns
Pursuant to state law, it is necessary for the City Council to act as the board of canvassers and to canvass the election returns by reviewing and verifying the total votes cast on election day, and to tally and add the total votes from the Provisional and late returning Mail-in Ballots (which will be opened and tallied at the meeting) so that the final totals for each candidate are shown.The city received 13 Provisional Ballots, 12 were verified as valid, and received 112 late returning Mail-in Ballots, 102 were verified as valid. It will be necessary for the City Council, by motion, to officially certify the results of the canvass and declare“nominated” those persons who had the highest number of votes.

Here are the final numbers:

Brian Miller - 284
Angela Johnson - 753
Paul Sorensen - 425
Jenney Rees - 803
Craig Clement - 283
Curt Crosby - 279
Chris Fowler - 175
Mike Geddes - 611
Ben Bailey - 444

The six candidates moving forward are Jenney Rees, Angela Johnson, Mike Geddes, Ben Bailey, Paul Sorensen, and Brian Miller.

Review/Action on Small Animal Rights
As part of the process of rezoning, moving large animal units into the R-1, 15,000 zone is essential to mitigating negative impacts of the proposed rezoning. The definition of large and small animal rights is as follows:

ANIMAL UNITS:

Large: One large animal unit shall be any of the following: two (2) cows, horses, donkeys, llamas or similar large animals; or eight (8) adult sheep; or sixteen (16) feeder lambs, or eight (8) goats, or two (2) pigs, or an equivalent combination of the above, together with the suckling offspring thereof. The maximum number of animal units allowed to be placed on any lot or parcel shall be two (2) large animal units. Each large animal unit requires ten thousand (10,000) square feet of livestock management area. Half of a large animal unit requires five thousand (5,000) square feet of livestock management area.

Small: Small animals or fowl shall be one of any of the following: rabbit, turkey, duck, chicken, pigeon, dove, turtle, quail, or similar small animals or fowl.

Residents that currently have large animal rights will be able to keep them as long as they don’t change their dedicated livestock management areas. Additionally, this amendment does not grant large animal rights to anyone who did not already have large animal rights prior to the proposed zone change. This change is being made so that those who are being moved from the R1-20,000 zone to the R1-15,000 zone won't lose any existing animal rights that they have. This was approved.

Review/Action on Rezoning of Certain Lands
Staff is recommending to the City Council amendments to the current zoning map. Sections of the zoning map to be amended include City of Cedar Hills properties found in the H-1 zone and P.R. 3.4 zone that are currently municipal parks, or listed in the Capital Improvements Plan to be developed as parks. It is recommended that these properties be moved from their respective current zones and be placed in the Public Facilities Zone (P.F. Zone) so that it is clear that these are city owned properties not available for residential development.

Additionally, staff is recommending that portions of the RR-1 20,000 zone be rezoned into the R-1 15,000 zone, as many of the lots found in area recommended for the rezoning meet the size requirements of the R-1 15,000 zone, and not the R.R. 1 -20,000 zone. There are currently some homes in this area that are smaller than 20,000, so are considered non-conforming lots. This occurred when the properties were annexed into the city. Making this change will make them conforming lots. After conversations with the Utah County Tax Assessors Office, there will be no change in the property tax assessment for the properties in question, as they will remain single family residential lots. The Planning Commission has reviewed the proposal, and made a recommendation to the City Council for approval. This was approved.

Discussion on Awarding Contract for Community Center Concessions
The City recently advertised the request for proposals (RFP) from qualified food vendors to provide and operate concessions and food services at the grill. The city received one proposal from Mr. Cameron Burr. He has been involved in the management of food services for over 8 years and currently operates a food truck called Genki Asian Street Food. Mr. Burr provided a proposed management and marketing plan, and general menu and pricing plan. Staff recommends the council review and consider the proposal from Mr. Burr to provide food and concession services. Staff opinion is that the contract will be beneficial and the sooner the city engages in a contract, the sooner services will be provided which will benefit the vendor and the City both short term and long term.

Mr. Burr answered questions from the Council. His family has been involved with the Hogi Yogi franchise for many years. They then began to deliver food to 50 or so charter schools. These meals were prepared and delivered to the schools. Moved to Kneaders and handled many wedding events. Would like to provide catering to those renting Vista Room, but would also like to provide food delivery and catering to those in the city. Looking to serve sandwiches, salads, soups, burgers, and kids meals. He currently has 5 employees with the food truck. If awarded this contract, he will increase to 10 employees. Mr. Burr feels this space takes someone who understands food. He feels that the benefit he's had is having to start his own business and planning menus based on season, which is where the industry is going. Needs a flexible menu. Being in the industry has helped him understand what works and he will apply that knowledge here. He will be a preferred vendor for our events that need catering.

Discussion on Bayhill Park
Following the recommendation of the Parks and Trails Committee, the new proposal for Bayhill Park was sent to Bowen Collins to give the city a cost estimate. The Bowen Collins study has come back, and they have provided an updated cost estimate for the original proposal, a cost estimate for the Parks and Trails Committee proposal, and cost estimate of a modified version of the Committee’s proposal. The Committee’s proposal includes the construction of large retaining walls that significantly raised the cost estimate for the construction of the Park. The Bowen Collins proposal took elements of the Committee’s proposal and tried to incorporate those ideas in a more cost effective manner.

Here is the original proposal, which is estimated to cost $307,593:

In this first arrangement, it had a large parking lot and a playground for kids ages 2-5, with a grass area down below. There was no pavilion.

Here is what the Parks & Trails Committee suggests, which is estimated to cost $616,204:

In this proposal there is more green space, a pavilion, and a swing set in addition to the playground equipment. There would need to be an additional access road for Metropolitan Water to get access to the aqueduct, which is shown with the dark gray squares. This also includes retaining walls so that the playground area and the pavilions are flat. 

Here is what Bowen & Collins has suggested, which is estimated to cost $446,224:

This plan eliminates the need for so many retaining walls. The access road is moved to the south and keeps the pavilion, playground areas, and restroom in the same area. Keeps the swing set and playground equipment. Lower green space could possibly be used for tot soccer. 

David (city manager) is working with finance director to identify funding options as costs for each are more than was originally budgeted.

Next step is to submit this to the Parks & Trails Committee as they haven't yet seen these plans, and staff will solidify funding sources. It will them come back to the Council. The Council preferred Option C.

Planning Commission Meeting - Blu Line proposal August 18, 2015

Recommendation on Rosegate Facility
Chandler Goodwin presented.

• Blu Line has provided a traffic study through Hales Engineering. Peak traffic is 7am-9am. Level of service was studied for intersections in that area. Current rating for those intersections are at A or B rating. With proposed facility and increase in traffic, levels of service don't change. Each intersection will have wait time of 20 seconds or less. States the traffic impact is negligible. 
• Hales looked at other congregate care facilities and recommends parking ratio of 1 stall per unit. There are an additional 294 stalls in the neighborhood retail zone for the three proposed commercial buildings. Feels parking will not be an issue. 
• Height of building is 29 feet, which is under the 30 feet limit allowed in code. Setback of 30 feet is required. Setback for this building is 90-100 feet. 
• Looked at utilities. Sewer capacity is available and water rights will be obtained and provided to the city to provide culinary water to the facility. 
• Open space has been changed so that open space is visible from sides of the building and pedestrians, not just residents of the facility.
• Lighting plan show that light is contained on the property and should not impact homes to the south of the facility. 

David Driggs asked what kind of an impact it will have on culinary system. Chandler explained capacity is just based on pipe size and ability to deliver water to the facility. The city wouldn't need to upsize pipes to the area. For water supply, the developer would need to give to the city water rights to supply the facility. This is part of the development agreement. Driggs asked if there is enough water in the aquifer to supply to the facility and Chandler said yes. Residents will use mostly culinary water, but not much PI water. 

LoriAnne Spear asked about the lighting and wants to know if the plan is going to be contained, similar to Walmart and the adjoining neighborhood there. Chandler said light will not spill over into the yards to the south of the facility. Developer will follow city requirements. 

Driggs asked about the traffic study and wants to know if it was done under the assumption that this is an assisted living center, or 55+ housing. Chandler said it was performed for a congregate care facility with 291 units. Current plan shows 294 units with space for an additional 3 units. 

Driggs asked if a landscape plan is required at this stage. Chandler indicated that it's not, but developer did provide one. Developer meets the 30% requirement for landscaping. 

For the developer, Cory Shupe presented. Gave his perspective on the history of this process. Says Smarts have owned this property since 1987 and are anxious to move forward. Based on last discussion with Planning Commission, they opened up the building so landscaping can be viewed by pedestrians and those driving by. 

Here are some photos of what has been presented tonight:

Light green area is the Mixed Use Office/Retail zone. Says their building is completely within the zone where assisted living is allowed. Dark green is Neighborhood Retail zone, so there is no portion of the congregate care facility in that zone. There are three commercial buildings planned, but nothing has been solidified. They won't build these buildings until they have tenants, and then will custom build for those tenants.

Open areas has a pickleball court, BBQ area, outdoor gathering areas, putting greens, and a garden area. 

There will be a buffer fence installed on the south side of the building to reduce headlight glare. Will also have landscaping along that border.

Developer showed pictures of some examples of what could be done with the commercial buildings. Those photos weren't provided in our packet so I can't post them here. He also showed some artistic renderings of what the building can look like, but those also weren't provided to us electronically. Here are portions of the drawings that were provided:

Developer feels they have met all of our requirements and addressed concerns that have been expressed. Says they are totally and completely within our guidelines. They are hoping to receive approval to bring plans to the City Council.

John Dredge asked if 4700 West will be built before the commercial buildings are built, and developer answered yes. This is the road that will be to the south of the Walmart entrance/exit. 

Spear asked if retail pads will be three stories high (as soon in the pictures he displayed on the projector), but developer said no, it doesn't need to be three stories. It will be dependent upon who wants to move into those buildings.

Don Steele asked if 4600 West will continue down to road by Harts. Developer said they have already spoken with those property owners and road will be completed to that portion. 

Glenn Dodge asked if additional dormers will be placed to breakup the roof line. Developer said those are additional details that can be worked through at a later time. 

Driggs asked if there is a sidewalk along the south side. Developer said they can incorporate a walk through there, if wanted. After discussion it was determined this wasn't desired.

Driggs asked about existing power lines. Developer went to power company and is suggesting those lines be buried. Hoping to have a conversation with AFCU (coming soon) to see if they will also bury their lines at the same time. Trees in that area are already being cut to accommodate power lines, so feels those lines should be buried soon. 

Driggs asked about coordinating with UTA about possible bus stops for this facility. Developer said working with UTA is another 2.5 year process. Says demand will drive their decision. Until then, UTA won't give them the time of day. They will offer a shuttle service as an amenity.

Driggs asked if any of the parking will be reserved. Developer stated parking in the light green area (above) is for the building itself. Dark green area is for commercial buildings. Stalls for the facility are numbered and will be assigned to units, based on need. There are some parking stalls available for visitors. There are 294 parking stalls for the facility, with 291 planned units. Developer feels they have more stalls than necessary. 

Driggs asked about the commercial pads and asked if these are part of the plans. Developer stated they are asking for approval for location of buildings, but not architectural  renderings. Buildings won't be built until a tenant is ready to move in. 

Driggs asked if a list of services they intend to provide were submitted with plans. Developer stated this isn't a requirement for preliminary plans, so did not. Driggs stated that without knowing what they are committed to provide with regards to services, they can be viewed as a residential facility instead of substantially the same as an assisted living center. Clement said that the City Council already made a finding of fact determining that it is the same, which means they no longer have to prove that they are. Clement feels that decision already has been made. Developer stated that their definition was read and agreed upon by Council as part of the finding of fact made in December. Clement read the developers definition of congregate care.

Spear asked if the services will be provided onsite or through outside vendors, and will it be an additional cost to residents. Developer said it will be a combination of services provided onsite and offsite, based on best price. They will have a kitchen and dining common area. 

Driggs asked if they know what services will be delivered onsite. Developer said they have a plan, but tonight they are just looking for preliminary approval of the congregate care facility. 

Clement said development agreement can spell out many of the details as this is a conditional use and needs a conditional use permit. 

Driggs said he have asked for a list of services provided as part of the application and has yet to receive one. Though it isn't required, in the spirit of full disclosure he would like to see it. Developer says they have provided this and will again.

Clement says he went through Design Guidelines again once he received these preliminary plans. Says some things are suggested, but not expressly prohibited or required. 

Driggs said vision of city is that this area is commercial and intended to generate sales tax revenue. Clement said this is then contradicted later on in description for mixed use/office detail. Clement says this building can be viewed as less intense than retail. Clement feels that laws favor property owner and that the job of the Planning Commission is to make sure the development meets the codes and ordinances of the city. He feels case law rules in favor of the property owner where there are ambiguities. He says he can't find anything in the preliminary plans that aren't in compliance with city code. Driggs says he's struggling with the lack of commercial activity. Clement says an exception was given to Walmart, which is in the mixed-use zone though clearly retail. 

Driggs read from the Design Guidelines with regards to residential units. Clement said the definition for residential doesn't apply to assisted living, which is what this building needs to be viewed as after the Council's finding of fact. 

Driggs stated he doesn't care for what is being presented. Doesn't know how motivated the developer is to build the commercial buildings. Developer said what they are paying for the land drives the desire to get the commercial going. 

Driggs brought up fact that 20% of units could be rented to those under the age of 55. Nearby elementary school may feel some impact. Developer said nobody under the age of 19 would be allowed to live in the building. 

Developer again stated they feel they are in 100% compliance with their preliminary plans. 

Steele said there are commissioners who live near that property and should state, in full disclosure, where they live. They must base decision on laws and ordinances. Council can deal with the political aspects of it. Feels they have been diligent in reviewing these plans and doesn't like that some claim they rubber stamp these projects. 

Motion was made by Jeff Dodge to recommend to the City Council the preliminary plans for consideration. Seconded by Steele. Vote was 4-1, with only Driggs voting nay. This will now move forward to the City Council. 

City Council Meeting - August 4, 2015

Work Session
We discussed items on the Council agenda, so my notes are below.

Council Meeting

Public Comment
Ken Cromar - Would like the city to publish a year by year analysis of golf course subsidies. Feels city is afraid to share this information. Says CM Crawley's Herculean efforts to analyze golf course data should also be published. Challenges us to provide that information. Has filed a complaint with the city to adjust the minutes from a meeting in April 2013 to show that Matt Rees was in attendance at that meeting. 

Greg Stowall - Asking for the city to approve Item #7 as they had no idea about the drainage easement until they started the process of selling their home. 

City Reports
Chandler Goodwin - Harvey Well is running and will be in full operation next week. Food truck night is working, a few logistical things will be addressed but has been successful. We will need to clear out the parking lot at Heritage Park in the early afternoon so that food trucks can use the parking lot instead of the school. The summer breakfast will be on August 14th. 

CM Zappala - Has been working on an app to report issues to the city. Students have a working model and will start asking for resident feedback. This will help with improvements and discussions with technology providers. 

CM Rees - The Planning Commission met last week. They approved allowing animal rights in the R1-15,000 zone and also approved changing the zone along Canyon Road from the R1-20,000 zone to the R1-15,000 zone, and changing Doral Park, Cottage Park, and Cedar Run Park to the Public Facilities Zone. This will be coming to Council soon. The Planning Commission also discussed signs in the public right of way and asked staff to do some research on what other cities do. They will discuss this further and make a recommendation to Council at a later time. 

Mayor Gygi - MAG is meeting this Thursday evening. 

CM Crawley - Preparing for the Golf Course Finance meeting. 

CM Geddes - Still ongoing issue with Utah Valley Dispatch as the bids received are significantly over budget. Parks & Trails Committee have put together the summer breakfast and hope to see many attend. Has finished the preliminary draft for beautification of roundabout. 

Review/Action on Use of Community Center
Here is the memo from staff: 

Executive staff met with the City Council in January about usage of the Community Center and direction/expectations for the center. The Recreation staff would like to move forward with plans for the schedule in the Community Center. Staff will act on Council's instructions and directions, however there are constraints based on our current budget for recreation. In addition, there would be ramifications based on potentially replacing revenue-based events with non-revenue events. We have hit an all-time high in revenues and to add specific nights for open usage would negatively affect our revenues in events. Staff takes pride in operating within our budget and exceeding expectations from the City Council. Again, staff is happy to change course on Council's direction,but we will not be as effective and successful with revenue loss and significant labor cost increases by utilizing additional staff after normal work hours for free/discounted rates. Please also recognize that when we open the building up for events/activities it may negatively impact the golf course tournament bookings, they typically book within 30-45 days. Here is a brief summary of what is currently being offered at the Community Center: Boot camp, Karate classes, Dance/tumbling, Celebrations dance/vocal club, Youth theatre classes, Youth City Council meetings/activities, Golf tournaments (meal, raffle, etc.), HOA meetings, City meetings (City Council, Planning Commission, Town Hall), Religious meetings, Baby Showers, Missionary farewell/homecoming events, Club banquets, Lone Peak High School clinics, Scouting court of honor, business meetings, commercial video sessions, wedding proposals, corporate/family parties and more.

Here is the email I had sent, requesting this be on the agenda:

In January at our retreat we all discussed and agreed that the community center should make community events a priority. I've been following some online discussions and many residents feel the resident cost makes renting the facility prohibitive and also feel we don't have enough community sponsored events. 

I'd like to add an agenda item to our next meeting where we formalize a policy with regards to the community center. Specifically, I'd like to talk about: 

• Setting aside specific nights for community events (Santa party, 4th of July, summer breakfast, etc

• Setting aside specific nights for resident uses at a steeply discounted rate (maybe every Monday and Tuesday)

• Reviewing the list of resident suggestions on community events (there have been many ideas thrown out) and tasking our recreation department with researching & implementing many of the suggestions

• Coordinating with MAG on a monthly seniors day or evening

• Setting aside specific nights for resident uses of the basement or conference room for free for things like book club, etc.

I know we only budgeted $180k in revenues for FY2016 even though we expect $250k this year. I realize that making a policy as outlined above may impact revenues, but if this is going to be a community center then we all need to work harder at seeing it primarily used for community events. I, for one, am fine adjusting our budget to account for the decrease in revenue. Let's at least have the discussion.

Staff had scheduled some classes with IFA, but these were cancelled after nobody showed up. A resident has set up classes on landscaping, but the attendance has also been poor. Jill is starting bootcamp classes this fall. There is interest in a Zumba class. Would like to see more volunteers willing to do classes. 

CM Zappala said there is a difference between a community-wide event versus a resident event. We discussed a high priority for community wide events, like the summer breakfast and Santa party. Feels the Council needs to decide if we are willing to give up revenue for greater resident use of the building. Prior Council purposely built this facility as a revenue generator for golf course losses. If we want to go in a different direction, we need to know if this is what residents want. CM Zappala would like us to look at decorating the basement room so it's attractive for residents. Would also like to see much better advertising of resident rates. Possibly a resident only rate sheet given to each household, with a low fee, like $20/hour. We need to rethink our use of the grill space as it hasn't succeeded. We can move food sales to clubhouse and utilize grill space for things like a volunteer library, or something that is always available to residents. Would like to see more community-wide events. 

I would like to find a middle ground. I think we could keep Monday and Tuesday nights open for residents to utilize the Vista Room at a very discounted rate, and leave Wednesday-Saturday open for revenue generating events. I'd like to have quarterly community events, like the summer breakfast, and find more activities for the basement, like merit badge classes. This way we can get more community events happening here, but also have specific days when residents can use the Vista room at a very low cost. It might be a good idea to create another resident-driven committee to look at community events that can be held at the facility.

CM Crawley agreed, but would leave Monday-Wednesday open for residents. CM Geddes agrees, but feels our fees are reasonable. He'd rather a tournament be booked over a cheaper fee for residents. 

Over the past year we've rented the Vista Room on 10 Mondays and 9 Tuesdays to paying customers. 

This item was tabled until staff and officials can come up with a specific proposal on fees, days for residents, etc. that the Council can discuss and vote on.

Review/Action on Approval of Canyon Heights Drainage Easement
The City of Cedar Hills has a drainage easement located on the properties located at 9058 N and 9044 N Silver Lake Dr. The easement is 15’ feet wide on both properties creating a 30’ wide easement and is meant to capture off-site drainage from the hillside. The current home located at 9058 N sits approximately 5’ into the easement, leaving only 10’ for the drainage and utility easement. The adjacent property located at 9044 N is currently vacant. After a review of the site, staff is recommending that the City vacate 5’ of the current drainage easement on lot 23, leaving the remaining 10’easement to continue as a drainage/utility easement. Resident has asked for this so there will not be title issues when they sell their home. The house was built about 15 years ago and we don't know how they received approval to build on the easement. This change would still leave enough of an easement for future utilities or drainage. There are no current utilities in this easement. This was approved.

Discussion on Communications with City Attorney
Under Mayor Gygi’s direction, a discussion regarding a potential policy regarding how, when, and who is authorized to communicate with the city attorney. With council direction, a policy can be drafted and presented for approval at a later council meeting regarding this issue. 

CM Zappala stated that our original agreement with Mr. Shaw was that we'd give it a few months and see how things go, then discuss a different proposal, if needed. We need to meet with Mr. Shaw and revisit the contract. We've had numerous instances when the Council includes Mr. Shaw on emails and asks for feedback, which impacts legal bill. Proposes the Council and staff go through Mayor when legal opinion is solicited in order to control costs. 

Mayor Gygi feels that the majority of the items on the legal bill were political and had nothing to do with the running of the city. 

CM Crawley says first two months with a new firm we should expect higher bills as attorney gets up to speed. Doesn't think it's a bad idea to have a gatekeeper, though it shouldn't always be a hard and fast rule. We can all do better going forward. Thinks gatekeeper needs to be the city manager instead of Mayor. 

I think we need a written policy so that everyone is operating under the same guidelines.