Golf Course Committee Townhall - October 28, 2015

The chair (Rick Stewart) started the meeting by reading bios for each of the committee members. Committee members have diverse backgrounds and many have been owners of companies and/or worked in executive level positions.

Purpose of the committee in 2012 was to shed light on financial issues surrounding the golf course. There has been some controversy over the years over how money was spent. They spent a considerable amount of time going through the numbers and presented their findings to residents. Feels that was successful.

This time around the committee was to look at an alternative to the golf course that was presented by Rob Crawley. Spent a lot of time reviewing the option presented to determine if it was viable and preferable to running the golf course.

Mark Webb went over the financial review presented in 2012 and discussed what was researched this time around. Here is the info from his PowerPoint presentation (and I apologize some are blurry):

Option B wants to create additional parks. Comparison shows there is not a savings for converting to parks. High likelihood that parks would be more expensive to maintain.

Question was asked if golf course was causing a significant burden on residents. Looked at property tax table in the State of the City from last year, which shows our property tax burden is about average for Utah County. We are the lowest of those with median income similar to Cedar Hills. Determined the golf course was not an excessive burden on the city.

This shows history of the golf course debt:

Revenues from the rental of the Vista Room and Community Center are not included in the golf financials. Those are shown in a separate fund, but the city is making a profit from Vista Room rentals.

David Driggs discussed the final report put together by the committee. They met with the city's legal counsel and staff and continued research until everyone on the committee felt they had discussed everything that needed to be discussed. David started working on the report at the end of September. The report includes legal analysis from counsel, Rob Crawley's proposal for closing the golf course, and the committee's findings and votes. Unfortunately, the public comment given at each meeting is not included but can be found in the audio files from each meeting, which are available on the city's website. 

Committee voted on these questions:

1. Do you believe Rob Crawley's Option B solution as outlined in this report is a viable plan? 7 said no, 3 said yes. 
2. Do you recommend Rob Crawley's Option B proposal be adopted by the city council? All 10 said no.
3. Do you believe the current economic status of the golf course is sustainable? All 10 said yes.
4. Do you believe that, for now, barring any significant change in economic status, the best course of action for the city council is to fully support and promote the golf course and make reasonable efforts to improve its financial viability going forward? All 10 said yes.
5. As a member of the Golf Course Finance Advisory Committee do you feel you have been given enough time and opportunity to fully express your point of view, share your facts and express your opinions? All 10 said yes.
6. Even though you may agree or disagree with the conclusions and recommendations of this committee, do you believe that our treatment of the issues has been completely transparent, that there has been no effort to deceive in the presentation of the financial and legal information, and that nothing we know of has been hidden or kept from the public? All 10 said yes.

Here are the recommendations from the committee:

The entire report can be found at www.cedarhills.org/sites/default/files/golf-course-finance-committee-report-2015-10-13.pdf.

Those who spoke during public comment all expressed appreciation for the work done and supported the findings of the committee. 

Remarks from the committee members:

Priscilla Leek - Appreciates opportunity to serve on committee. Feels they were able to learn, understand, and discuss information. She doesn't agree with everything in the recommendation, but wholeheartedly supports the recommendation to support the golf course and that we appreciate it as an asset. Feels citizens should do all we can to make our city successful, and this includes the golf course. It will now go to the Council as they are the representatives elected to make decisions.

Rob Olsen - Appreciates serving on the committee. It's been a thorough process. Appreciates everyone from the community who has been involved throughout this process. Wishes we could get more involvement from throughout the community. It's important for all of us to be involved in the process, and not just for the golf course, but in the general direction of the city.

Brent Aaron - Appreciates being a part of the committee and the integrity of the committee members. Was one of the few dissenting votes on question #1. There are times something might be feasible but doesn't mean that is the path that should be pursued. Wants to give credit to CM Crawley's significant research.

Trent Augustus - Thanked the committee members for their work and their time and effort. There has been a tremendous effort to be diligent and genuine. Nothing was left undone. He used to be the HOA president for the Cedars and has been involved for some time. Wishes more residents attended tonight but thinks most are fine with the status quo.

Rick Stewart - Feels that if the city were in a financial crisis then we would have to look at selling some of our land and making sacrifices. That is not the case. The city has been good with its finances. Per median income, we do pay less compared to other cities like ours. Feels it would be a sad thing to lose nearly 50% of our open space to new construction. Feels we would be sacrificing big things for small things because return to citizens would not have a significant impact. There would not be a significant financial benefit to residents to implementing Option B. Saying we are replacing the golf course with parks is not true as we are selling off big chunks for development and only leaving some portions for parks. The big issue for him is that 25% of our citizens live near the golf course. Those who fight tooth and nail to keep certain things from being built in our commercial zone don't have same cares for what is built on our open space. The only reason to implement Option B is if the city is financially hurting.

Gary Gygi - Thanked Rick Stewart for chairing the committee. He has been told for many years that there are many residents who want to shut down the course. The committee spoke with one voice that we should continue with the course. The residents who came to the meetings and gave public comment said we should keep the golf course. Thanked residents for coming to meetings. When the Council hears from residents, it means a lot.

Mark Webb - Thanked everyone on the committee. They had their battles but reached a good conclusion. The city is great and can be even better but needs a broad vision. The vision to eliminate the golf course to get something else is narrow. There is no reason the golf course has to go away if we need more park space, if that is a problem that needs to be solved. He voted against the golf course many years ago. We find ourselves with a golf course and it's clear the best course of action at this point is to continue with it. Commends city staff for doing excellent job with limited resources. The burden from a tax perspective is very small. 

David Driggs - When he was asked to be on the committee, he believes he was asked because there are many land use issues and he serves on the Planning Commission. Thanked the Council for approving the release of all the legal documents, it shows a willingness to be transparent. One thing that has been said is that this committee is biased. He doesn't golf and isn't biased towards golf. The goal of the committee was to meet until all facts were assessed and discussed. During public comment they were asked to get this out before the election. They barely made it, but now voters can make an informed opinion. There is a lot of information being tossed around. Encourages everyone to read through the report and make an informed decision. Some will continue to say this committee didn't do enough. He feels they did an excellent job. He wasn't biased at the beginning but is biased now against closing the course. This was after reading through the legal analysis and going through the financials. Hopes the community can move forward trying to make the golf course a success. 

Rob Crawley - We all want peace in the city. They made a lot of strides over the past few years. Bad information was given to residents in the beginning so there are residents who are upset with that. The appearance of not being open with the numbers made more angry feelings. There is a group in the city who don't live near the course and doesn't benefit from it. Understands those who live near it will be most impacted, but there are more who don't live near it and don't benefit from it. We need to see the perspective of both sides. Learned a lot about the legal ramifications. He believes there is a viable option. His analysis shows the land in Highland being sold for $50,000/acre and he's been told that is a fair price. All legal opinions we got said this can be done legally. All promises made to residents in the past should be looked at again. Doesn't feel we have a social contract to keep the course open. He doesn't feel the City Council should make a decision to close the course, but that residents should decide through an initiative process or vote. Until that happens he will be a golf course supporter. Feels the report is biased in how it was written and would like to change it, but may do this on his blog. Would like to see the city come together and either accept the golf course or want it to be parks.

City Council Meeting - October 20, 2015

Work Session

Discussion on Sewer on 4000 N and 4000 W
We have some PG residents who have asked to boundary adjust into Cedar Hills so they can access our sewer lines. Tonight we are approving an ordinance to allow this, however, PG has not yet had this on their agenda. One concern PG has is how they service the rest of the PG residents in that area. There is a potential that Wedgewood may become an island if more people adjust into Cedar Hills, and this may not be allowed by State law. We need to think about how to handle this for those in that area that don't want to adjust into Cedar Hills. PG is also looking at creating a special improvement district for this area as they don't want residents to leave their city. They will be discussing this on their agenda. Our policy has always been that if a PG resident wants to boundary adjust in order to connect to our services, we have allowed it. We've also had the policy to allow Cedar Hills residents to boundary adjust into PG, if so desired.

Council Meeting

Public Comment
Nobody signed up.

Public Hearing
Nobody signed up.

Consent Agenda
Minutes from the September 8, 2015 and September 22, 2015 City Council meetings were approved.

City Reports
David Bunker - TSSD met and they are still reviewing sewer rates and updating the capital improvement plan. Oct 28th at 7pm the Golf Course Committee will have an open house to discuss their findings and recommendations. Flag football is wrapping up. Jr Jazz registrations are open. Ski bus registration is also open now and limited space is available. YCC Haunted Creek is October 26th at 7pm. Family night at golf course is on Mondays after 2pm, which includes free green fees and $7 cart fee for residents. Weekly updates are going out through Parlant to residents. 

CM Rees - Planning Commission had a special meeting for the Design Guidelines and still plan on being done by the end of the year. SOTC is almost complete. 

Mayor Gygi - LPPSD is meeting this week.

CM Crawley - Golf Course Committee met and this will be discussed tonight.

CM Augustus - PC discussed driveways, signs in public right-of-ways, and density of assisted living facilities within our city.

Review/Action on Creation of Golf Course Finance Advisory Committee
The Golf Course Finance Citizens Advisory Committee has prepared a final report detailing the findings and recommendations of the committee regarding the evaluation of various proposals for the golf course. It is proposed that the committee is constituted with the following members: Rick Stewart, David Driggs, Mark Webb, Pricilla Leek, Rob Olsen, Brent Aaron, Mark Horne, Mayor Gary Gygi, Councilmember Trent Augustus, Councilmember Rob Crawley, staff members David Bunker, Chandler Goodwin, Greg Gordon, and Charl Louw. This was approved.


Review/Action Golf Course Committee Findings and Recommendations

The Golf Course Finance Citizens Advisory Committee has prepared a final report detailing the findings and recommendations of the committee regarding the evaluation of various proposals for the golf course. This recommendation and the complete report will be available on the city's website and will be presented in the October 28th townhall meeting. The following questions were asked and voted on by the committee:

Do you believe Rob Crawley's Option B solution as outlined in this report is a viable plan? 7-3 voted no.

Do you recommend Rob Crawley's Option B proposal be adopted by the City Council? 10-0 voted no.

Do you believe the current economic status of the golf course is sustainable? 10-0 voted yes.

Do you believe that for now, barring any significant change in economic status, the best course of action for the City Council is to fully support and promote the golf course and make reasonable efforts to improve its financial viability going forward? 10-0 voted yes.

As a member of the Golf Course Finance Advisory Committee do you feel you have been given enough time and opportunity to fully express your point of view, share your fact and express your opinions? 10-0 voted yes.

Even though you may agree or disagree with the conclusions and recommendations of this committee do you believe that our treatment of the issues has been completely transparent, that there has been no effort to deceive in the presentation of the financial and legal information and that nothing we know of has been hidden or kept from the public? 10-0 voted yes.

The Council voted unanimously to accept the recommendations of the committee. Their report will be available online tomorrow.

Review/Action on Adjusting Boundary Between Pleasant Grove and Cedar Hills
On September 22, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution 09-22-2015A, indicating the intent to boundary adjust the following properties from the municipal jurisdiction of Pleasant Grove City to the City of Cedar Hills:

D. Gordon and Karen Davies
4583 N 900 W, Pleasant Grove, Utah

Chris and Sarah Eagar
4638 N 900 W, Pleasant Grove, Utah

Tarl W. Taylor
365 S 420 E, Pleasant Grove, Utah

Anthony G. and Patricia D. Erickson
754 W 4000 N, Pleasant Grove, Utah

Rick and Debi Meinzer
818 W 4000 N, Pleasant Grove, Utah

In accordance with UCA 10-2-419, a public hearing was held, and in that no protests have been filed with the city recorder, the code requires that the legislative body adopt an ordinance approving the adjustment of the common boundary. This was approved.

Review/Action on Amending Ordinance Regarding Driveways

Current City Code does not allow for circular driveways to be built in a side setback. This provision only applies to corner lots. By allowing for circular driveways to be built an additional layer of safety may be added by giving homeowners a second egress option in the case that they live on a busier street. The proposed code requires that a landscaped area of at least 15’ in depth from the front property line to the inside of the drive be placed. Staff will ensure that all clear view areas are maintained in order to be free from obstruction. This was approved. 

Review/Action on Amending Ordinance Regarding Signs in Public Right of Way
Staff was instructed to review the code regarding signs in the public right-of-ways. Current city code allows for exemptions to be allowed in the public right of way for free speech purposes and for government uses (i.e. street signs, lights, public safety signs). An additional exemption would be added, allowing for the right-of-way to be used for governmental purposes that are informational in nature (rec events, city events, elections, etc.). The City Council could determine that certain areas and right-of-ways are to remain free from this type of signage. Signage in the right-of-way would be limited in the time that it may be placed prior to and after an event, and certain size requirements would also need to be followed.

The proposed language is as follows:

Exempt Temporary Signage: Temporary signage used for government purposes that is informational in nature, or related to events, elections, recreation, or other city programming may be placed on public property or in the public rights-of-way. Such temporary signage shall be limited to three (3) feet in height, and five (5) feet in length.  Signage may be posted no more than thirty (30) days before the occurrence of an event and shall remain for no more than seven (7) days after the occurrence of an event; and where said signage presentation does not block public rights-of-way, disrupt the peace, incite to violence, or cause any other public disturbance.

I recommended that we change it to allowing the signage no more than 14 days before the event and 3 days after; otherwise, a sign could be up for over a month in a public area. I would also like to see a limitation to no more than one sign at a time in that area, and a required break of 14 days between signs so there isn't a sign in those areas at all times. 

The motion was made to not allow more than 14 days before the event and 1 business day after the event, only one sign in a public right-of-way allowed at a time. It passed 3-2 with CM Zappala and I voting nay. My reason for voting no is that I feel it would have gone a long way for the residents in that area who are opposed to the signs to have some sort of break in between signs so that there wasn't a feeling of a constant advertisement in the roundabout, which has been the main area of concern.  

Review/Action on Amending Ordinance Related to Board of Adjustment

Based on staff recommendation and advise received from Meg Ryan, a Land Use attorney for the Utah League of Cities and Towns, the proposed ordinance removes 9-1C-1 (C) (1) “Ex Officio Member” from being an appointed member of the board of adjustment. Based on Utah State Code 10-9a-701 (3) (b) the board of adjustment “may not entertain an appeal of a matter in which the appeal authority, or any participating member, had first acted as the land use authority.” By removing the ex officio member from being officially appointed, the board is free from the perception that a participating member may have acted as a land use authority prior to participating in any board of adjustment hearing.

Additionally, the proposed ordinance changes 9-1C-2 (G) and uses the language from Utah State Code on when a decision becomes effective. The prior ordinance made the decision effective at the time of the meeting was held and a decision was made. State code changes that to be when the final decision is reduced to writing. The language is taken from 10-9a-708. This was approved.

Review/Action on Resolution Authorizing Execution of Agreement with Utah County for 2015 Election
In response to the concern over the decision made by the Utah County Commissioners to not allow cities that had implemented an all vote-by-mail election to place the County’s Proposition regarding a local sales tax increase on mailed ballots, a meeting was held with representatives of the vote-by-mail cities, county officials, and the Lt. Governor. The Lt. Governor’s office worked with the county clerk’s office to come up with a proposal for a coordinated County/Municipal November 3rd Election. The proposal allowed the vote-by-mail cities to be able to continue with the vote-by-mail process. The ballots will be a combined City/County ballot. The county would be in charge of administering the election, including the processing and counting of the ballots. The cost of the election will be shared between the county and the individual cities, and an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement would be entered into that sets forth in writing the agreement regarding the joint administration of the 2015 General Election. The amount we will need to reimburse the County will be equivalent to what we would have spent if we did this on our own, and the amount we budgeted for. This was approved.

Review/Action on Allowing Food Trucks to Operate in SC-1 Commercial Zone
Genki food truck has made an agreement with Chase Bank to operate their food truck in their parking lot on a biweekly basis. Genki will operate during the lunch hours, and will target Lone Peak High School students for their business. Based on the Development Agreement with Chase Bank, any outdoor sales would require a conditional use permit from the City. Our code stipulates that the Planning Commission is responsible for issuing any CUP; however, the Development Agreement stipulates that the City Council may set parameters based on the size, location, duration and appearance of the outdoor sales area. Currently, the food truck will operate approximately once, every other week. They will set up on the north side of Chase Bank during the LPHS lunch hour. The sales area will only include a food truck and any temporary signage necessary to operate the business.

CM Zappala made a motion to approve with the following conditions: only one truck at a site at a time, temporary signage for the truck, hours of operation 10am-9pm, and that all garbage will be cleaned up. This was approved. I would have preferred that we not limit to one food truck but allow Chase Bank to regulate what made sense for their business and coordinate with the food trucks accordingly. They know better than we do what makes sense for their property with regards to hours of operation and number of trucks allowed at any given time. Food trucks have benefited our community and I dislike making it hard for them to do business here.

Review/Action on Allowing Food Trucks to Operate During Months of October-March at Community Center
Based on the success of the trial food truck rally that began in July of this year in Heritage
Park, there has been a desire expressed to continue the food truck rally through the winter months. Cameron Burr has indicated that he would be willing to waive the exclusivity clause of his agreement with Cedar Hills in order to be able to host this rally at the Community Events Center. The food truck rally would be held on Wednesday nights, and would be coordinated by Cameron Burr, and Tom Karen. The event would run from the end of October to the end of March. Once again, vendors would be responsible for site cleanup and scheduling the participating vendors. The City would generate some point of sale sales tax revenue from the rally. This was approved.

Discussion on Bayhill Park
Following the recommendation of the Beautification, Recreation, 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. The Beautification, Recreation, Parks & Trails Committee reviewed the proposals and found that Bowen Collins proposal would serve the needs of the residents by moving the pavilion, altering the play area, and adding a grass play area. The next step is to get final engineering and send it out for a bid.

Discussion on Issues Regarding Golf Course Driving Range
Public Comment - Cookie Hart is building a house to the south of the driving range. Concerned with the amount of golf balls coming over fence onto their property and the park. They knew there would be some, but had no idea the extent. They started collecting golf balls over the past 3-4 weeks and already have almost 200. Concerned for their kids, for those on the sidewalk, and those at the park. Know this won't be a quick fix. Has seen that other courses have extended their nets higher. 

Here is the note from staff:

A resident who is building a home on Cottonwood Drive recently approached the City Council to ask for some help in protecting their home once it has been built due to golf balls that apparently are still being found in their yard. Staff recently met with Mr. Bunker and discussed some different options to help alleviate some of these concerns and brainstorm some ideas. One thing discussed was to limit all golfers to only be able to use irons. This would hopefully prevent the majority of the balls from flying over the fence because an iron will not travel as far as a fairway wood or driver.  We recently posted a note advising our clients that we may be going this direction and so far the feedback has been very negative from them and many of them have explained that they will take their business elsewhere if that is the decision that is made.

Staff also discussed moving the tee boxes from one end to the other. We could have a problem with golfers in the fairway of hole #18 getting hit by an errant shot from the tee box because there are currently no fences on that side. They could also get hit by a golfer that is teeing off on the 18th tee box. This really doesn’t make sense from staff’s perspective.

Another idea is to install new poles again like we did last year; however as we saw last time it will cost the City approximately $38,000 to do 5 more poles and netting, last time this was paid out of the 
Capital Improvements plan. Our revenues for the driving range last year was just over $28,000. One thing to think about is by doing so the City is opening itself up to having other homeowners that border the golf course coming and expecting the Council to do something to protect their homes also. Typically people that live along a golf course know what they are getting themselves into when purchasing a home/land and they will do whatever they have to protect their investment.

CM Geddes said part of the problem is that driving range cannot be seen from the clubhouse. Feels we need some video surveillance. Has heard from residents that they've seen golfers trying to hit balls into the park.

I asked about staffing the driving range, especially if this is being done intentionally.

CM Crawley asked about restricting irons to the areas furthest north.

Staff has been asked to research and provide three things: cost for surveillance and effectiveness if we go this route, cost for staffing driving range, and cost of extending poles for entire driving range. My only concern with the surveillance cameras is we installed one for our sign that has been vandalized and have yet to catch anyone, so I don't want to spend the money if it won't be effective.