City Council Meeting - March 15, 2016

Public Comment
Joe Phelon - Discussed sign ordinance. Requests approval to place temporary signs in public areas to let residents know where and when caucus meetings will be held. Shouldn't be viewed as political if it is open to all political parties. Signs would be removed day after caucus. This is allowed by city code and will be allowed.

City Reports
CM Rees - Members of the Parks and Trails Committee have met with someone in the city who is interested in redoing the roundabout on Cedar Hills Drive as part of an Eagle Scout project. Staff has expressed some concerns with the project because of the number of utility lines going through the roundabout and the issues that surround making significant changes. We will discuss in our meeting this week and I will report back to the Council. Family Festival Committee continues to work on Family Festival.

David Bunker - ULCT semi-annual training in St. George is the first week of April. Rec department will be adding pickleball and a soccer tournament to the Family Festival. Easter Egg hunt is coming up. Golf course is open. Emergency Mgmt meeting was a huge success with over 300 attendees.

Mayor Gygi - Finance Committee met and items discussed will be discussed during budget session in Council meeting. LPPSD met and is dealing with employment issues.

CM Geddes - Utah Valley Dispatch met but he was unable to attend. No big issues discussed.

Consent Agenda
Minutes from the February 16, 2016 City Council meeting were approved.

Discussion on FY 2017 Water & Sewer Fund and Excise Tax Debt Service Fund
Bowen, Collins, and Assoc (BCA) was asked to look at how the city could finance PI meters if the city decided to go in that direction. BCA looked at several options and provided the city with four alternatives. The following comes directly from the BCA report:

Alternative One - No PI Meters
Our understanding is that the City has not made any final decisions with regards to installing PI meters in the City. For comparison purposes, the option to maintain the PI system without metering secondary use is included in this analysis.

Alternative Two - Install PI Meters Immediately, Pay with 5-year Bond
The City could reasonably plan for the design and installation of PI meters City-wide within the next calendar year and finance the project with a 5-year bond. This alternative uses a preliminary 5-year 
amortization schedule provided to the City by Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham (LYRB). Debt service payments would begin in either fiscal year ending (FYE) 2016 or 2017 and last for 5 years.

Alternative Three - Install PI Meters Immediately, Pay with 10-year Bond
The City could also potentially finance the project with a 10-year bond. This alternative uses a preliminary 10-year amortization schedule provided to the City by LYRB. Debt service payments would begin in either fiscal year ending (FYE) 2016 or 2017 and last for 10 years.

Alternative Four - Install PI Meters in Future, Pay with Cash Reserves
The final alternative would not require the City to take on any more debt, but would delay the timeline of the project substantially. Because current revenues from pressurized irrigation rates exceed the costs of paying for the PI system (including O&M, existing debt service, and other capital improvements), the City could deposit the excess revenues into reserves and pay cash for the $1.5 million metering project at some point in the future. While estimates will vary somewhat based on water needs, other capital improvements, growth (or lack thereof) within the City, and the current balance of cash on hand, BC&A has determined that this alternative would push the implementation of the PI metering project into the future approximately 10 years1 (FYE 2025) using the updated PI rate model.

The financing for options 1 and 2 would look like this:

BCA believes that installing PI meters would result in a savings in capital improvements and O&M. Again from their report:

Aside from smaller miscellaneous PI projects that would be required, the City anticipates the need for repair and replacement of several irrigation pumps over the planning window. Due to the additional wear and tear on the PI system from overconsumption, it has been assumed that approximately $300,000 of capital improvements would be required approximately every 5 years, beginning in FYE 2019 if meters are delayed or not installed. If PI meters are installed, capital costs for irrigation pump replacement will decrease substantially. It has been assumed that once PI meters are installed, approximately $150,000 (one half of $300,000) of capital improvements would be required approximately every 10 years, also beginning in FYE 2019.

There are also likely to be significant O&M savings that must be considered in the case that PI meters are installed. BC&A has estimated that approximately $70,000 in utility costs can be saved per year once PI meters are installed, due to decreased pumping demand in the system3. Over the estimated 20-year life cycle of the PI meters, these annual savings will total approximately $1.4 million.

Considering only the costs discussed in this memorandum, the net costs of each alternative are as follows:

• Alternative 1 - $1.2 million
• Alternative 2 – $581,340
• Alternative 3 – $705,425
• Alternative 4 - $1.6 million

In the short term, Alternatives 1 and 4 have less of an impact on the City’s cash flow into and out of the water fund. As expected, implementing PI meters immediately (Alternatives 2 and 3) will have an impact on the City’s short term cash flow, but due to O&M savings over time, have a net cost lower than the other alternatives.4 From a financial perspective, Alternative 2 is the most attractive option over the long term, and by about FYE 2030 is the least expensive option.

The entire BCA memo from January 2016 can be found on my Council blog here.

Questions I would like staff to research:

• The State has indicated they may mandate water metering and recognize they would need to help pay for this. I'd like to hear from ULCT as to what they think is happening with this. Mayor Gygi said he has talked with some legislators and ULCT and the Governor's office seems anxious to move forward but legislators are non-committal. 
• Some residents have expressed they feel that we would not see a reduction in usage now that residents receive an electronic statement and can auto pay. Some feel that people will just let the bill pay process be automatic and not reduce usage as they aren't paying attention to changes in monthly bills. I'd like to know what other cities who have implemented PI metering are seeing as far as reduction and if they handle utility bills the same way we do.
• I would like to see the study done by BCA where they determined savings realized by other cities to determine if we are doing an apples to apples comparison. I recognize this may be something we have to do, but it's going to be an unpopular decision and I want to be confident that anything we do is going to fix the issue we are trying to fix. I know many residents are frustrated feeling that the city bonded for PI system with the understanding residents could use as much PI water as they wanted at a flat rate. We now realize this isn't feasible; however, we need to make sure any new projects have a high probability of realizing the savings we are expecting.

Highlights for the Water & Sewer Fund for FY 2017:

• $711,032 wages and benefits
• $534,038 Timpanogos Special Service District (Sewer Charges)
• $399,000 principal payments on debt service
• Extra principal payment of $22,000 on 2009 Utility Revenue Bonds
• $225,512 interest and trustee payments on debt service
• 2006 Utility Revenue Bonds refunded with issuance of 2014 Utility Revenue Bonds for a $402,777.04 net present value benefit
• $294,037 Rocky Mountain Power electrical costs
• $202,349 water purchases—Central Utah Water Conservancy District, Pleasant Grove Irrigation Company, American Fork
• $78,856 excise tax bonds debt service allocation (Public Works building)
• $68,376 motor pool charges
• $68,103 storm drain maintenance
• $66,075 professional services for well rehab, utility rate study, and financial software
• $59,140 meter installation and maintenance--Bridgestone

Here is a helpful utility rate comparison with other nearby cities:

One of the reasons our rates are higher than most is because other cities collect much more in impact fees than we do, especially now that we are almost built out, so we are accruing for future O&M needs that won't be paid for with impact fees. Here is a comparison of impact fees collected:

In the 2012 study, gradual rate increases were proposed by BCA from 2013-2018 to cover estimated operating & maintenance costs for rehabilitation or replacement of system components, plus capital improvements, and debt service (pay as you go philosophy):

• Culinary water rates increase 6.4% a year
• Pressurized irrigation (PI) rates remain flat
• Sewer rates increase 5.5% a year
• Storm drain rates increase 6.5% a year
• Total utility increase 3.7%-4.3%

BCA Recommendations:

• Recommended storm rate increases decline from 6.5% to 6.0% 2022-2025
• Recommended sewer rate increases stays at 5.5% through 2025
• Recommended pressurized irrigation rate stays flat through 2025
• Recommended water rate update depends on alternative chosen to deal with water consumption
• Alternative 1—Status quo, no secondary meters and no additional wells
• Water fee increases 6.4% annually through 2025
• Alternative 2—New secondary meters $1.5 million w/five-year bonds at 2%
• $900,000 used from unrestricted net position and $600,000 from bonds
• Water fee increase the same until year 5, then 8.0% decrease
• Costs city approximately $230,000 less than alternative 3 annually
• 33% less demand
• $70,000 in power savings per year
• $45,000 in pump and equipment cost savings per year
• Alternative 3—Additional well and updates to pumps, pipelines $3.5 million
• Water fee increase additional 8.0% first year, and 5.8 % second year, 6.4% each year after that
• Timing Changes
• Old Town retention project moved from FYE 2016 to FYE 2020 $400,000, PG irrigation may change timing and scope
• Canyon road sewer moved from FYE 2014 to FYE 2021 $400,000
• 4000 West sewer moved from FYE 2016 to FYE 2020 $250,000
• 4600 West sewer moved from FYE 2018 to FYE 2020 $400,000*
• *Projects may be adjusted based on timing of road projects
• Migratory meter read project to continue through FYE 2017
• Other projects
• Harvey well chlorination station FYE 2020 $80,000
• Cottonwood well chlorination station FYE 2020 $60,000
• Cedar Hills drive sewer upgrade FYE 2020 $400,000
• Sewer outfall line extension FYE 2021 $500,000**
• **Following the SECAP study, sewer projects timing will be refined
• Additional capital improvements from 2012 study
• New Jet/Vacuum truck for FYE 2018 $300,000
• Storm drain improvements for golf maintenance building for FYE 2016 $100,000
• Irrigation pumps at Pond 10 and 12 will be adjusted, if necessary
• Harvey well replacement FYE 2025

Finance Director is requesting that we separate debt service from capital projects fund. Here are details on the reasons for this, per GASB:

• Capital projects funds are used to account for and report financial resources that are restricted, committed, or assigned to expenditure for capital outlays, including the acquisition or construction of capital facilities and other capital assets. Capital projects funds exclude those types of capital-related outflows financed by proprietary funds.
• Debt service funds are used to account for and report financial resources that are restricted, committed, or assigned to expenditure for principal and interest. Debt service funds should be used to report resources if legally mandated. Financial resources that are being accumulated for principal and interest maturing in future years also should be reported in debt service funds.
• Excise Tax Debt Service Fund
• Move debt service related to Public Works building from the capital projects fund to a debt service fund for budget purposes
• Combine debt service fund with general fund for financial reporting purposes

Staff also provided information on creating a special fund to cover expected litigation costs:

• Alternative for budgeting volatile transactions like litigation and tort claims, which may allow the general fund to have more consistent legal expenses year to year
• Governmental Immunity Special Revenue Fund
• Create a risk insurance fund that funds and tracks litigation and tort claims
• Maximum tax levy rate allowed is .0001 or $42,982 in the current fiscal year
• May require truth-in-taxation, if combined aggregate rate exceeds certified tax rate
• Budget as a special revenue fund to manage and combine with general fund for reporting purposes
• Only increase property taxes if significant litigation expenditures are expected the next fiscal year, and/or current year litigation drains general fund reserves
• Amount allowed for tax under Tort Liability/Governmental Immunity 63G-7-704(2)(c) is 050 0.000100, which for us is equal to $42,982.

Questions I have for research:

• This year the State Legislature made some changes to cities bonding for judgments against cities. I'd like to know how this affects us if we do lose in any litigation and the pros and cons of going in this direction instead of creating this new fund. David Shaw is going to provide the Council with further information on this new law.

Discussion on Changes to Zoning Ordinance and Design Guidelines
We had a joint meeting with three members of the Planning Commission tonight. CM Zappala gave a brief overview of changes that were made to Design Guidelines. Has tried to remove duplicate language also found in city code. Language in introduction and vision are mostly unchanged from original document. Districts have been better identified. Zone for Walmart was updated to Neighborhood Retail as it is a high-intensity use. Use table has been completely updated and is based on use tables from other cities, especially PG and Provo. Still needing feedback from legal on changes that have been made to allowed uses. Residential uses now have very specific guidelines for density and location (ex: only allowed on second floor). Planning Commission a lot of valuable feedback and these suggestions/changes will be incorporated in to the document.

City Council Meeting - March 1, 2016

Work Session

Sent project to MAG for a traffic signal at the intersection of Cedar Hills Drive and Canyon Road. The Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) with MAG rates all the projects they receive requests for to determine which ones they will fund. This is an annual process and the funding varies each year based on what they receive from the federal government. This year MAG had about $40 million to allocate but approximately $200 million worth of projects were submitted for their review. Their emphasis is on regional projects and areas that are safety issues. Our project received a score of 68 out of 105, which puts it as a Tier 2 level as defined by MAG. It is unlikely that our project will be funded by MAG as the Tier 1 projects will consume their available funds for the year. David Bunker will continue to work with the County on Canyon Road improvement requests. We sent a letter to the County in partnership with Pleasant Grove suggesting some improvements with the two cities being willing to take on some maintenance, but so far, we have not heard back from the County on whether or not they are going to do any upgrades now that they own the road. CM Zappala suggested we also discuss with the County placing a sign redirecting large trucks to North County Blvd instead of Canyon Road in order to make it more safe and help the road last longer. David will discuss with the County.

Current property tax rate is .002315. Mayor asked for a review of revenue if the tax rate was dropped to .0019. The certified tax rate keeps revenues consistent year after year, even though expenses rise with inflation. Fire expenses have increased from $178,015 in 2006 to $675,000 expected in 2016. Police services increased from $276,943 to $406,368 in the same 10 years. We do get a great deal on our public safety services. Saratoga Springs pays $2.8 million/year just for police and they have a population of approximately 23,000. Their fire budget is around $400,000. Expenses have also increased for programs such as Family Festival, recreation, park expenses. Projects in the Capital Projects Fund rely on unrestricted fund balances year after year. Staff feels reducing the tax rate this significantly would require the city to stop offering some services, would negatively affect future planned projects, and would delay maintenance projects. This could put us in a similar position other cities are facing, such as Highland and PG, with roads not being maintained and services being cut.

Council Meeting

Public Comment
Ken Cromar - Has received a lot of abuse and has not received an apology. Cedar Hills Chat Room Facebook page shows that bearing of false witness is a problem. People don't understand what happened at Golf Course meeting, which was a hostile environment and he's never received an apology. Wants to know if Mayor has anything to say to correct the record or to apologize to him. Adds his voice to Curt Crosby and Sam Bushman in asking for the Mayor's resignation. Says he is unfit to be Mayor.

City Reports
David Bunker - TSSD met last month. Main topic was replacement of several of high speed blowers that change out air at sewer plant. Blowers that were purchased with plant expansion are having multiple issues and need to be replaced. March 8th is the annual emergency preparedness meeting. Notifications have been sent out through flyers, emails, and social media. The meeting will be at 7pm. Golf Course is now open. Jr Jazz went well. Adding a summer Minecraft Video Game Design class, which is being organized by Code to the Future. Advertising for this will start going out soon.

CM Zappala - LPPSD met and changed the structure of the executive committee, which changes operations on day-to-day basis. Cedar Hills will oversee fire budget, Alpine will oversee policy budget, and Highland will oversee operations overall. Working on better operational manual. Has been working on revising General Guidelines and we will be discussing later in the meeting. Changes have been made based on feedback by interested parties.

CM Rees - Parks & Trails Committee met and discussed plans for the year. Day of service is to work on roundabout on Cedar Hills Drive, and this will be held on May 14th. They will be removing some of the existing vegetation, raising the center, and planting new plants and flowers.

Mayor Gygi - Addressed what Mr. Cromar said. Last Council meeting we changed the ordinance regarding recording meetings, which benefited Mr. Cromar. If Mr. Cromar feels an apology is needed then they should meet together and determine what apologizes need to be made on both sides. Mr. Cromar challenged him to a debate on Sam Bushman's radio.

CM Geddes - Utah Valley Dispatch did not meet this month but he went to look at progress of the building.

CM Bailey - Arts Committee hasn't yet met and may be struggling.

CM Crawley - Read statement stating he feels the city was wrong limiting Mr. Cromar's ability to record meetings. Feels the city was wrong to create the original ordinance and was wrong to stop the meeting to discuss having Mr. Cromar removed. Says we have an obligation to stand up and defend the Constitution. He has seen Mr. Cromar harrassed for exercising his freedom. He apologized to Mr. Cromar and said his vote would be for the city to do so. He is going to do better standing up and defending the Constitution.

Mayor clarified that the original ordinance was created because meetings used to be held in a small room in the public safety issue and there were some issues with placement of cameras and safety for residents needing to exit the room. Now that we meet in a larger room the ordinance was unnecessary and the change was made.

Review/Action on 2016 Budget Amendments

• General Fund: 10-40-305 Legal Services increasing $100,000 for contracted services and $2,500 for ETJ Law (former attorney). This will be paid with unrestricted funds from the General Fund.
• Water & Sewer Fund: 51-16500 Water Improvements-Motor replacement for Cottonwood well requires up to $50,000 with the use of equity. The current motor is not working and needs to be rebuilt. New motor would be about $8000 more and wouldn't be ready for eight weeks. The rebuild will take 8-10 weeks, which means this well won't be available as a backup for the PI system. Hopefully this won't be an issue as demand isn't as high earlier in the summer and we anticipate higher runoff from the snow this year. CM Crawley suggested we keep a replacement motor always available. Staff indicated that the motor is quite large, so we don't have space to store it and don't have the ability to move it as it requires a crane. Motor is about 3 feet in diameter and about 5.5 feet tall. 

This was approved.

Discussion on FY 2017 General Fund, Golf Fund, and Golf Debt Service Fund
Items in updated budget include list of priorities from Council retreat in January.

Residents will need to vote this fall on whether or not to extend the CARE tax, which goes to arts and recreation. This is an added 1/10 of 1% on sales tax items. Things that have received CARE tax funds in our city include:

• FY 2011-2012 Heritage Park Basketball Court
• $36,245 Project—CARE tax allocation $24,938
• FY 2012-2014 Community Center Basement
• $385,917 Project—CARE tax allocation $122,840
• FY 2013-2014 Mesquite Soccer Park Bathroom
• $76,856 Project—CARE tax allocation $41,175
• FY 2015-2017 Art’s Committee Events
• CARE tax budget allocation $6,000 per year
• FY 2015-2017 Bayhill Park
• $464,224 Estimated project—CARE tax allocation estimated $80,621
• FY 2016-2017 Heritage Park Improvements
• $50,000 Estimated project—CARE tax allocation estimated $37,000

General Fund - Significant Changes

• Certified property tax new growth estimated $5,000-$20,000
• Motor vehicle tax increase estimated $5,000
• Sales tax revenues three-year average increase estimated $48,000
• Telecom general revenues estimated decrease $10,000
• Class C Roads restricted revenue estimated increase $25,000
• Garbage and recycling estimated increase $8,000 (based on usage, not fee increases)
• Processing, printing & postage fees increase $5,000
• Recreation programs increase $10,000
• Event center rentals increase $15,000
• Overall General fund revenues increase $110,935 or 2.85%

Wages and Benefit Changes

• Permanent employees proposed 3% merit increase $22,000
• Market analysis adjustment, potentially needed
• Health insurance premiums estimated increase 10%-12%
• PEHP dental insurance premium estimated 5%-10% increase
• Elected Officials’ alternative for life insurance $30 stipend option
• No change in rates proposed by the Utah Retirement System
• $9,000 set aside for health & dental benefit changes

Preliminary Street Maintenance Plan

• Public works is looking to use HA5 overlay road treatments this spring. It is a high density mineral bond surface treatment that extends asphalt life, and has a nice look. Ideally it is applied 2-3 years after a road has been paved to get the maximum benefit.
• The Cedars J-2 and J-3 subdivisions and the Meadows subdivision are on next year’s schedule to receive maintenance.
• Bayhill drive, Cedar Hills drive, Cottonwood drive, and Box Elder drive are under evaluation, and may have some maintenance performed in the next fiscal year.

Parks Expenditures

• Park maintenance and committee increase $10,225
• $2,370 Wilkinson park maintenance contract increase for existing parks
• $2,630 partial year maintenance costs for Bayhill Park
• $1,000 Cedar Hills drive roundabout landscape design
• $4,000 one-time decorative rock and electrical projects
• $2,000 Christmas lighting
• $1,200 service day
• $800 community breakfast
• $600 Santa night
• $500 beautification award
• $125 light up Cedar Hills

* Requested a bid from Wilkinson's to handle maintenance of flower beds in front of Community Center. Right now this is done by golf staff, but Parks & Trails Committee expressed concern that it was overlooked if golf staff was busy with course. They felt the flower beds should look nice as the entry the our Community Center. Staff will find out what the cost would be and report back to Council.

Other Expenditures

• Public works tech assistant full-time 40 hours a week $43,700
• $13,100 allocated to General Fund
• P/T communications specialist at 25 hours a week $20,000
• $10,000 allocated to General Fund
• Legal services $20,000 increase
• Fixed retainer fee $5,800 per month or $69,600 annually
• Fire projected increase $13,500
• Street and sidewalk maintenance increase $13,000
• Mobile resident request app $1,300-$7,400

CM Crawley feels there isn't a need to hire a communications person. I have advocated for this for many reasons. Most other cities have someone on staff who handles communication internally and externally. This person would be responsible for the mobile resident app that has been discussed (residents can use to report and track issues), communicate with residents via social media on city events, maintenance projects, and city issues/emergencies, help with GRAMA requests, work on education materials for things such as water conservation, and help the city utilize technology more to help residents who want to be involved. Other cities do things such as record City Council meetings and post to YouTube or live stream meetings with YouTube so residents who can't attend in person can still watch the meetings. This person would handle all communications externally, and would also act as a liaison between Council and staff on city issues that come up between Council meetings. CM Crawley felt those residents who want to be involved already have many ways to be involved. I feel that we have many residents who would like to be involved, but need other avenues available through technology to stay involved. Many have other commitments on Tuesday nights or prefer receiving information through methods such as email or social media instead of visiting the city's website. This is just a placeholder and will be discussed in more depth later on.

Golf Budget Highlights

• Green fees are projected at $562, 000 for the current fiscal year based on the last several years February through June average revenue amounts
• Windy, wet weekend weather during May 2015 caused green fees to decline over $17,000 lower than the prior year
• Golf pass trades: 2013-$17,500, 2014-$40,200, and 2015-$33,436
• Overall operational budgeted support from other funds $168,500
• 165 acres of open space or $1,021 of operating support required per acre
• 54 acres of irrigation lines or $3,120 per acre of irrigation
• Motor pool charges increase $10,750 for two fairway mowers
• 80 golf carts will be replaced February 2017 decrease $7,000
• Golf cart repair reduced $3,000 due to newer carts
• Green fees reduced $5,000
• Pro shop revenue increase $10,000 and corresponding expense $4,500
• $2,500 custodian allocation moved out of payroll to building maintenance
• Overall wages and benefits increase $3,750
• Supplies increase $2,500 for range balls
• Utilities increase $2,000 for electric costs
• Water pumping electric costs decreased $2,000

Golf Debt Fund Highlights

• Partially refunded 2005 General obligation was paid off 2/1/2016
• 2012 General obligation has principal and interest payment scheduled until 2/1/2035
• The principal and interest payments average approximately $384,000 annually
• The property tax debt levy was $309,970 for the current fiscal year
• The property tax debt levy is estimated at $309,770 for next fiscal year
• Motor vehicle fees allocated based on property tax levy amounts and approximately $10,000 in fund balance make up the difference

I brought up that I would like to see some funding to extend the golf course nets on the driving range. We know we continue to have an issue with balls going over the net. We did raise a portion of the net in one section, which did reduce the number of balls going over the net in that area. I have concerns with stray balls going into Mesquite Park or hitting someone walking on the sidewalk next to the driving range. We have residents who live in that area who have indicated they have hundreds of golf balls ending up in their yards from the driving range and have asked the Council to research options to reduce this. My suggestion is that we reduce the cost of the proposed golf maintenance shed by $35,000 to pay for the netting. Others feel that we should try other things first or that those affected should install nets on their own property to keep golf balls out of their yards. I don't mind trying other things if we feel they would be effective. My hope is that we can look at this from the perspective of community. We have residents on Canyon Road who want the the city to make improvements and lower the speed because of safety. We have residents who want us to install a sewer line in Canyon Road so when their septic tanks fail they can connect to sewer. We've had residents ask us to install a stop sign on Harvey Blvd due to speed issues. We had residents in the Cedars who wanted the school district to add a school bus route to their area because of safety issues with their kids walking to school. Last year we had PG residents whose septic systems failed asking to connect to our sewer lines even though they were not yet boundary adjusted into our city, and we bend over backwards to help them. We all may have issues that are important to us or cause us concern with regards to safety and these issues may not be important to others in the city, but we would hope that the Council would listen and attempt to address the issue. I dislike the attitude that anyone who built next to a golf course should've known better and, therefore, should expect issues with stray golf balls. We can't fix every issue, but I'd like residents to know that we give the concerns raised serious consideration and fix it if we can. If we as a city-operated business are causing an issue, then I'd like us to look at what we can do to minimize the impact. With businesses that have built in our city, we have required them to do certain things to minimize the impact to surrounding neighbors, such as installing sound barriers, certain lighting, landscaping, etc. As a city-owned business, I think it is right for us to look at what we can do to minimize the impact of our operations on surrounding neighbors, just as we expect other commercial developers to do. Staff has a concern with my suggestion of reducing the cost of the maintenance shed to cover the nets as they feel it's a slap in the face to the staff who work in the building. I sympathize, but I imagine the residents who are asking us to look into this issue may feel the same way when we tell them that they should install their own nets. 

Review/Action on Contract Extension with Waste Management
The city contract for waste and recycling services is currently under review. After receiving qualified bids from several service providers in April 2011, the city council authorized a five year contract with Waste Management of Utah for waste and recycling services. The original contract is set to expire May 1, 2016. The original agreement contains a provision for a two (2) year extension with the contractor subject to the approval of city council. Staff has reviewed the extension agreement and will present it to the city council. This was approved.

Discussion on Design Guidelines and Zoning Ordinance Changes
Public Comment - Candace Smart feels it would behoove the city to let the Blu Line project go through. Not letting it go through will raise legal fees for the city and keeps that property tax out of the city. Asks that we stop wasting tax dollars fighting the project. Three years is too long for them to sell their property.

CM Zappala has sent the draft revision to legal for review. Has shared the document with the rest of the Council and would like feedback. This will need to go to the Planning Commission for review and discussion on March 17th so Council needs to be prepared to send a product to PC by end of our next meeting.