Discussion on Interlocal Agreement Between Utah County and the Cities of PG and Cedar Hills
County has come to the cities with a proposed agreement on taking care of Canyon Road. County is willing to spend approximately $9 million on fixing issues with Canyon Road, provide ongoing striping services, and ongoing pavement maintenance such as surface treatment. If fixes exceed the $9 million, the cities would have to cover the additional cost. Cities would be responsible for snow removal, perform pothole repair, removal of debris, provide law enforcement and some additional items. At the end of 20 years this agreement would terminate and the cities would be required to take ownership of the road. Cedar Hills and PG will have to agree on how to spend the $9 million. David (city manager) will be meeting with the city manager from PG to discuss further. Council was given the agreement tonight and will need to review over the next month and bring concerns to the next meeting in June. One of the concerns that CM Zappala brings up is that 20 years from now when the road is turned over to the cities, it will be in need of significant improvements that the cities will then be on the hook to pay for. He also wants to see a list of all county roads and their maintenance schedules to make sure that this road is being given the same considerations as other county roads.
Public Comment
Nobody signed up.
Consent Agenda
Minutes from the April 5, 2016, April 19, 2016, and May 3, 2016 City Council Meetings. CM requested that the minutes from the last meeting contain more information that was provided by the ULCT Director during his presentation. Feels the minutes were not adequate. Minutes from April 5th and 19th were approved, May 3rd will be tabled for next meeting.
Waste Management Report on Municipal Solid Waste and Recycling Totals
Beth Holbrook with Waste Mgmt presented. Thanked Council for continued partnership. Recycling activity is rising in Cedar Hills. Residents recycled 293 tons of aluminum, cardboard, paper, scrap metals, and plastics. 43% of that was mixed paper. Recycling tends to peak in the summer. Amount of recycling in Cedar Hills equates to enough electricity to power 69 homes for a year, conserved 3,144 trees, conserved 1,825,390 gallons of water, 1,060 cubic yards of landfill airspace, and avoided 1,041 metric tons of greenhouse gas emissions. Waste Management does ship recyclables across the country and even to other countries. Working with the city to provide additional education on recycling. Will be attending the Family Festival and sharing information and will provide classroom resources for teachers. Additional information on recycling can be found at recycleoftenrecycleright.com.
City Reports
David Bunker - TSSD will meet this week. Golf Course has been affected by rain. Junior golf clinics will be in June and several tournaments are booked for June. Soccer has started. Tball starts at the end of the month. Lacrosse registration just closed.
CM Zappala - LPPSD met. There will be a small increase to the budget. Highland would like to see the budget remain steady, but it's hard to make that kind of promise as there are many factors that affect the budget. The board is discussing this.
Mayor Gygi - LPPSD continues to discuss method on how cities are charged for public safety services.
CM Rees - Parks and Trails Committee had our annual Service Day last Saturday. We planted flowers at the roundabout and added rock to the Cedar Hills sign on Canyon Road. Family Festival starts on May 31st and events are scheduled Tuesday-Saturday.
CM Bailey - Thanked CM Zappala and Mayor Gygi for representing the needs of Cedar Hills at the LPPSD meetings.
Review/Action on Changes to Conditional Use Permits
Staff has prepared conditional use code to be adopted as part of Title 10, the City’s Land Use Code. The proposed code outlines an approval process for granting a CUP, as well as the standards upon which a CUP may be granted. Based on City Council input, staff has included a table in the proposed code, outlining the CUP approval authority in each case and when a public hearing is required. Minor administrative things can be approved by staff. Other projects must go to the Planning Commission and/or the City Council. The changes with the new table were approved.
Discussion on Amendments to Code Related to Appeals Authority
Representatives from Kirton McConkie presented information and a proposal to amend City Code Title 9, chapter 1 related to Appeal Authority. Germaine to the discussion is the requirement by State Code, Title 10, Chapter 9, that municipalities provide for an administrative appeal authority which has not first acted as the land use authority. The appeal authority may consist of one or more appeal authorities (individual, multi person board, body or panel), and may consist of laymen and/or land use professionals. Subsequent a duty to exhaust administrative remedy via appeal to the appeal authority, any adversely affected person may appeal to the district court.
One area our attorneys identified that needs to be addressed is adding language that states the City Council is the land use authority unless otherwise delegated to another board or individual. Another thing that needs to be changed is the ability for an application to appeal fees that are charged under Section 10-9a-510 of LUDMA.
Discussion on Amending City Records Access and Management Program
The City of Cedar Hills last updated the city ordinance regarding the city records access management program in 1995. By state statute, UCA 63G-2-701, the city is required to comply with the Governmental Records Access Management Act (GRAMA). Numerous changes have been made to the records management program at the state level. Several of the alterations and several of the sections of the State management program do not apply to municipalities. These would include courts, school districts, special service districts, counties, state departments, etc. Under the state code, a city may adopt an ordinance in compliance with Chapter 63G, which establishes criteria and policies related to GRAMA. Once a municipality adopts an ordinance or policy, a copy shall be sent to the state archives with a summary description.
Staff also removed items that we don't have in our city, such as records for the police department or a library. There are some areas where our staff is recommending a different retention schedule than the State has. City Recorder (Colleen Mulvey) is asking for the City Council to review the new policy and provide feedback. Once it is completed, it must be adopted by ordinance and sent to State Archives. The new policy is being reviewed by legal counsel.
Discussion on Open Fires and Fireworks
For the past several years, the city has monitored fire conditions and followed the recommendations of the Lone Peak Fire Department regarding regulations of fireworks and open fires. Staff invited Chief Freeman to update the city council on conditions of the hillside interface and fire sensitive areas. Chief Freeman and David Bunker recommend having a resolution of some sort giving the minimum restriction standard that would stay in place for every year and then just discuss more strict requirements each year as needed depending on weather. Proposes no aerial fireworks east of Canyon Road, open fires are okay as long as they have screen coverings. David Bunker will work on this resolution with the fire chief and bring it back to the next Council meeting.
Tuesday, May 17, 2016
Tuesday, May 3, 2016
City Council Meeting - May 3, 2016
Public Comment
Nobody signed up.
City Reports
David Bunker - Met with company that handles mass communications in emergency situations. County would like all cities in the County to be on the same platform. We are looking at moving over to Everbridge, which is the platform that the vast majorities of the cities in the County use. They also have an app that can be used by residents to submit public works concerns to the city, such as a street light that is out.
Utah Senate passed Resolution this legislative session that encourages all cities to begin metering all water, including secondary water. It was signed by the Governor in February. This may be the first step in the eventual requirement to meter PI water.
Recreation programs are doing well. Small decrease in teen soccer. Right now residents can sign up for t-ball and a youth computer programming class. Utah Jazz issued an award to the City for having so many participants in the Junior Jazz program.
To date, 22 residents have come this year to receive their annual free round of golf. We hope to see many more use their free pass.
CM Zappala - Has been working on revising zoning ordinances. Planning Commission met and had good discussion on the revisions. Has heard from residents who are unhappy that Walmart is storing merchandise outside as they need a conditional use permit to do so and have not obtained one. Staff continues to try to get in touch with the management team at Walmart but have been unable to reach anyone.
CM Bailey - Open burn season goes through end of the month. Must get a burn permit, which is free.
Mayor Gygi - Finance committee met and Charl will discuss during budget discussion. LPPSD board met and adopted a preliminary budget. In two weeks they will meet again as Highland wants to discuss changing how the cities are charged for fire and EMS services.
CM Rees - Family Festival is in three weeks and we still need several volunteers. Parks and Trails Committee is having their annual service day on Saturday, May 14th at 9:00am and will be working on the roundabout on Cedar Hills Drive as well as some other project throughout the city. We are looking for several volunteers for this as well.
Review/Action on Amendments to General Plan
For this item, as well as the next two items, CM Zappala put together a great blog post explaining the process and what we are trying to accomplish. You can find that information here.
Changes to the City’s Land Use Element are being proposed that would update the document from its original form. Changes include updating the established zones within the City, removing density thresholds in residential areas under the definitions, and other smaller typographical changes. The vision and goals that were established by the original document remain largely intact. Additionally, the Planning Commission recommends removing the Economic Element, as the goals and vision are found elsewhere, and the Economic Element is not a required element. This was approved 5-0.
Review/Action on Amendments to City Code Related to Planned Commercial Development
Council and staff have prepared an amendment to 10-6A that would incorporate the previous “Design Guidelines” into the Municipal Code.
Change requested to add language to 10-6A-3 that City Council is the final approving authority on conditional uses in that zone. CM Zappala will also fix the map to not include any current residential homes, that was done in error. This was approved 5-0.
Review/Action on Amendments to City Code Related to Conditional Use Permits
Staff has prepared conditional use code to be adopted as part of Title 10, the City’s Land Use Code. The proposed code outlines an approval process for granting a CUP, as well as the standards upon which a CUP may be granted. The biggest change being recommended by staff is to make the Planning Commission the land use authority for the city and not have requests for new conditional uses go to the City Council, which is the current process. The other change is to allow staff to be the land use authority for conditional use permit requests for existing structures where there are no external changes to the site.
My concern is the change to remove the Council from giving the final approval on a conditional use. If that had been the arrangement up until this time, the Blu Line project would be in process as it was approved by the Planning Commission. Members of the Planning Commission spend a lot of time researching land use code and making decisions based upon the code and their service is greatly needed and valued. I think the benefit of having the Council have the final say is that members of the Council are elected and accountable to voters and residents of the city. I like the current process that allows residents, through their elected officials, to have a voice in what is approved in the city, especially for the commercial area. Like the Planning Commission, the Council must make decisions based on city and state code; however, there have been times when members of the Council have had a different perspective on the intent and definitions in code. I prefer the current arrangement where there is discussion, feedback, and a vote from both bodies. We did change the general plan wording in the previous ordinance above to specifically state that the City Council gives final approval to developments in the SC-1 zone. CM Zappala recommended we create a table that lists types of conditional uses needed and list who is the approving authority for each, whether that is staff, Planning Commission, or City Council. This item was tabled for next meeting.
Review/Action to Adopt Tentative FY 2017 Budget
The City is also required to approve a tentative budget for 2016-2017 by the first Council Meeting in May based on Utah Code 10-6-135. The final budget will be approved in June.
Budget changes since March:
Review/Action on Resolution Notifying County on City's Intent to Submit to Voters Question Regarding Imposition of CARE Tax
In 2008, voters in the City of Cedar Hills considered and approved via general ballot opinion question, a local sales and use tax of 0.1% of particular transactions to fund cultural facilities and organizations, recreational facilities and programs, zoological facilities and organizations or botanical organizations. Per Utah State Code Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 14, the tax may be reauthorized at the end of the eight-year period in accordance with said code, by submitting an opinion question to the residents of the city regarding the possible imposition of a city wide CARE tax. The city’s intent is to include this opinion question on the Utah County 2016 general election ballot for the residents of the city to consider. The proposed resolution is the first step in the process to advance the proposed opinion question to the ballot. This was approved 5-0 and will be on the 2016 ballot.
Discussion on City's Participating with Utah League of Cities and Towns
The City has been a participating member of the ULCT for over 30 years. The ULCT represents municipal government interests with a strong unified voice at the state and federal levels. They provide information, training and technical assistance to local officials on municipal issues in order to create greater public awareness and understanding of municipal responsibilities, governance and administration.
CM Crawley asked for this to be on the agenda as he has some concerns with ULCT. Feels training is beneficial, but was concerned that ULCT promoted the gas tax. A speaker at the ULCT meeting said that because of ULCT the gas tax was passed. It also appeared to him that ULCT was trying to influence voters to approve Prop 1. Feels residents he represents want to keep taxes low, and that we are paying a lobbying group that works to raise taxes. Says this is what is wrong with politics, that desire of residents should be listened to. Concerned that ULCT receives corporate sponsors. Feels they lobby for things that don't reflect the desires of those in Cedar Hills. Doesn't feel Cedar Hills is represented by ULCT. Would prefer that the $5000 we spend on membership go towards one of our city committees, which better benefits the city.
Ken Bullock with ULCT presented. Said he appreciates the sacrifices made by council members in the service to their communities. Thanked Mayor Gygi for serving on the ULCT Board and raising issues that are important to Cedar Hills. Feels accountable to every city. Clarified a few points raised by CM Crawley. On trainings, they work hard to make sure trainings are applicable to all cities in the State. Enthusiasm expressed for gas tax was because it has been 17 years since gas tax was raised and expenses for inflation haven't been accounted for. Cities were spending more than they were collecting in B&C road funds. This gave cities needed money for roads. Feels this was a significant accomplishment for communities. It isn't fun to raise taxes, but it does cost money to provide services. Most throughout the State understood it was time to make changes in order to continue to provide these services. Funds raised have to go to roads, can't be used to supplement the General Fund. On Prop 1, Mr. Bullock stated there has not been a more formidable opponent of what UTA has done in the past than him. Current chair of UTA is working on changing course and fixing issues. Mr. Bullock met with him to discuss having Prop 1 taxes go directly to cities and let cities decide how it is spent, but that wasn't what was approved. UTA is changing policies and working on better transparency. ULCT was not a proponent of UTA getting any money. They did ask for cities to pass resolutions expressing approval of Prop 1, but that was the extent of their involvement. Intent of ULCT is to provide city officials with materials to educate residents, but each official can do with it what they like. Some counties passed it, others didn't, but public funds weren't spent to advocate for Prop 1.
CM Crawley asked if ULCT contributes to any campaigns. Mr. Bullock said no. CM Crawley asked about a few of their budget line items, which Mr. Bullock provided explanations for. CM Crawley asked about their standards and principals and where he can find them. Mr. Bullock said their mission statement and values are on their website. Everyone who works for ULCT is dedicated to working for cities. CM Crawley said he feels ULCT is an extension of bad government. Mr. Bullock explained that there are laws discussed and passed at the State and Federal level that have an impact on municipalities. ULCT works to advocate for municipalities and educate elected officials on the proposed laws and the impact it may have on cities. Municipal services cost money and are paid for with taxes. If cities don't want to raise taxes to pay for increase costs of services, they have to determine how/if they will continue to provide them. ULCT also helps cities with land use planning as the population is expected to grow by quite a bit in Utah and cities need to plan for this. Also need to look at water and infrastructure planning. With population growth, cities will also need to look at justice system growth and issues. Transportation issues aren't going away and will continue to discuss how to fund. With Utah becoming known as a tech area, these types of planning discussions need to occur.
CM Zappala asked about membership. Almost every city in the State is a member. Board is selected through a nomination process. Must have representation from all areas of the State, including towns. It is a two year appointment. CM Zappala said there is no way every person on the Board is in favor of raising taxes and big government. There are differing points of view on the Board. Mr. Bullock said one big challenge is that elected officials have a lot on their plates and keeping them informed is a struggle. ULCT often asks for feedback. CM Zappala asked if they have ever received a donation from UTA, Mr. Bullock said no.
My thoughts - I feel we receive a benefit from participating with ULCT. I have taken advantage of numerous trainings every year. I like that we have access to professionals on things like municipal law and land use through ULCT. Whenever I've reached out to ULCT with questions or concerns, they have responded promptly and provided guidance related to city issues. I'm sure it is challenging for a group that represents almost every city in Utah to make every city happy, but we do have the ability to participate in direction ULCT goes by participating on the Legislative Policy Committee. Right now we only have one participant (Mayor Gygi), but we could add some staff and council members to that committee, which would give Cedar Hills more of a voice. I offered to participate in that.
Nobody signed up.
City Reports
David Bunker - Met with company that handles mass communications in emergency situations. County would like all cities in the County to be on the same platform. We are looking at moving over to Everbridge, which is the platform that the vast majorities of the cities in the County use. They also have an app that can be used by residents to submit public works concerns to the city, such as a street light that is out.
Utah Senate passed Resolution this legislative session that encourages all cities to begin metering all water, including secondary water. It was signed by the Governor in February. This may be the first step in the eventual requirement to meter PI water.
Recreation programs are doing well. Small decrease in teen soccer. Right now residents can sign up for t-ball and a youth computer programming class. Utah Jazz issued an award to the City for having so many participants in the Junior Jazz program.
To date, 22 residents have come this year to receive their annual free round of golf. We hope to see many more use their free pass.
CM Zappala - Has been working on revising zoning ordinances. Planning Commission met and had good discussion on the revisions. Has heard from residents who are unhappy that Walmart is storing merchandise outside as they need a conditional use permit to do so and have not obtained one. Staff continues to try to get in touch with the management team at Walmart but have been unable to reach anyone.
CM Bailey - Open burn season goes through end of the month. Must get a burn permit, which is free.
Mayor Gygi - Finance committee met and Charl will discuss during budget discussion. LPPSD board met and adopted a preliminary budget. In two weeks they will meet again as Highland wants to discuss changing how the cities are charged for fire and EMS services.
CM Rees - Family Festival is in three weeks and we still need several volunteers. Parks and Trails Committee is having their annual service day on Saturday, May 14th at 9:00am and will be working on the roundabout on Cedar Hills Drive as well as some other project throughout the city. We are looking for several volunteers for this as well.
Review/Action on Amendments to General Plan
For this item, as well as the next two items, CM Zappala put together a great blog post explaining the process and what we are trying to accomplish. You can find that information here.
Review/Action on Amendments to City Code Related to Planned Commercial Development
Council and staff have prepared an amendment to 10-6A that would incorporate the previous “Design Guidelines” into the Municipal Code.
Change requested to add language to 10-6A-3 that City Council is the final approving authority on conditional uses in that zone. CM Zappala will also fix the map to not include any current residential homes, that was done in error. This was approved 5-0.
Review/Action on Amendments to City Code Related to Conditional Use Permits
Staff has prepared conditional use code to be adopted as part of Title 10, the City’s Land Use Code. The proposed code outlines an approval process for granting a CUP, as well as the standards upon which a CUP may be granted. The biggest change being recommended by staff is to make the Planning Commission the land use authority for the city and not have requests for new conditional uses go to the City Council, which is the current process. The other change is to allow staff to be the land use authority for conditional use permit requests for existing structures where there are no external changes to the site.
My concern is the change to remove the Council from giving the final approval on a conditional use. If that had been the arrangement up until this time, the Blu Line project would be in process as it was approved by the Planning Commission. Members of the Planning Commission spend a lot of time researching land use code and making decisions based upon the code and their service is greatly needed and valued. I think the benefit of having the Council have the final say is that members of the Council are elected and accountable to voters and residents of the city. I like the current process that allows residents, through their elected officials, to have a voice in what is approved in the city, especially for the commercial area. Like the Planning Commission, the Council must make decisions based on city and state code; however, there have been times when members of the Council have had a different perspective on the intent and definitions in code. I prefer the current arrangement where there is discussion, feedback, and a vote from both bodies. We did change the general plan wording in the previous ordinance above to specifically state that the City Council gives final approval to developments in the SC-1 zone. CM Zappala recommended we create a table that lists types of conditional uses needed and list who is the approving authority for each, whether that is staff, Planning Commission, or City Council. This item was tabled for next meeting.
Review/Action to Adopt Tentative FY 2017 Budget
The City is also required to approve a tentative budget for 2016-2017 by the first Council Meeting in May based on Utah Code 10-6-135. The final budget will be approved in June.
Budget changes since March:
- Eliminated communications position to fund driving range fence
- Reduced fire contract increase to $7,000 based on LPPSD proposal
- Increased transfer to Capital Projects Fund to $20,000
- Added budget item for driving range fence to $35,000
- Adjusted dental benefit as costs are lower than expected
- Added $500,000 as a place holder for sewer line upgrades. Some of the existing lines are 20+ years old and will struggle with capacity.
Projects Pending Pricing (won't know final costs until we ask for bids)
- Bayhill Park estimated at $446,000
- Maintenance Building Budgeted $300,000
- Arbor study
- Sewer study and related sewer improvements
- Secondary water meters
- Driving range fencing
- Fencing for public works building budgeted $25,000
- Heritage Park amphitheater improvements budgeted $50,000
This was approved 5-0.
Review/Action on Resolution Notifying County on City's Intent to Submit to Voters Question Regarding Imposition of CARE Tax
In 2008, voters in the City of Cedar Hills considered and approved via general ballot opinion question, a local sales and use tax of 0.1% of particular transactions to fund cultural facilities and organizations, recreational facilities and programs, zoological facilities and organizations or botanical organizations. Per Utah State Code Title 59, Chapter 12, Part 14, the tax may be reauthorized at the end of the eight-year period in accordance with said code, by submitting an opinion question to the residents of the city regarding the possible imposition of a city wide CARE tax. The city’s intent is to include this opinion question on the Utah County 2016 general election ballot for the residents of the city to consider. The proposed resolution is the first step in the process to advance the proposed opinion question to the ballot. This was approved 5-0 and will be on the 2016 ballot.
Discussion on City's Participating with Utah League of Cities and Towns
The City has been a participating member of the ULCT for over 30 years. The ULCT represents municipal government interests with a strong unified voice at the state and federal levels. They provide information, training and technical assistance to local officials on municipal issues in order to create greater public awareness and understanding of municipal responsibilities, governance and administration.
CM Crawley asked for this to be on the agenda as he has some concerns with ULCT. Feels training is beneficial, but was concerned that ULCT promoted the gas tax. A speaker at the ULCT meeting said that because of ULCT the gas tax was passed. It also appeared to him that ULCT was trying to influence voters to approve Prop 1. Feels residents he represents want to keep taxes low, and that we are paying a lobbying group that works to raise taxes. Says this is what is wrong with politics, that desire of residents should be listened to. Concerned that ULCT receives corporate sponsors. Feels they lobby for things that don't reflect the desires of those in Cedar Hills. Doesn't feel Cedar Hills is represented by ULCT. Would prefer that the $5000 we spend on membership go towards one of our city committees, which better benefits the city.
Ken Bullock with ULCT presented. Said he appreciates the sacrifices made by council members in the service to their communities. Thanked Mayor Gygi for serving on the ULCT Board and raising issues that are important to Cedar Hills. Feels accountable to every city. Clarified a few points raised by CM Crawley. On trainings, they work hard to make sure trainings are applicable to all cities in the State. Enthusiasm expressed for gas tax was because it has been 17 years since gas tax was raised and expenses for inflation haven't been accounted for. Cities were spending more than they were collecting in B&C road funds. This gave cities needed money for roads. Feels this was a significant accomplishment for communities. It isn't fun to raise taxes, but it does cost money to provide services. Most throughout the State understood it was time to make changes in order to continue to provide these services. Funds raised have to go to roads, can't be used to supplement the General Fund. On Prop 1, Mr. Bullock stated there has not been a more formidable opponent of what UTA has done in the past than him. Current chair of UTA is working on changing course and fixing issues. Mr. Bullock met with him to discuss having Prop 1 taxes go directly to cities and let cities decide how it is spent, but that wasn't what was approved. UTA is changing policies and working on better transparency. ULCT was not a proponent of UTA getting any money. They did ask for cities to pass resolutions expressing approval of Prop 1, but that was the extent of their involvement. Intent of ULCT is to provide city officials with materials to educate residents, but each official can do with it what they like. Some counties passed it, others didn't, but public funds weren't spent to advocate for Prop 1.
CM Crawley asked if ULCT contributes to any campaigns. Mr. Bullock said no. CM Crawley asked about a few of their budget line items, which Mr. Bullock provided explanations for. CM Crawley asked about their standards and principals and where he can find them. Mr. Bullock said their mission statement and values are on their website. Everyone who works for ULCT is dedicated to working for cities. CM Crawley said he feels ULCT is an extension of bad government. Mr. Bullock explained that there are laws discussed and passed at the State and Federal level that have an impact on municipalities. ULCT works to advocate for municipalities and educate elected officials on the proposed laws and the impact it may have on cities. Municipal services cost money and are paid for with taxes. If cities don't want to raise taxes to pay for increase costs of services, they have to determine how/if they will continue to provide them. ULCT also helps cities with land use planning as the population is expected to grow by quite a bit in Utah and cities need to plan for this. Also need to look at water and infrastructure planning. With population growth, cities will also need to look at justice system growth and issues. Transportation issues aren't going away and will continue to discuss how to fund. With Utah becoming known as a tech area, these types of planning discussions need to occur.
CM Zappala asked about membership. Almost every city in the State is a member. Board is selected through a nomination process. Must have representation from all areas of the State, including towns. It is a two year appointment. CM Zappala said there is no way every person on the Board is in favor of raising taxes and big government. There are differing points of view on the Board. Mr. Bullock said one big challenge is that elected officials have a lot on their plates and keeping them informed is a struggle. ULCT often asks for feedback. CM Zappala asked if they have ever received a donation from UTA, Mr. Bullock said no.
My thoughts - I feel we receive a benefit from participating with ULCT. I have taken advantage of numerous trainings every year. I like that we have access to professionals on things like municipal law and land use through ULCT. Whenever I've reached out to ULCT with questions or concerns, they have responded promptly and provided guidance related to city issues. I'm sure it is challenging for a group that represents almost every city in Utah to make every city happy, but we do have the ability to participate in direction ULCT goes by participating on the Legislative Policy Committee. Right now we only have one participant (Mayor Gygi), but we could add some staff and council members to that committee, which would give Cedar Hills more of a voice. I offered to participate in that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)