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.
No comments:
Post a Comment