Nobody signed up.
Presentations
Rob Smith (ASD Superintendent) presented on the ASD bond, which will be on the General Election ballot. Here are pictures of the flyer he handed out:
Additional info can be found on their website here.
Growth in ASD over the last 16 years has been tremendous. There has been quite an increase in population in North Utah County. Anticipating approximately 80,000 students within the next four years. Sent a mailer to all households letting residents know ASD was researching a new bond. Everything they said they would do with the 2001 and 2006 bonds were done, and the projects for the 2011 bond are almost complete. There are four phases with this bond. These projects include new schools, roof replacements of existing schools, rebuilds and/or renovations needed at existing schools, and the purchase of property in high growth areas. ASD has a AAA bond rating, so interest rates are low. ASD sent out a survey to see if residents would support a bond and the response was yes as long as there was no associated tax increase. Once the bond details were put together they did another survey and completed focus groups and a majority of residents said they would support the bond. There is no increase in tax as they layer their bonds in a way to keep the tax revenue needed for bonds under a certain amount, plus accelerated growth from new residences and businesses.
Consent Agenda
The minutes from the 9/6/16 Council meeting were approved. Robin Finch was approved to be the newest member of the Arts Committee.
City Reports
CM Rees - Parks and Trails Committee is meeting later this week. Family Festival Committee vacancies have been filled and they are planning to meet in January.
David Bunker - Poles for driving range fence have been delivered. There is a delay on the work crew after a tornado in northern Utah caused damage to many poles. Soccer and football seasons have ended. Ski bus is starting to fill up. Jr Jazz registration is open and added a second grade program. Vista Room is quickly being booked for December. We are now officially a passport processing facility (city offices) and have already started processing some applications. TSSD meets on Thursday.
CM Zappala - Has started State of the City report. Was contacted by Zonda Perry who wants to start a Girls Who Code program in Cedar Hills and he will work with her on this.
Mayor Gygi - Working on filling vacancies on committees.
CM Bailey - Arts Committee is hosting annual date night on December 2nd. There are 30 spots available for this event and will be advertised soon.
CM Crawley - North Pointe meets soon. If the new landfill being purchased ever sells, the asset belongs to the County.
CM Geddes - Utah Valley Dispatch building will be open next month. Grand Opening will be held in January.
Discussion on Workers Compensation Compliance for Subcontractors
A discussion by the City Council, staff, committee members and invited experts was held regarding the requirements by the Workers Compensation Fund regarding the submission of proof of insurance for subcontractors and vendors for various activities and services provided to the city. The City of Cedar Hills has been audited for the past three successive years for insurance compliance. The city has continued to reduce the potential insurance exposure incurred from these activities. Although staff has improved the process for collecting evidence of insurance for vendors and services, this remains an audit finding by Workers Compensation Fund. City Council should discuss and determine the level of compliance and associated risk it deems appropriate for these activities and services. Brian Child with Olympus Insurance presented. He explained the code related to statutory employers. WC premiums have decreased 35% over past three years. Sole proprietors can receive a WC waiver from labor commission. Contract can also be amended that owners of contracts can be excluded from Workers Comp insurance when working on a city project.
This came up as an agenda item due to some issues we had last year during Family Festival. A few weeks before Family Festival, the chairs of the committee were notified that all vendors had to have proof of having Workers Comp insurance, or if they are a sole-proprietor, a waiver with a $50 fee. The entity who does the car show stated we were the only city requiring this and pulled out of the festival. It took awhile to work things out where eventually the city paid the $50 fee to obtain the waiver on his behalf, however, since he had already stopped advertising our Festival on his website, it impacted the number of entries for our car show. It also became an issue with the band we had hired to perform on Saturday evening and the company we used for the teen party on Thursday night. After doing some research, the recommendation was made to me that we not submit a 1099 form to those who we pay less than $600 as the law doesn't require it, and this would include these Family Festival vendors who we pay less than $600 to. Later I was told that it wasn't a 1099 issue but an I9 issue. Because of the confusion I had a phone call with our city attorney, who did some further research. He indicated that instead of entering into a 1099 arrangement with these vendors, we could instead enter into a contract for them to provide the services for Family Festival and this would eliminate the requirement we have to obtain proof of Workers Compensation insurance. The liability would be on the vendor, not on the city. My suggestion is that we be willing to pay the $50 fee for the WC waiver for the sole proprietors as they are the entities that have struggled with this requirement. With us being a small city, it is already challenging to get some of these vendors to come to our Family Festival. Adding requirements that other cities are not makes them less interested in participating in our Family Festival. Another option we will explore is creating a 501c3 that runs the Family Festival, which removes many of these requirements. This will come back to the Council in two weeks for further discussion.
Discussion on W9/1099 Requirements
A discussion on the requirements by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regarding the submission of a W-9 for non-employee payments and for reporting purposes to the IRS, such as the 1099-MISC form. As a best management practice, all who receive payment from the City are advised to complete a W-9 form. Only those individuals or companies who receive payment over $600 are required to have a 1099-Misc filed.
See my notes on the previous item for further details on why this came up for discussion.
Review/Action on Phasing Plan for Lakeshore Trails Subdivision
Lakeshore Trails has requested that their plat and the associated improvements be split into two phases. This would allow the developer to post bonds for each phase and receive a bond release as each phase is completed following the inspections, and acceptance by the City Council. Once the performance bond is released, the public improvements will enter the durability phase to ensure quality of work. By allowing the developer to split the Lakeshore Trails project into two phases they will be able to have a portion of the project enter durability, while still being able to make the required improvements in other phases. The required public improvements as required in the approval process are unaltered by the decision to allow the project to be phased. Additionally, Council has allowed other subdivision projects to be phased throughout the City (e.g. The Cedars, Avanyu, Forest Creek, Juniper Heights, Bridgestone, Temple Shadows, Canyon Heights, Apple Blossom, and others). Phase two of the Lakeshore Trails project will include only Hunters Court. Hunters Court is a four lot cul-de-sac that will be accessed off of Canyon Road. The developers have already installed the sidewalk along canyon road, and storm drain, water, sewer and irrigation mainline improvements for the phase. Asphalt of Phase 2 is anticipated to be done before end of November. The entire phase should be done in spring. This was approved.
Review/Action on Interlocal Agreement for Canyon Road
Utah County in cooperation with Cedar Hills and Pleasant Grove cities have been working on an interlocal cooperative agreement to design and construct certain improvements along the Canyon Road corridor. Improvements include roadway re-construction, safety improvements, drainage improvements including installation of curb and gutter and a storm water retention facility, and right-of-way acquisition. The project includes participatory funding from UDOT and MAG for a total of $9,359,000. Utah County will oversee design and construction of the roadway improvement project and shall maintain said improvements for a period not to exceed 30 years from the date of the agreement, after which the roadway improvements and right-of-way will be transferred to the participating cities. During the term of the agreement, the cities shall provide limited maintenance, snow removal, law enforcement, drainage facilities, storm drain facilities, etc. Cities shall also bear costs of roadway widening of future projects if needed along the corridor upon completion of the proposed project.
Here are my concerns with the agreement:
- Page 3 of the agreement states that if the improvements made, which are under the sole discretion of the County, exceed the $9.3 million dollars, the cities have to pay for the balance. We do not have a clear understanding on how much the improvements will cost so have no way to anticipate how much we would be responsible for at the end of the project.
- Even though the County retains ownership of the road, the agreement requires the cities to provide and/or pay for: snow removal including salting; pothole repair; maintain road signage; debris removal; law enforcement; the annual costs of striping crosswalks, school crossings, school area messaging, and any additional striping required; the annual costs of pavement maintenance such as surface treatment as deemed necessary by the County for all asphalt widening that occurs along the right-of-way after completion; maintain all curb, gutter, sidewalk, and storm drainage facilities; accept and handle all storm water run-off from the roadway.
- While the agreement anticipates the County will retain ownership for 30 years, it does have a termination clause that allows the County to provide 180 days notice to terminate the agreement, at which point the ownership of Canyon Road transfers to the cities. It does say the County would negotiate with the cities the value to be paid to each city to uphold the full financial responsibility for the maintenance requirements for the remaining term of the agreement; however, it has been challenging getting the County to accept any responsibility for this road up to this point so I'm wary of this claim.
- Canyon Road is a major road, not a city road. It is an access road to other cities and to American Fork Canyon. It was owned by UDOT until the County negotiated with UDOT to swap with them for North County Blvd. As soon as the improvements were made to North County Blvd (paid for by the County) and ownership was traded, the County immediately began trying to offload Canyon Road to the cities. They claim it is not a county road and is mainly used by CH and PG residents.
- The money allocated for this project has come from UDOT and MAG. The County is not supplying any funds, even though they own the road. Instead of using the money to make improvements, the County has threatened to reject the funds already approved by MAG and do a lower quality job with the UDOT funds. I see no reason for this other than to bully the cities into taking ownership. There is no financial hardship incurred by the County to use funds provided by other entities to improve a road they negotiated to take ownership of. They should live up to their obligations as the owner of Canyon Road and make the necessary repairs.
- Because Canyon Road is a major road, the maintenance and repair expenses would be high. We would either have to raise taxes or reduce current services in order to take on the responsibility of such a big road. This is an unfair burden on the residents of Cedar Hills.
- The portion of Canyon Road that CH would be responsible for is wider than the portions in PG, which leaves us with a larger share of the costs. Additionally, we would be responsible for everything north of the canal, even though there are several PG homes that are on Canyon Road north of the canal. PG would be responsible for everything south of the canal, which only includes PG homes and is more the width of a city road.
I believe that the County should use the money from MAG and UDOT to make the necessary improvements to this road. They negotiated to take ownership of it and should accept that responsibility. I would like to see our Council meet with the PG Council to discuss all options we have available to us as this impacts both cities. Commissioner Ellertson has made it clear the county does not view Canyon Road as a priority and he said himself he would reject any funds from MAG to help. I hope the other County Commissioners will take the concerns of our residents more seriously. I would like to have a joint meeting with the PG Council and the County Commissioners in January as there will be a new County Commissioner and we may have more productive conversations.
CM Crawley feels we should reject the agreement and state we expect them to fix the road so it is safe.
CM Geddes agrees but thinks Cedar Hills should own our portion of Canyon Road at some point.
CM Zappala agrees with Geddes. Feels the County should fix the safety issues as it is their responsibility. Doesn't want to be bullied into taking the road. Wants the road to be fixed first and then we'll discuss transfer of ownership. It's a good deal for the County as none of the funds are coming out of the County revenues.
CM Zappala made the motion that we require the County to utilize the $9.3 million to fix all of the issues with Canyon Road and once it is fixed we will have joint meetings with them and PG to discuss the future of the road, including ownership. This was approved 4-1.
Discussion on CARE Tax
State code 59-1-1605 requires taxing entities placing a tax proposition, i.e. CARE tax or other, on a general election ballot to hold a public meeting, allowing equal time within a reasonable limit for a presentation of the arguments in favor of and against said proposition during the public meeting. The public meeting is not required to be a public hearing.
I will be encouraging residents to vote for this tax. It is a tax we are currently paying, so it won't increase taxes from current rates. It is 0.1% on sales tax, which means for every $10 spent the city would assess a tax of one cent. The funds used for this go towards recreation and arts in our community. Some of the items we have used CARE tax funds on include:
- Basketball court at Heritage Park
- Community Center basement
- Mesquite Park bathroom
- Arts Committee events
For this year we anticipate using CARE tax funds for Bayhill Park and Heritage Park improvements. The approximate amount we raise each year from this tax is $40,000. We still have parks and trails projects on our capital improvements plan and I feel this small tax will help us as we move towards completing those projects. Our residents have expressed an appreciation for our parks and trails system and these funds go directly to projects like these.
CM Crawley expressed his opposition to the CARE tax and his argument is in the voter pamphlet. The rest of the Council is in favor.
