Council Meeting - September 22, 2015

Public Comment
Julie Sessions - Commenting also for Angela Johnson. Does not support high density in our commercial zone. This facility does not provide commercial. Zone intends for shops and retail uses. This subzone is intended to have less intense uses. Also says Cedar Hills values tranquil small-town environment. Says this is a residential facility and will be taxed accordingly at the lower tax rate. This is not less intent as it has 300 living units. Wants to encourage commercial. Asked that the Council visit the Sandy facility, which is half the units being proposed for Cedar Hills.

Russ Fotheringham - He and his wife are opposed to the development. Doesn't fit guidelines. Ordinance says this should be used for commercial entities. General Plan says this land is meant for retail uses and office space. 300 units does not meet design guidelines, which says to preserve the small town atmosphere. It is an apartment complex, regardless of what developer calls it. The more commercial uses we have, the more it will draw others. Be patient and don't approve something that doesn't meet the zoning, general plan, or design guidelines.

Marshall Shore - Water is a precious resource. Our ancestors were lucky when they moved here and found the water resources. The easy water is gone. Resources we have now have to be stretched and we can't afford to be wasting them. He has reported water violations to the city and doesn't want them to be ignored.

Darin Lowder - Opposed to Rosegate. We've had a wonderful relationship with the landowners. He appreciates the foresight of those who put together a general plan. Things have been changed, but what hasn't changed is the primary objective being commercial and less intense use. This is a residential building with 300 apartments. This was not anticipated. He wants this to be shut down and something else come in its place.

Jason Hart - Building a house on Cottonwood Drive and Mesquite Way. Concerned with the large number of golf balls on his lot and on Mesquite Park. Feels it is a safety issue for his family and those in the parks. Would like to discuss possible solutions to eliminate not all, but many of the golf balls coming over the fence. He loves the golf course and understands the sensitivity. Wants to address the safety issues.

Russ Smart - Owns the land in the commercial area and has been working on this project for 2.5 years. He thought it was going to be shut down. Mayor said he had no problem with the building, just the five stories. There have been several meetings for the residents. He tried to trade his property for the land the city owns, but was told it was horrible property. Also offered to sell it to the city but was told no. He feels he was given a recommendation to move forward.

**On a side note - I've never heard of this land trade or potential to buy. I will find out who had these conversations with the Smart family.

Nanette Stevenson - City has already changed the development by Deerfield from 55+ to allow anyone to live there because they couldn't fill the units. She can see this developer using a similar tactic. If they can't get 55+ then we will have to allow for an apartment complex open to anyone.

Amber Bonner - There are problems with the size of the building. It is too large and too tall. It's supposed to be less intense use. Density is more intense than any of the surrounding properties. Has concerns with traffic and parking, especially if this is for active adults.

Kim Groneman - Doesn't want to see this building and doesn't want exceptions to the rules.

Sean Lorchesider - Doesn't fit use of zone.

Mark Bennett - Residential is only ancillary to commercial use. Only second level should be used for residential. Wants to see a complete list of services provided onsite and offsite to see how it differs from apartment complex.

Ben Ellsworth - Does not meet the vision statement of the design guidelines. This is not a place residents will want to gather. Need to preserve small town feel. Encourages developer to reduce height and density to meet vision of city and design code.

Deborah Gibbons - Has a petition that was circulated yesterday and today and has been signed by 350 residents opposed to the congregate care facility. This is not a personal attack against the Smarts. We are proud of our city and feel passionately about the guidelines that have been put forth. Feels the people who are impacted by the development, who live in this area, don't want this. Asks the Council, who are representatives, to realize this petition is a good representation of the will of the people. It's not the right development for this city.

Tom Cantrell - Not in favor of Rosegate development. Biggest concern is the impact of having 300 apartments on Cedar Hills Drive and 4600 West. This will increase traffic on 4600 West. Apartment complex of this size is too big. Feels we should wait, be patient, and things will come that are more suitable for the city.

Bobby Seegmiller - He is pro development and feels Rosegate in Sandy is beautiful. Frustrated we are here tonight and feels we are here due to an oversight by the Planning Commission. Feels this violates the intent of the general plan, design guidelines, and zoning ordinance. Wants PC members to read land use booklet given by ULCT. Wants them to understand bias, conflicts of interest, and when they should abstain from a vote. Wants to know if any of the PC, staff, or Council has provided any consulting services to the developer or discussed with them this building outside of city meetings. He is concerned about parking. If this is a 55+ community, there is not adequate parking. There is a study Hales performed and site the other Rosegate facility. He has talked with other city officials from other cities, who have denied development because there were fewer than two stalls per unit.

Candice Smart - Owns the land being discussed. If she is building a house and wants it pink, the city can't stop her. You can see houses that don't fit. She has the freedom to build this building. She feels the Planning Commission is educated and made sure everything was perfect. Feels they have met all the guidelines and within the laws. Commercial has been sought by the city and by her developer and they are not coming. She's owned the property for 30 years and has been patient. Amsource came in and they were approved without any discussion about what they would bring in. The bank they are bringing in won't bring in as much revenue as the Rosegate facility. Said they were willing to trade property and was told no. If people want it to be a field, then someone should pay for it and let it be a field.

Public Hearing
Comments were given in public comment.

Consent Agenda
Steve Thomas was appointed to the Planning Commission. Minutes from the August 25, 2015 City Council meeting were approved.

City Reports
David Bunker - TSSD is considering a user rate change, which would be a decrease in rates. They are performing study to see what rates should be.

CM Rees - Planning Commission met last week. Mr. Levine's plans to subdivide his lot were denied as they don't comply with city code. He will now appear before the Board of Adjustment to request an exception. The Planning Commission has expressed they will approve his plans if he can get the exception. The PC also discussed additional changes to the Design Guidelines. They are going to review Pleasant Grove's code with regards to density and meet again next month.

The State of the City report is currently with the graphic designer and I'll send it to the Council and staff when she's finished.

The Cultural Arts Committee has planned a dinner and dance date night for this Friday at the Community Center. Tickets are $10/couple and includes a catered dinner and salsa dancing instruction taught by a professional dancer.

CM Augustus - North Pointe Solid Waste working on budget and final budget will be approved in December. Rates may need to be increased. Golf Course Finance Committee has been meeting on Thursday nights to discuss a proposal that has been presented. They are meeting again Thursday night at 8pm.

CM Crawley - Golf Course Finance Committee putting out a list of FAQ's in next few weeks. ULCT was last week and several Council members attended.

Review/Action on Preliminary Plans for Rosegate Facility
The proposed Rosegate facility located at approximately 4600 West Cedar Hills Drive, has met with the Planning Commission on 8/18/2015, and received a recommendation to present their preliminary plans to the City Council. The proposed plans have been processed through engineering, zoning and public safety reviews. My notes from the Planning Commission meeting can be viewed here.

Mayor Gygi read the wording of the petition signed by the 350 residents, which is as follows:

On September 22, 2015, the city of Cedar Hills will be holding a public hearing on the Preliminary Plans for the Rosegate at Cedar Hills Development. We the signers of this petition ask that the council reject this development proposal for the following reasons:

1.  This development does not fit with the general plan and zoning ordinances of our city. The development is primarily an apartment complex for senior citizens, whereas the general plan states that the commercial zone is intended primarily for commercial uses. Past councils have focused intently on bringing commercial development to our commercial zone. The only previously approved assisted living facility in this zone, the Charleston, was part of a larger Lexington Heights development, comprising less than 50% of a plan that was overall a commercial development. This plan is nearly 100% residential.
2.  The size of the building is not in keeping with our development guidelines. The Charleston assisted living facility is only 65 beds, whereas this apartment complex is 291 units, each with potentially two residents. That represents a size that is nearly 9 times that of the Charleston. The sheer size and scale of the building will overwhelm the nearby single-family homes. Our development guidelines state that “smaller, individual buildings that tend to break up parking areas and create visual interest are required.”
3.  The developer is claiming that this apartment building is a congregate care facility. However, in our experience these facilities offer onsite dining, nursing care, transportation, and other services that help senior citizens to live comfortably during their active senior years. The developer has indicated he will not provide those services on site, meaning this is an apartment complex, and not a congregate care facility. It is certainly not “substantially similar” to an assisted living facility as the development guidelines require.
4.  A high density apartment complex will impose significant impact on the surrounding neighborhoods that can only be limited by significantly reducing the size and scale of the apartment building. Impacts include increased traffic and increased noise from the large parking lot surrounding the facility. A large apartment complex is not compatible with single-family homes and our small town atmosphere.
We feel particularly misled by this developer, because he initially came to the city proposing a major commercial development, including theaters, shops, restaurants, a splash pad and park space, with a senior living facility comprising only a smaller portion of the development. Over time, he gradually removed most of the commercial elements of his plan, converting the plan into a single, very large apartment complex with just a few retail pads. At one point Mr. Shupe, a representative of the developer, exclaimed that even if he gave a restaurant owner a million dollars that nobody would build a restaurant in Cedar Hills. He does not even intend to build the retail pads initially, and may never come through with any commercial development. That kind of about-face indicates that the developer truly intended to only build residential from the beginning and was using excitement about commercial development to try to slip a primarily residential project into a commercial zone. We plead with the council to preserve our commercial zone for commercial development.

This item was tabled for a future meeting based on the recommendation of our legal counsel. 

Review/Action on Intent to Adjust Boundary with Pleasant Grove
The city has received Requests to Initiate an Adjustment of a Common Municipal Boundary forms from D. Gordon & Karen Davies, Chris & Sarah Eagar, Tarl W. Taylor, Anthony G. & Patricia D. Erickson, and Rick & Debi Meinzer. The Davies property is located at 4583 N 900 W; the Eagar property is located at 4638 N 900 W; the Taylor property is located at 365 S 420 E; the Erickson property is located at 754 W 4000 N; the Meinzer property is located at 818 W 4000 N. They are all requesting that their properties be transferred from the municipal jurisdiction of Pleasant Grove City to the City of Cedar Hills. They all have also completed and filed a request to initiate with Pleasant Grove City.

Pleasant Grove discussed this last week, but we do not yet know what was discussed. It will be a review/action item for them in October. These residents want to boundary adjust into Cedar Hills in order to receive sewer and other city services. This was approved.

Review/Action on Refinancing Excise Tax Revenue Bonds
This item was discussed in depth at our last Council meeting and my notes can be found here. Jonathan Ward from Zions presented. Asked JP Morgan Chase to give us a firm bid, which they have done. Savings are approximately $205,000 net present value, or 11.6%. If approved tonight, they can lock in interest rates. Cost of issuance is roughly 10% of the savings. His recommendation is to take a little less savings and keep option to prepay or to refinance with lower interest rates at a later time. Current negative arbitrage is about $24-$30k. If we don't refinance now, the risk is rates go up and we eliminate any potential savings. This was approved.

Discussion on Canyon Road
Many discussions have taken place in regards to the condition of SR-146/Canyon Road, including which entity will own and maintain the roadway. At this time, Utah County will continue to own and maintain SR-146. However, without the participation on some level from Cedar Hills and Pleasant Grove, the County Commissioners have relegated the roadway to be maintained as a County Roadway, which is a lower standard than that of a municipal roadway. A discussion with the County Commissioners suggests that if the two cities participate in the maintenance of the roadway to some degree to be negotiated, that the County may be open improving the roadway to a higher standard using a variety of funding avenues. Due to the limited resources of Cedar Hills to provide adequate snow plowing efforts to the County arterial road, Pleasant Grove has offered to assist Cedar Hills in the snow plow efforts from the Murdock Canal to the mouth of AF Canyon for a fee of $80/plow trip. Based on this figure and the costs of minor other maintenance items that the County would not typically perform, staff has generated the following estimate of annual costs associated with aiding the County in maintenance of an upgraded roadway:

• Snow Plowing: $6,500 - $8,500  
• 15 Plow events per year
• 5 Heavy events  45 trips    
• 10 Regular events  60 trips        
• Storm Drain Maintenance:  $4,500  
• Quarterly cleaning:  $2,500   
• Street Sweeping:  $2,000     
• General Maintenance/Rock cleanup $1,000   
• 10 events per year @ $100 each  
• Sign Maintenance:  $500   

An estimated amount of $12,500 to $14,500 should be allocated for potential annual average outlay for maintenance activities of these items. Full ownership of the roadway with associated maintenance costs exceed $100,000 per year.

I would like to know exactly what the County is willing to do in exchange for this. Specifically, what improvements will they make, what the will ongoing maintenance schedule look like, what will response time for issues be like, etc. 

David Bunker (city manager) will take all of our questions back to the County and this will be on a future agenda.

City Council Meeting - September 8, 2015

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Nobody signed up. 

Public Hearing

A public hearing was held for amendments to the Fiscal Year 2016 Budget and, Adjusting the Common Boundary between the City of Cedar Hills and Pleasant Grove City (Wilson and Day Properties).

Nobody signed up.

Consent Agenda

The consent agenda was to approve the following: Appointment of Elizabeth Paul and Greg Gordon to the Cultural Arts Citizens Advisory Committee, and to approve the minutes from the July 21, 2015 and the August 4, 2015 City Council Meetings, and the August 13, 2015 and the August 20, 2015 Special City Council Meetings. These were all approved.

City Reports

David Bunker - TSSD has not met since last Council meeting. Soccer is going well. Flag football registration is closed and we have 8 teams. LPHS has done a great job spreading the word on this. Mulan play practice is now happening and will be performed in November. YCC is preparing for the year.

CM Geddes - Utah Valley Dispatch building is still being discussed. They will not need additional money than what was originally budgeted. 

CM Zappala - There will be a special meeting next week for LPPSD.

Mayor Gygi - LPPSD board meeting was cancelled, as was MAG meeting. County Auditor decided to allow vote by mail cities to combine ballots so the sales tax option will be on our vote by mail ballots. Lt Governor's office intervened and helped with this compromise. This will be on the 2015 ballot. He had hoped it would be on the 2016 ballot so that we all had more time to research this item. There will be a large county-wide education campaign on this issue. 

CM Crawley - Golf Course Finance committee will meet this week. They are still finding new things to discuss.

CM Augustus - Nothing new to report. 

CM Rees - I have received feedback from staff on the State of the City but am waiting for any Council feedback. I need to have files to the graphic designer this week. The Arts Council meets next week and I'll have an update then on their next community projects. 

Review/Action on a Resolution Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds

Financial advisors and bond counsel attended the meeting to discuss the potential savings available if the city opts to refund the Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2006. Charl Lowe (city Finance Director presented). These bonds we are talking about are the bonds taken out for the Public Works building. Jonathan Ward with Zions Bank presented. Interest rates are low and there is an opportunity to refinance some debt at lower rates. These are some of the lowest rates seen in 20 years. The original bond was for a term of 25 years with average interest rate of 4.43%. Potential negative is that we extend the date of when we can pay off early without a penalty; however, one option is a direct purchase, which gives greater flexibility on the prepayment feature. Direct purchase bypasses underwriter to access investors. We can either request bids or go directly to an investor. It's about a 1-3 month process. Pros of direct purchase are lower upfront costs, flexible prepayment terms, no SEC governance, shorter processing time. Cons are purchaser makes specific terms and conditions, higher interest rates, and limited fixed rate maturity. JP Morgan has indicated they would be willing to purchase these bonds at a fixed rate.

JP Morgan has given some preliminary numbers on a Direct Purchase with backend savings, the all inclusive interest rate would be 2.537%, with a net present value savings of 13.23%, equal to $220,949. Backend savings means we accelerate debt service and realize the savings at the end by shortening the life of the loan. This would reduce the debt by 4 years. Payments until then would be the same as what we are paying now. 

Marc Edminster with Lewis Young presented as well. Process is the same as outlined above by Jonathan. He recommends that we bid it out to several different banks to see who gives the best offer. JP Morgan may not be the best deal. He doesn't think interest rates are going to go up as we can't sell the bonds before the Fed meets. Feels our best strategy would be to wait and reduce the negative arbitrage as the savings aren't significant. Within a few months there will be a better idea of where interest rates will be. The closer we get to prepayment date of July 1, 2016, the greater the reduction of the negative arbitrage. Mayor Gygi agrees that we don't need to rush into this. 

Charl feels that if we can lock in a better rate now then we should. He doesn't think we will find anyone who can beat JP Morgan. 

David Shaw (city attorney) asked to hear from Brandon Johnson, bond counsel for Zions, on how the Council can approve a resolution when most of the documents addressed in the resolution are missing. These are supposed to be on file with the city at time of approval of the resolution. Brandon said they are in substantially final form. These are typically not sent in advance but brought at the time of the meeting. Says there is nothing in the documents that locks the city down in any way. Mr. Shaw recommended our legal counsel review those documents before final approval. 

CM Zappala asked Charl who he would recommend. Charl said he likes both financial advisors. Feels Jonathan has done a lot of work for the city without much reward. He would recommend Zions for this transaction because they were proactive, did the homework, and came to us first. 

CM Crawley stated we should go with Zions and use their approach because they came to us and had done this research, and this doesn't lock us into anything. Made a motion to approve the resolution for the reissuance of bonds with the requirement that it come back to the Council for final approval instead of allowing one person to negotiate terms (in the resolution it gave that authority to the city manager). Seconded by CM Geddes. This was approved 3-2 with myself and CM Zappala voting nay. I voted no for two reasons. 1. The resolution wasn't complete and I would like the city to be able to review all the associated documents. 2. Our prior resolutions that have dealt with refinancing have allowed the mayor and city manager to negotiate terms and receive approval from the Council informally, instead of needing to wait for Council meeting. I would've liked to review all documents prior to approving a resolution, even if it doesn't bind us in any way.

Review/Action on the Canvass of the Election Returns for the Recount of the 2015 Municipal Primary Election

Pursuant to state law, it is necessary for the City Council to act as the board of canvassers and to canvass the election returns of the recount of the 2015 Municipal Primary Election. After a recount was requested it was determined that there is a tie for sixth place. According to state law, a tie is broken by lot, such as a flip of a coin. Colleen (city recorder) had the Council canvass the new results. Candidates Brian Miller and Craig Clement agreed to the process of drawing cards. Brian Miller's card was selected so he will advance to the General Election. 

Review/Action on Adoption of an Ordinance Adjusting the Common Boundary between the City of Cedar Hills and Pleasant Grove City (Wilson and Day Properties)

On July 21, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution 07-21-2015A, indicating the intent to boundary adjust the Wilson property (4547 North 900 West, Pleasant Grove) and the Day property (4495 North 900 West, Pleasant Grove) from the municipal jurisdiction of Pleasant Grove City to the City of Cedar Hills.  In accordance with UCA 10-2-419, a public hearing was held, and in that no protests have been filed with the city recorder, the code requires that the legislative body adopt an ordinance approving the adjustment of the common boundary. This was approved. 

Review/Action on Awarding a Contract for the Community Recreation Center Concessions

The City recently advertised the request for proposals (RFP) from qualified food vendors to provide and operate concessions and food services at the grill. The city received one proposal from Mr. Cameron Burr. He has been involved in the management of food services for over 8 years and currently operates a food truck called Genki Asian Street Food. Staff recommends the council review and consider the proposal from Mr. Burr to provide food and concession services. Staff opinion is that the contract will be beneficial and the sooner the city engages in a contract, the sooner services will be provided which will benefit the vendor and the City both short term and long term. 

At the last City Council meeting staff was directed to get together the following week with Mr. Burr and to review his proposed catering menu and get together with both Mr. Doyle (Golf Manager) and Ms. Scott (Events Manager) to make sure they were on board with the menu and supporting Mr. Burr’s new venture. Staff met with Mr. Burr on August 31st and reviewed the menu and talked through any and all questions. Everyone is comfortable with Mr. Burr’s experience and marketing plan and are eager to work together to make this a successful venture in the grill space. Catering is vital to the success of the tenant and Mr. Burr is eager to execute his plan and has even stressed that he will be willing to make whatever request the clientele will want work and he will exceed their expectations. Staff will make it a point to make them our #1 preferred caterer.

The concern was brought up that the contract states we receive a percentage of profit, yet doesn't define how that is calculated, which could mean the vendor could increase his salary as revenue increases in order to keep profit low. The motion was made that the percentage should be based on revenue with a lower percentage determined by city manager and the vendor. This was approved.

Review/Action on Adoption of a Resolution Supporting the HB362 (2015) Authorized 0.25% Local Option General Sales Tax Dedicated to Transportation

HB 362 as approved by the State Legislature contains two main provisions. The first is a Gas Tax Reform measure that will convert the 24.5 cent-per-gallon gas tax to a 12% sales tax on the state average rack price of fuel. This will take effect January 1, 2016 statewide. The other provision is for a local option Transportation Sales Tax allowing counties to enact a 0.25% general sales tax for transportation. It would be allocated as follows:

·         0.10% to the Transit Provider

·         0.10% to cities, towns and unincorporated county areas

·         0.05% to the County

The local option Transportation Sales Tax will be included on the ballot this fall as approved by the Utah County Commission. The proposed resolution memorializes the City’s support of the local option general sales tax dedicated to transportation, and encourages residents support the proposal. Initial estimates detail the increase of the Gas Reform Measure and the Local Option Sales Tax would generate an approximate amount of $150,000 annually for the City of Cedar Hills.

Commissioner Bill Lee presented. He has a few areas of concern. The ballot measure talks of transportation needs, but 40% goes to UTA, which is $7 million from Utah County on a yearly basis. Feels the County has a priority problem when it comes to transportation needs. Roads need to be addressed and should be a high priority. He asks us to vote against this resolution. He wants go back to the State Legislature and ask them to remove the portion that goes to UTA and have it instead go to the County. CM Crawley asked how much of this increase would fund BRT. Lee said none of it would go to BRT. CM Zappala asked if Commissioner Lee would properly rebuild Canyon Road as we have requested on multiple occasions. Lee said he is in favor of rebuilding that road, but they only build to County standards. This doesn't include things such as curb and gutter. I commented to Commissioner Lee that one of our biggest road concerns is Canyon Road, yet the County has been very clear that they will never view it as a priority, so I don't feel much confidence in his proposal that the tax increase go to the County where they will distribute based on need as they have been very clear they will never view our needs as a priority. Commissioner Ellertson specifically stated in a previous meeting that he would reject any money offered by MAG to improve Canyon Road beyond the current standards. CM Zappala asked why the County standards were so low but did not receive a response. Mayor Gygi expresses concern that if this doesn't get approved it will not be brought up again at the State level and no increase in transportation funding will occur. Commissioner Lee said if it doesn't come back up at the State level then cities could issue a GO Bond to get needed improvements to their roads. 

CM Augustus is opposed to raising taxes as he feels that the State and County to re-prioritize expenses and figure out how things will get paid with money already coming in. Expressed frustration over government waste, especially with regards to transportation.

CM Zappala said gas tax hasn't changed in 18 years. Because we haven't addressed this issue, revenue has been falling for years. He is concerned that with expected population increase, if we don't invest in public transportation then we are going to see Los Angeles type congestion. Says you can't build your way out of congestion. 

My concern is that the State won't readdress this, especially if Salt Lake County approves it and Utah County doesn't. The County isn't proposing anything better that benefits municipalities by suggesting they control the funding and they certainly aren't considering reducing expenses or prioritizing city roads. We are using more of our General funds every year for road maintenance and we can't sustain this for long without raising city taxes or we will end up in a similar situation that Pleasant Grove is in. We need to do better for planning for future needs, especially as our expenses go up each year but the property taxes collected stay the same. I agree with CM Zappala that this is a better way to allocate funding for roads than what is currently happening. ULCT, our lobbyist, is advocating for this option as well as a good solution for municipalities. 

This was rejected 3-2 with myself and Zappala voting aye.

Review/Action on Adoption of an Ordinance Amending Title 9, Chapter 1, Article C, Relating to the Board of Adjustment

State law dictates that a member of the City Council should not be appointed as a member or liaison to the Board of Adjustment. We are updating our city code to comply with state code as it is currently written to appointment a member of the Council to this board. CM Zappala asked for this item to be tabled until we've had legal review. This was agreed to. 

Review/Action on Approval of Vista Room Resident Rates

At the City Council’s request in a previous meeting Mr. Bunker, Ms. Scott, and I met with Mayor Gygi, Council Member Rees, and Council Member Geddes to discuss the proposal that staff had put together and there were differing opinions on our proposal so it was decided that they City would send out a survey to our residents via the Parlant system to solicit feedback on what they felt were appropriate/affordable rates. Staff had recommended the attached resident rates, however based on the feedback the City Council will receive from the survey it is up to the discretion of the Council to propose and accept what they feel is appropriate. Depending on what the Council decides we may need to increase our budgeted labor as the number of events will be increasing dramatically for less than our original projections. Staff will be happy, as we always have been, to work with our clients to exceed their expectations.

I would like to stick with my original suggestion of $20/hour for all rooms for Monday and Tuesday nights so as to open it more to residents to use frequently. I would like it to be affordable for every resident in our community these two nights a week so that it becomes more of a Community Center for anyone in our city who wants to use it. We can try it for a year and if it isn't working then we can adjust. 

The motion was made to do the $20/hour for a period of 6 months and have staff provide information on how it is affecting the bottom line. This was approved.

Discussion on the Re-design of the Roundabout located on Cedar Hills Drive

The Parks & Trails committee has asked for $1,000 to hire a landscape architect to look at beautifying the roundabout on Cedar Hills Drive. Their proposal includes raising the center of the roundabout two feet and planting evergreen trees in the center. Boyd Wilkins, the chair of the Parks & Trails Committee, presented. They feel it would be a welcoming entrance to the city. Would like more lighting, a water feature, and varying elevations and landscaping. I brought up the fact that the lady doing our free gardening classes has offered to design this and we should contact her first. My concern is that we have two parks on our capital projects plan that have been there for some time and while the roundabout beautification would be nice, it's unusable space. I would prefer that we complete the parks and trails on our capital improvements plan before spending a lot of money on the roundabout, which CM Augustus and Geddes have guessed would cost around $75k. This was only a discussion item so no motion was made. 

Review/Action on a Resolution Adopting Fiscal Year 2016 Budget Amendments

The proposed amendments are as follows:

• $80,000 increase for 10-61-310 Engineering Services relating to the Lakeshore Trails subdivision and Amsource commercial development.  $80,000 increase for the offsetting 10-32-260 Miscellaneous Inspection Fees.   
• $175,000 increase for 10-69-910 Transfer to the Capital Projects Fund and $175,000 increase for 10-30-801 Transfers to the General fund to maintain the unrestricted fund balance in the General fund below 25% of revenues, which is required by law.
• $8,000 increase for 20-30-500 for concessions revenues and $8,000 increase for 30-50-500 increase for concessions costs.  
• 40-80-822 approximately $1,000 in fees for a landscape architectural plan for the roundabout on Cedar Hills Drive under the direction of the Beautification, Recreation, Parks and Trails committee. Unrestricted fund balance in the capital projects fund would be used to pay for this plan.  
• 40-80-817 Bayhill Park construction adjustment of $72,593 to $381,204 estimated by Bowen Collins. The amount required varies substantially depending on the final proposal approved by the City Council. Unrestricted fund balance from the capital projects fund and the potentially the general fund would be utilized depending on the amount of the adjustment. The modified proposal prepared by Bowen Collins, which would require an additional $211,224.00 in funding has tentatively been provided. 

Motion was made by CM Augustus to adopt the amendments but to strike the everything related to the refunding of the bond until this reaches final approval and the $1000 for the landscape architect. This was approved.

Discussion on Adopting a Policy on Authorized Communication with the City Attorney

Previous discussions have indicated that there should be a policy in place on when/how the staff and Council should contact the attorney in an effort to reduce legal expenses, which has been high over the past few months. Currently, if staff wants to reach out to the city attorney they must first go through the city manager. CM Zappala said his primary concern is the current contract goes up to 20 hours for a flat rate then hourly after that. He feels we should renegotiate our contract for unlimited number of administrative hours at a higher flat rate. I mentioned that there are some items considered litigation that are not included in that flat rate and we'd still need to be careful to know that those conversations would be billed separately and at a higher rate.