February 17, 2015 City Council Meeting

Work Session

We discussed the Capital Projects and Motor Pool Fund for FY2016. See notes below on this same topic during Council meeting.

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Nobody signed up.

Public Hearing

Preliminary plans Lakeview Trails subdivision, located at approximately 10100 Canyon Road in the H-1 Hillside zone.

Nobody signed up.

Consent Agenda

I made two changes to the minutes:

·         "C. Augustus said she seems to be aware of information from the attorney that the rest of the council does not know."  -- This is reversed, it should say "She said C. Augustus seems to be aware of information from the attorney that the rest of the council does not know."

·         "C. Augustus stated that the information that he received from the city attorney disagrees with what the Mayor has stated about the minutes." -- Should state information he received from the city manager, not the city attorney.

The minutes from the January 20, 2015 City Council meeting were approved with those changes.

City Reports

CM Rees – Planning Commission meets next week. They did approve the preliminary plans for Lakeview Trails and will discuss more during that part of the meeting. Press release was issues on the voting by mail and was picked up by two media outlets. Finance Committee met briefly last week and discussed the Capital Projects Fund and Motor Pool Fund, which will be discussed tonight. Family Festival Committee will be meeting next week. Arts Committee met last week and will be putting together a list of plans for FY2016 to be presented to the Council. They are working with Highland City on a musical that will be performed this summer at the Heritage Park Amphitheater. They will continue with the summer concert series but will have three instead of four shows. They are planning an Arts Show/Gallery during the week of Family Festival. They also discussed a dance/date night for adults in September and will research further.

David Bunker – Ski bus has 61 participants. Golf course is currently closed, which has been tough as the weather has been good. Talking with Questar tomorrow about getting that work finalized so we can open. Cedar Hills Jazz game is next Monday night, tickets are $15 and includes hot dog and drink. Several tickets are still available. TSSD meets this Thursday.

CM Zappala – LPPSD was rescheduled for next week. Has three students working on an app for the city that allows residents to report issues and track issues.

Mayor Gygi – Turnout for Emergency Preparedness townhall was very good.

Review/Action on Awarding Concessions Contract

See notes from last meeting. The City Council requested the final contract come back to the Council for review and approval.

Some changes/recommendations I had:

·         The date in the first paragraph says 2013. This needs to be updated.

·         I received an email from the Family Festival Chair who recommended some changes to the wording in paragraph 12. Instead of stating “As a portion of rent payment, the TENANT shall be recognized as a sponsor for the CITY’s annual celebration, including booth space, etc.”, which is vague, he recommended it state: “As a portion of rent payment, the TENANT shall be recognized as a sponsor of the CITY’s annual Family Festival and shall receive all the benefits of a $500 sponsor plus space for a vendor booth." This is specifies exactly what the vendor is entitled to as part of the Family Festival sponsorship.

Vista Pointe had several items they also wanted to change:

·         Have a maximum cap owed to the city of $1400/month. Right now the city requires a base of $1280/month and 5% of sales. They would like a cap on that 5% to be no more than $1400.

·         Would like a 3-year renewal instead of yearly renewal

·         Would like option of using a different alarm company but will give us access

·         Would like language added that we will not unnecessarily withhold any licenses needed

·         Update clause that termination won’t be made due to their employees actions, but only of the actions of the officers

*Section 12 shows monthly rent is $600 plus 5% of monthly gross revenues, but then goes on to state that a minimum total payment of $15,360 per year shall be paid to the city. It was determined by our finance team that the $15,360 is the amount it costs the city each year for utilities, maintenance, etc. We wanted to be certain that rents and revenues paid to the city is at least this much to cover our expenses. Adding this language guarantees our costs are covered.

There was a good debate on whether or not we should cap the total amount to be collected. Ultimately, we had to decide whether to take a lower rent payment with an unlimited potential collected as part of the 5%, or take a fixed rent payment with a cap of $1400. I expressed that I prefer to get a guaranteed amount that will cover our costs; otherwise, we risk subsidizing a private business if their sales don’t generate enough income to cover our costs. All other councilmembers agreed this was important.

A motion was made to include all the above points with a cap of $1500/month. This was approved 4-1 with CM Crawley voting nay. The vendor will discuss with the other owners on whether or not they will accept the $1500/month cap.

Review/Action on Preliminary Plans for Lakeview Trails Subdivision

The “Lakeview Trails” has received a preliminary recommendation from the Planning Commission. The Subdivision is located within the H-1 Zone, but qualifies as a Planned Residential Development (see code 10-6B). The motion for recommendation in the Planning Commission was made on the following conditions:

·         Show the conveyance of water rights by final submission

·         Lots 21 & 22 need to be shown outside of the power line easement

·         Hunters Ct. needs a sidewalk/curb/gutter, show these improvements along Canyon Road as well

·         Public utilities need to be shown to the extension of the project to allow for future development

·         Geotech review by outside group to verify findings

Staff has reviewed the most current submission and met with the developers to correct engineering and zoning issues. Staff recommends that any motion should be subject to final engineering & zoning, conveyance of water rights, verification of the Metro water easement, and completion of a review of the Geotech report.

City hired outside engineering consultant to review the plans and identify any issues. Most of the items they identified were simple things that needed to be fixed on the paperwork. A few bigger concerns:

·         Issues with geotechnical report. Suggested another engineer review the report and to go onsite to assess the property to get another opinion on how any risks can be mitigated with regards to land movement.

·         Preliminary storm water management plan needs some final investigations as wrong rainfall intensity chart was used.

·         Geotechnical report discussed fill material and procedures to follow based on amount used. Consultant feels that is not sufficient and plans as well as development agreement should be specific with regards to fill.

·         Proposed retaining wall – there was conflicting information with regards to soil saturation. Feels a structural engineer should review and turn out an independent report.

·         Utilities should extend to property boundaries.

·         Feels portion of the land designated as open space should be improved and not left native.

·         Sewer and storm drain easements should be run that are 15’ wide that won’t be merged with other utilities.

·         Evaluated how density was calculated and determined that it needs to be re-calculated to be consistent with city code, which may have an impact on one lot.

Public Comment was allowed at this point:

Adrian Juchau – He has 67 piers under his house at the end of Bayhill. Wants developer to do all that is necessary to make sure future homes don’t have this issue.

Michael Whitehead – Wants access from Bayhill to the trails in the mountainside.

It is concerning that we haven’t had a chance to review this report prior to Council meeting. An addendum to the original geotech report was sent to the city just this last Friday. One of the issues the developer is facing is that Utah County is resurfacing Canyon Road this summer and will not allow anyone to cut into the street for four years. If they are going to do this development, they will need to add utilities needed in Canyon Road prior to the resurfacing. He feels their geotech report should have been sufficient and addressed many of these concerns. Feels they have done their due diligence.

CM Augustus made motion to approve preliminary plans with the following changes:

·         Prior to final submission, the city retain a separate geotechnical engineer to assess potential land movement

·         Peer-to-peer review to make sure all procedures have been met

·         Any liability to the city has been identified

·         Storm water report be updated

·         Any fill material brought in be documented in plans and development agreement

·         Refer to and address additional points brought up by our outside engineering firm report

Preliminary plans with above conditions were approved.

Discussion on FY2016 Capital Projects Fund and Motor Pool Fund

Capital Projects tentatively funded for the upcoming fiscal year include:

·         Bayhill park $235,000

o   $100,500 unrestricted fund balance

o   $74,000 CARE tax revenues

o   $50,000 Park development impact fees

o   $10,500 Utah County TRCC grant

·         Golf maintenance shed building $200,000 (purpose is to provide safer working environment, comply with various codes & regulations, and to be functional)

o   $200,000 unrestricted fund balance

o   Another $100,000 will come from the Water & Sewer Fund

·         Harvey boulevard traffic mitigation $50,000

o   $50,000 Street impact fees

·         Canyon road sidewalk projects $15,000 (adding sidewalk to the portion in front of the city offices, connecting the existing trail near Bayhill to the new subdivision to the south)

o   $15,000 unrestricted fund balance

Motor Pool Fund changes include:

·         Added Golf maintenance equipment purchases in spring 2015

·         $13,020 increase for Golf fund transfer

·         $1,516 decrease for the General fund transfer

·         $2,594 decrease for the Water & Sewer fund transfer

·         Two trucks and one passenger car are scheduled for replacement during fiscal year 2015-2016

Blu Line Conceptual Design - January 2015

I apologize for delay in getting these notes out. The drawings presented by Blu Line at the Planning Commission were different from what they had provided to the city for the Planning Commission packet. We just received the updated drawings yesterday and I wanted to make sure the correct information was being shared with residents.

The entire building does now sit within the mixed use office/retail zone of the commercial area, which allows for assisted living centers. During a previous City Council meeting, the majority of the Council made a determination that congregate care could be viewed as substantially the same as assisted living, so a congregate care facility is now allowed to be built in that zone. There is a portion of shared parking (168 stalls) that remains in the neighborhood retail portion of the commercial zone, though Blu Line indicated that parking was not needed for the facility but would be used mainly as visitor parking. There are 297 parking stalls around the building for resident parking with approximately 300 residential units. There is a 10,000 square foot commercial building planned for the northwest corner of the property.

The main entrance of the building now faces east, almost directly across from the entrance to The Charleston. When it faced Cedar Hills Drive it was a right in, right out access, which could be an issue for emergency vehicles as they would have to come in from a different street to get access if coming from the Cedar Hills fire station. Having the main entrance on 4600 West allows for better and faster access for emergency vehicles.

The building is approximately 100 feet from the property of residents to the south of the facility. The façade to the south is broken up so that it isn’t a long, continuous building. There is a main courtyard in the center of the building and there are several corridors throughout the building that go into the interior courtyard for emergency access. The height of the building is 35 feet to the midpoint of the roofline.

The Planning Commission gave great feedback. According to the design guidelines, this portion of the commercial zone is intended to accommodate less intense uses than the neighborhood retail portion and this may be a concern with residents. Being that it was determined to be substantially the same as an assisted living center, the facility should include some of the same services such as housekeeping, onsite eating facility, medical services, etc., otherwise it would just be 55+ housing unit. Blu Line indicated that these services can be provided by outside entities but made note of some of the items given by the Planning Commission, which comes from the Utah State Code on assisted living facilities. There were also some questions on HOPA laws (Housing for Older Persons Act) and how those laws apply to this building. Blu Line will do some additional research.

The next step will be for Blu Line to present preliminary plans to the Planning Commission, which will include much more detail of the facility. As always, resident input and feedback throughout this process is very helpful.

Additional information on city code and prior plans for this facility can be found on CM Zappala's blog at cedarhillsblog.org

Council Meeting - February 3, 2015

Work Session

The entire work session was executive session.

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Nobody signed up.

Consent Agenda

Pete Condor was appointed to the Cultural Arts Committee and Philip Barker was appointed to the Board of Adjustment.

City Reports

David Bunker – Emergency Management Townhall meeting is February 12^th at 7pm at the Community Center. Junior Jazz is going well. Cedar Hills BYU night was successful and 79 residents attended. January had 18 bookings for the Vista Room. A new art class has been started with Pete Condor. Looking at doing some gardening classes. Questar is replacing a high pressure gas main throughout the city.

CM Rees – Planning Commission met to discuss the new Blu Line proposal and the Wilson-Geddes residential subdivision. Blu Line presented new conceptual plans, though they have not yet sent us updated copies of the building. Planning Commission gave some great feedback to Blu Line on ways to be substantially the same as an assisted living center. The building presented is three stories and 300 units. Blu Line will come back to the Planning Commission with preliminary plans. Wilson-Geddes is a residential subdivision just to the east of Canyon Road. They received approval of preliminary plans.

Mayor Gygi – Attended the BYU game and Cedar Hills was well represented. LPPSD will be meeting later this month.

CM Crawley – Finance Committee met with City Council at our annual retreat to discuss goals and priorities for the upcoming fiscal year.

CM Augustus – North Pointe met and provided an update on new entrance to the dump. General Plan Committee met to discuss vision statement and future goals. Discussed meeting with different committees and boards within the city to get feedback.

Review/Action authorizing the 2015 Primary and General Municipal elections to be conducted entirely by absentee ballot (by mail)

Utah Code 20A-3-302 states that an election officer may administer an election entirely by absentee ballot. If the election is entirely by absentee ballot, the election officer shall mail to each registered voter an absentee ballot with instructions and a business reply mail envelope. The concept of an all vote by mail election has been implemented with great success by many municipalities and counties throughout the state. Statistics have shown an increase in voter turnout, and in some cases, reduced costs. The Salt Lake County Elections Division encourages and recommends holding entire vote by mail elections to the municipalities within their jurisdiction. The Utah County Elections Division does not administer the elections for municipalities within their jurisdiction, leaving the task of coordinating and running the election, as well as recruiting and training poll workers up to each individual city. Staff is very interested in Cedar Hills spearheading this concept in Utah County. Conducting an all vote by mail election will create an easy, accessible method for each registered voter to complete their ballot in the comfort of their home and the convenience of just dropping it in the mail. A ballot box would be placed at the city office building accommodating easy drop off for voters either before or on election day. Residents who don’t want to mail it in for any reason can bring their ballot into the city office and still cast their vote in person.

Statistics given by the Lt. Governor’s Office shows that the counties that conducted their elections entirely by mail increased the percentage of voters by 49%. Cost to the city to run the election is about the same as voting in person.

This was approved unanimously.

Review/Action on awarding a contract for the recreation center concessions

The City has received and reviewed proposals from two food vendors and catering businesses in response to the City’s request for proposals for an outside group to operate concessions at the recreation center. Based on the submittals and interview process, the committee recommends that the City proceed to negotiate a final concessions contract.

Members of staff, Mayor Gygi, and CM Augustus met with both potential vendors. One (Craig) runs the grill and does catering at Sleepy Ridge in Orem and would continue with them even if he took over our grill. Second group (Eric Richardson, Michael B., dba Vista Pointe) is a new group and made a proposal and presented food options. They would do catering and run the grill. The second group made the best impression on those who met with them.

Contract would be similar to Sammy’s where they paid rent and also gave the city a percentage of sales above a certain point. My main concern is that the contract has not yet been drafted and the business plans for both were given to the Council this evening, not in advance for review. During work session I requested the motion be contingent upon the Council having the opportunity to review the contract.

CM Zappala asked about others involved in Vista Pointe (on the business plan it indicated KillerB Entertainment and 24609 Inc). Mr. Richardson presented. KillerB is a group that has operated comedy clubs across the nation and provide family-friendly entertainment. 24609 is involved in social media. Closest competitors are others locally who provide fresh food, like food trucks and small eateries. The social media aspect helps drive that business. The group has experience with events in the area. Discussion also included providing food to golfers on the course and they are interested in doing this. They also have the ability to open a food shack on the golf course. Will also be able to provide catering for golf tournaments, weddings, and other events happening in the Vista Room. Anticipate soft opening mid-March and grand opening by April 1^st.

This was approved contingent upon review by City Council. We all agreed to hold a special Council meeting to review and approve the final contract so that Vista Pointe has enough time to get up and running by mid-March.

Discussion on recommendations made by the Parks & Trails Committee on Bayhill Park

The Beautification, Recreation, Parks and Trails Committee has discussed the Bayhill Park proposal for the past few months, and would like to make some recommendations on how they feel the park could be used to better serve the residents in the area. The Beautification, Recreation, Parks and Trails Committee recommends the following: 1- Swing set; 2 – Move playground; 3 - Move pavilion; 4 – Move trail onto aqueduct easement; 5 – Add grass to extend the play area.

This new design better represents the feedback and desires of those residents who live in the area. Moving the pavilion near the play equipment allows parents to better watch over kids. Moving the trail to the easement maximizes space for grass/play area. The current trail is already on this easement.

Originally, the Council had authorized $50,000 for the first phase of the park to be done this fiscal year. However, the committee determined it makes more sense and is more financial prudent to complete the park all at once. I encouraged the Council to fully fund this park for FY2016 as residents have been waiting for this park for almost a decade. In 2009 there was a petition filed with the city and signed by over 100 residents requesting this park be completed. They’ve waited a long time for this park. My hope is that it can be fully funded for the next fiscal year.

Discussion on Water Conservation Policies

The mayor, City Council, and staff would like to continue water conservation efforts city wide. Some topics recently discussed which may assist in conservation efforts include:

·         Xeriscaping alternatives for residential and commercial lots (current ordinance not adequate)

·         Rebate incentives for water reduction efforts

·         Grant applications for metering projects

·         Additional education efforts through video media

I do think it is important for us to update our ordinances to allow for xeriscaping. We also need to come up with policies to handle potential down time in the system. Hansen, Allen, and Luce presented six scenarios of potential system failures that we need to discuss and come up with policies for.

Discussion on Waste Management contract

A member of the City Council has requested a review of the solid waste, and recycling programs, and a discussion on green waste collections. Currently garbage and recycling rates are as follows:

·         Toter Cost/Month Collection Garbage Can $10.92

·         Weekly Additional Garbage Can $10.92

·         Weekly Recycle Can $4.79

·         Bi Weekly Additional Recycle Can $2.24

·         Bi Weekly Green Waste Not Available

In an effort to encourage residents to recycle, the city has modified the previous rates for a second garbage can, which increased to the same cost of the initial garbage can, and the cost of an additional recycle can, which has been reduced in monthly cost. Two recycle cans are now less cost per month than an additional garbage can.

In 2014, Cedar Hills recycled 264 tons of recyclable items. Our current number of residents recycling is low, which is why we have a pick-up every other week. One option suggested is that if the take rate doesn’t increase we can pass along the cost to residents to cover the difference, even those who don’t have a second can or recycle. I disagree with this approach. The cost per can is supposed to be a pass through cost, and I don’t agree with charging more to those who don’t want to use a service to pay for those who do want to use it. I would be more onboard with those who want to utilize recycling to pay for that service instead of forcing the cost on everyone. Let residents choose if they want to recycle, if they want to have two garbage cans, if they only need one garbage can and no recycling, if they want multiple recycling bins, etc.

CM Augustus suggested a resident driven committee to discuss recycling, garbage, and green waste. Mayor Gygi will work with David Bunker to discuss creation of the committee.

Discussion on RFP’s for all professional services

A member of the City Council has requested information for professional services contracts with entities which have current contracts with the City. The attached table details the professional service firm, service provided, date which contracts were initiated, and dates of termination or extension.

·         Allred Jackson Financial Auditing 7/1/2010 Yearly contract

·         D. Blackburn Building Inspection Services 10/8/2012 Month to month basis

·         Civil Science, Inc. Engineering Services 3/11/2008 Agreement may be terminated by either party upon 30 days written notice

·         ETJLaw, Inc. Legal Counsel 3/16/2010 City may generally discharge attorneys at any time

·         Wilkinson Outdoor Maintenance Park Maintenance 1/1/2008 Extended 3 years from 1/1/2015 – 12/31/2017

The City Council has previously reviewed contracts during a three to five year window. Staff recommends as a best management practice, that review of professional services contracts continue to be evaluated within an appropriate contract period. Staff has prepared requests for proposal or requests for qualifications for professional services which are within the standard review period.

My recommendation is that we review each contract on a case-by-case basis. I rely heavily on staff recommendations as they are the ones working with these vendors and know how well they are performing for our city. We have the ability to see what other cities are paying so we know how comparable rates are. Instead of making a blanket policy that we will RFP everything every 5 years, I’d rather review each contract individually and rely on staff to make recommendations on when we need to RFP. CM Zappala agreed, but the rest of the Council felt we should RFP for all professional services contracts.

Council Meeting - January 20, 2015

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Nobody signed up.

Consent Agenda

Minutes from the December 2, 2014 and January 6, 2015 City Council minutes were on the agenda for approval. These were approved with one minor change to the minutes.

Rebecca Roberts was appointed to the Cultural Arts Committee.

City Reports

CM Rees – Family Festival Committee is well underway for the Family Festival. One question that came up was when the Vista Room can be reserved for community events and the expense of wedding receptions as we may need it as a backup for some events due to weather and adding new events. My thought is that as the facility was paid for with recreation impact fees, community events should come first and we should be willing to lower revenue projections to compensate. The rest of the Council agrees with this direction. We will discuss further with staff at a future meeting so everyone is on the same page.

David Bunker – TSSD met and is working on analysis for current user rates as part of a bond refinance. Will be coming within the next month or so. Actively seeking a resident to serve on the Board of Adjustments.

CM Zappala – Moving forward with how we can use technology in the city better. Has a student who is volunteering to work on an app that allows residents to report on issues and track those issues.

CM Crawley – Parks and Trails are discussing items for this year, including city breakfast and the roundabout.

Review/Action on Resolution Making Council Assignments

City Councilmembers, Staff and Residents act as resources, liaisons, and on some boards and committees may be voting members. The Mayor, with advice and consent of the City Council, makes assignments to various boards, committees and entities. The attached list includes the proposed assignments for confirmation with the advice and consent of the City Council.

CM Augustus – North Pointe Solid Waste, Economic Development, General Plan Committee

CM Crawley – Finance Committee, Emergency Preparedness

CM Geddes – Utah Valley Dispatch, Parks & Trails Committee

CM Rees – Communications, Planning Commission, Finance Committee, Family Festival Committee, Cultural Arts and Events

CM Zappala – Lone Peak Public Safety, Communications, Technology

This was approved 4-1.

Review/Action on Contract for Recreation Center Concessions

This item was tabled as the review committee needs more time.

Council Meeting - January 6, 2015

Work Session

Presentation of Pressurized Irrigation Summary Report

Jeff Maag presented. There were some PI meters installed throughout the city to help collect data on usage. In 2014 we used a total of 737,370,569 gallons of PI water. This is a reduction from 854,339,885 gallons in 2013. This does not include culinary water that is fed into the PI system when needed. This is about a 13% reduction in PI water usage. We are still well above the State recommended use rate, but are getting better. Usage in August dropped significantly due to an unusually wet August. We also had more precipitation in September than average for Utah. Reasons for reductions are above average precipitation, rain delays installed in major city parks, and user education. Data from PI meters that were installed showed a conscientious reduction in water usage for those users. Staff recommends that we install PI water meters to reduce usage and retain the services of a professional public education group.

Discussion on Traffic Report for Harvey Blvd & 4600 West

Ryan Hales with Hales Engineering presented and specializes in traffic studies. There are some concerns expressed by residents with this intersection. Peak flow is in the morning with approximately 300 vehicles going through the intersection. There is a sight distance issue and most traffic is going about 30-35mph through this intersection though the speed limit is 25mph. Average delay for southbound traffic is 4.2 seconds per vehicle. If intersection were reconfigured to be a roundabout the average delay reduces to 2.3 seconds per vehicle. Advantage to roundabout is that driver yields to traffic from the left but flow of traffic continues. One concern that has been expressed by some parents with kids at Cedar Ridge is that the roundabout is more dangerous for pedestrian traffic based on how traffic flows. Mr. Hales said there are ways to mitigate that danger, but agreed that is a consideration. Another option is to purchase a portion of the land at that corner and remove sight barriers. Lastly, a 4-way stop can be added, but as there is not much traffic going north/south, these types of stops tend to be areas where most people don’t stop if going east/west because they are used to no traffic from north/south. Hales does not recommend this option as the majority of the traffic is east/west and Harvey is a collector road. This will come back for further discussion with associated costs.

Amendments to FY 2015 Budget

See notes made below under the section for budget adjustments.

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Nobody signed up.

Public Hearing

Nobody signed up for the public hearing.

City Reports

Charl Lowe was presented with the GFOA’s Distinguished Budget Presentation Award. This is the 13^th year that the finance department has received this award.

David Bunker – TSSD meeting for December was cancelled. ULCT is having a local officials day in January at the State Legislature.

CM Rees – Family Festival for 2015 will be June 1^st through June 6^th. We have a new carnival company and are excited for an even better carnival this year. The committee is also exploring new items for this year, such as a teen night and a car show. Working on a press release for the budget award.

CM Crawley – Enjoyed serving on the Parks & Trails Committee. Santa event was a success.

CM Augustus – Missed the North Pointe Solid Waste meeting but budget was approved.

Consent Agenda

The minutes from the December 11, 2014 City Council meeting were approved.  The following individuals were appointed to the Planning Commission: Glenn Dodge and Donald Steele for three year terms; Bradley Weber to serve a one year term; David Driggs will remain on the Planning Commission; Jeff Dodge, John Dredge, and LoriAnne Spear to serve as alternate members.

Review/Action on Resolution Adopting FY2015 Budget Amendments

·         10-35-112 - Event center rental’s higher revenues were $26,100 at the Vista room for event rentals, and lower advertising expenses $3,000 will be used to offset higher costs for 10-65-150 Employee benefits $7,500, 10-65-200 Materials and supplies $14,000 for linens and chairs, 10-55-600 Animal control contract $750, 10-65-601 Other Events--summer concerts $350, and 10-69-913 $6,500 Transfer to Golf Fund for Maintenance Equipment.

o   Supplies would include outdoor chairs and items needed due to an increase in Vista room rentals.

o   For summer concert series we will rent audio equipment for $350.

o   Animal Control expenses have gone up $750.

o   Transfer to golf fund is for new equipment needed. Some of the equipment is old so new parts aren’t available and some of it breaks down. Certain mowers are used to make patterns on the greens so staff feels that they need duplicates of those mowers in case one breaks down. Golf maintenance staff has come up with a 10 year plan of maintenance equipment that is needed for replacement. This would be funded through the Motor Pool Fund for the cash outlay, then Golf Fund would pay back the Motor Pool Fund. However, because the Golf Fund receives a subsidy from the General Fund each year, this would really be an increase in the subsidy to the Golf Fund from the General Fund. Equipment for this year would include 2 greens mowers and a pump sprayer.

o   I asked why this isn’t going through the normal budgeting process instead of doing an amendment in the middle of the year. Charl stated that this was expedited because staff just purchased blades that can be returned if new equipment is purchased and he didn’t want to use those blades for only half a year if new equipment was to be purchased. All other equipment purchases in the future will go through the normal budget process.

·         10-55-450 - Approximately 50% of the Utah Valley Dispatch building contribution will be funded with unrestricted general fund balance. See notes below and from previous Council meeting regarding this new dispatch building.

·         10-40-330 - One-time set up fee for new financial software will be funded with unrestricted fund balance. Current financial software provider is doing an upgrade and are increasing the monthly cost. That increase is over $7,000 per year. Charl reached out to other cities to see what financial software is being used and determined it made more sense to go with a different vendor that is being used by other cities as it has more functionality and new products are automatically included in the monthly price. Looking at switching in February. It is a one-time setup fee of $9000. Half would come from the Water and Sewer Fund as half of the financial software is used for utility billing.

·         10-33-500 - Emergency management grant’s supplemental award of $10,000 to upgrade the current emergency management equipment. This includes a new trailer to function as an emergency operations center, new radios that are the same radios used by Lone Peak Public Safety for communication, and funds some emergency management training.

·         10-33-475 - Forestry Grant’s award of $8,000 for maintenance of the City’s trees.

·         10-40-280 - Utilities adjustment for water and sewer used by City parks and various facilities. This is required by law.

·         20-30-600 - Season passes and punch passes valued at $8,800 and 20-30-400 Pro shop merchandise valued at $400 were traded for advertising, golf software and course maintenance.

·         20-35-300 - Transfer in of $6,500 for maintenance equipment and $31,000 for utilities—water.

·         40-95-103 - Cottonwood Electric, Gas, Excavation project needs $20,000 to be completed. A portion of it was started last fiscal year and it was fully funded last fiscal year. Because work overlaps into current fiscal year, a budget adjustment was necessary for last fiscal year and this fiscal year.

·         51-73-330 - One-time set up fee for new financial software will be funded with unrestricted fund balance. This is the second half of the payment for new financial software.

·         51-37-116 and 51-38-111 Fees adjusted to the General fund and Golf fund for water and sewer used. 51-75-910 and 51-75-815 transfers out to the General fund and Golf fund, which offset the related utility fees.

·         51-73-360 - Meter Maintenance $25,000 for culinary meters. 51-73-801 PI Expenses for increased maintenance needed on pressurized irrigation. $129,000 for potential capital improvements required for wells, motors, and pumps. There are several meter batteries going out that need to be replaced. Also, some wells need additional maintenance and exploratory work to determine what issues there are with the wells.

·         51-73-950 - Trustee fees of $3,950 for the utility revenue refunding.

·         51-73-955 $54,000 in reduced interest expense. 51-73-965 deferred amortization expenses of $30,573. Bond principal payments increase of $25,000.

·         60-70-200 - Increased depreciation of $6,500 related to golf maintenance equipment. 60-30-300 increased contribution of $6,500 to the Motor pool fund from the Golf fund.

This was approved.

Review/Action on Approval of Dispatch Building Agreement with Utah Valley Dispatch

On 12/2/2014, the City Council approved the Dispatch Building Agreement with the Utah Valley Dispatch Special Service District for the construction of a new dispatch center and appurtenances with an approximate cost to the City of Cedar Hills of $62,279.00, pending legal review. The City attorney, Eric Johnson, reviewed the agreement and suggested the City follow State Code 10-8-2(3), and make a finding of fact that, in the judgment of the legislative body, a determination is made that the expenditure of funds by the City of Cedar Hills for a portion of the construction costs of the new dispatch center provides for the safety, health, prosperity, well-being, peace, order, comfort or convenience of the inhabitants of the municipality and funds appropriated for this purpose are considered a corporate purpose. This was approved.

Review/Action on Questar Gas Easement Agreement

Questar Gas Company is currently upgrading the high-pressure gas main along the current natural gas utility corridor. See my notes from previous Council meetings for more information. Questar has proposed purchasing an additional 6-foot easement immediately adjacent to the existing 16-foot easement they currently maintain. This allows them to install another main near their existing facility. The additional easement area has an appraised value of approximately $3.96 per S.F. Questar seeks an additional 14,914 S.F. with a value estimated at $29,529.72. The agreement has been remitted to the city attorney for review. Questar agreed that issues raised by Eric Johnson can be incorporated into the agreement. This was approved.

Review/Action Amending Fees

The City has reviewed the culinary water rates for residential lots where pressurized irrigation is not available, and culinary water is used for outdoor watering. It was requested that fees be adjusted to reduce the rate for those homes that don’t have the option to use pressurized irrigation for their lawns. Prior to this change, the rate increased for each block listed below. The following modifications/changes are recommended to the City Fee Schedule:

Utility Fees (Per ERU) Water (No PI Available)

Base Rate (no usage) $ 6.80

1 – 8,000 gallons $ 1.49

8,001 – 12,000 gallons $ 1.49

12,001 – 18,000 gallons $ 1.49

18,000+ gallons $ 1.49

This was approved.

Review/Action on Appointment of Mayor Pro Tempore

Consistent with UCA 10-3b-302 and City Code 1-5-3, MAYOR AS MEMBER OF CITY COUNCIL; the terms and scope of the duties of Mayor Pro Tempore are defined. In summary, the mayor pro tempore shall have all of the powers and duties of the mayor during his absence, disability or refusal to act. The election of a mayor pro tempore shall be entered in the minutes of the meeting. The next council member to serve would be Councilmember Zappala. The term would begin January 6, 2015 and continue to January 5, 2016. This was approved.

Review/Action on City Staff and Council Assignments

City Councilmembers, Staff and Residents act as resources, liaisons, and on some boards and committees may be voting members. The Mayor, with advice and consent of the City Council, makes assignments to various boards, committees and entities. This item has been tabled as it was brought to the Mayor’s attention that the bylaws for Lone Peak Public Safety state that a council member assigned to that board must stay on the board until the end of their term. Mayor Gygi wanted to get a legal opinion on this as it would change the assignments made.

Review/Action on Contract with Wilkinson Outdoor Maintenance

The City has contracted with Wilkinson Outdoor Maintenance since 2004 for the maintenance of city parks, open spaces and city facilities landscaping. In the opinion of staff, the areas maintained by Wilkinson are kept in superb condition. Wilkinson is very attentive to detail, and is very responsive to suggestions or additional maintenance items. The current agreement allows for an additional 3-year contract extension. Wilkinson desires to execute a 3 year contract extension (January 1, 2015 - December 31, 2017) per the agreement with a 2% annual adjustment. Jeff feels there is very little advantage to go with another contractor as we get great service already and they have been willing to work with us on any issues that come up. Mr. Wilkinson gave some information on water concerns with parks. Cedar Hills has a unique issue with clay in the soil, which affects water absorption and runoff. Rain sensor delays help with this and he’s still experimenting with settings for this to figure out best solution. He’s also seen an increase in vandalism of sprinkler heads, which can cause flooding of the parks and fields. This was approved pending legal review and a request for staff to prepare a list of all professional services contracts for future RFP.

Review/Action on Agreement with ULCT for Transportation Coalition

The Utah League of Cities and Towns and the Salt Lake Chamber have formed the Utah Transportation Coalition on behalf of cities and towns throughout Utah. The coalition is seeking to build support for major investment in Utah’s transportation system, which will preserve Utah’s quality of life, bolster economic growth, improve personal health and air quality, and provide maximum value to all Utahns. The Utah Transportation Coalition is seeking financial support to hire a consultant to provide transportation issues research, issue advocacy and public awareness campaign, issue a local government tool kit, and provide legislative and governmental relations. As part of the Agreement for professional services, the City of Cedar Hills has been asked to pledge $250. This has been sent to Eric Johnson for review and staff is waiting for is feedback. This was approved pending legal review.

Council Meeting - December 2, 2014

Work Session

City Council and Planning Commission met together to discuss differences and similarities to congregate care and assisted living center. State and city code define what an assisted living is but there is no state code for congregate care. I searched the Utah Legislature database and the only reference I can find was a report filed by the Division of Child and Family Services where they reference congregate care with regards to a living center for youth in state custody. I would be more comfortable defining congregate care in our design guidelines, just as other cities have done, so we are on the same page as to what we consider congregate care. CM Zappala would also like this defined, similar to Pleasant Grove. CM Geddes and Augustus felt we could incorporate this into a development agreement instead of in the design guidelines. Land Use attorney from ULCT attended and gave some direction on how to determine if this facility is substantially the same as an assisted living, and it is mostly based on land use and impact on the community.

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Nobody signed up.

Presentation by Cultural Arts Committee

Anne Perkins presented. Will continue with concerts in the park and will publicize heavily during Family Festival. Working on Shakespeare in the Park. Met with Highland City Arts Council and are partnering together on activities and will promote together. Will work with Highland on a summer theater production. Talking about other ideas such as a kite day, a sledding day, slip and slide day, date night at the Vista Room, etc. Will be asking Council for funds for next budget year.

Consent Agenda

Minutes from the November 5, 2014 City Council meeting were approved.

City Reports

CM Rees – Bookmobile program has been setup and will start January 12^th. Will be in Cedar Hills every other Monday from 1:00-2:30 at the LDS church parking lot by the roundabout. YCC working on Santa’s Workshop program.

David Bunker – TSSD had board meeting and amended the 2014 budget to meet final budget numbers. They also approved the FY2015 budget. Looking to see if they can potentially reduce debt, which could then reduce fees. Jr. Jazz registration closed with 739 participants. Ski bus has 24 participants and has room for 24 more, chaperones are also needed. Golf clinics are being worked on. Added a new karate class in January as demand is high. Golf is shutting down and should be closed within the next week or two.

CM Zappala – UVSSD board met. They are discussing new dispatch center that is needed and is moving forward.

Mayor Gygi – UTA has asked to meet to get input routes that come through Cedar Hills. Mayor Gygi is asking for feedback from Council and residents. Questar Gas will be updating some lines throughout the city. Will be making new Council assignments soon.

CM Crawley – Next Monday is the annual city Santa party at the community center from 6pm-8pm. There will be cocoa and free pictures with Santa. Parks & Trails committee met to plan the Christmas party and service project for next year, as well as landscape for the roundabout near Walmart. Also discussed Bayhill Park as there isn’t much budget set aside for it. May want to do it all at once instead of in phases.

CM Augustus – North Pointe Solid Waste met to discuss budget and operational matters.

Review/Action on Conceptual Plans for Rosegate Development

Cory Shupe and Doug Young are asking the City Council to make a determination on a congregate care facility as it relates to an assisted living facility. Assisted living facilities and convalescent care are specifically listed as a conditional use in the office/retail subzone of the SC-1 commercial zone. In section 3.2 of the Design Guidelines it states, “If a proposed use is not listed in the use table below but it can be shown to be substantially the same as an existing item in the chart, then it can be treated as the item in the chart.” The applicants request the City Council to make a finding of fact regarding the similar nature of a congregate care center as it is related to assisted living as both are for the purpose of caring for senior individuals. Per the developer, both congregate care and assisted living provide a variety of services that are meant to ease the burden of aging, as well as improving the quality of life for the tenants. The difference between the types of facilities is in the level of care required for the tenants. While both are considered senior housing options, individuals in congregate care are typically more independent and active in the community than those in assisted living centers. Corey Shupe provided definitions that other cities have for what is considered a congregate care facility. A portion of the building sits in the commercial area where assisted living is not a permitted use. They are willing to push the building back to where it is only in the mixed use area but will possibly raise the building to four stories if they need to in order to get the same number of units. CM Crawley asked if there is a central dining area (the land use attorney indicated this would be a reduction in traffic which affects land use). Mr. Shupe did not have the answer to that but will find out. CM Crawley asked if medical personnel would be available at all time, but Mr. Shupe did not know the answer. CM Geddes asked if congregate care is licensed by the state, but Mr. Shupe did not know the answer to that. CM Zappala asked how the building would differ for assisted living vs. congregate care. Mr. Shupe indicated congregate care is made for seniors who can live and function on their own and order services a la carte. Assisted living centers are designed more like a hospital and there is not a need for a kitchen or laundry room in each unit. CM Zappala requested a list of a la carte services are offered by Doug Young’s group as Mr. Shupe did not know all that was provided. If the building is moved so that it is out of the commercial area it would move further to the south. CM Zappala feels, based on code, this is more like a residential building and not assisted living based on assisted living requirements, but he would prefer congregate care. He would prefer that we go to the Planning Commission and revise our code to define and allow for congregate care. Looking at city and state code (which has many requirements for an assisted living center) and the impact it would have on the community when it comes to traffic, it feels to me that this building is closer to residential use than assisted living. Congregate care is for 55+ adults, who I imagine would generate more traffic than residents at an assisted living center, such as the Charleston. The only similarity I can see is that there are age restrictions for both. However, I agree that the adults living in a 55+ community would add more benefit to the community with regards to shopping and volunteerism. CM Zappala asked for time to get feedback from residents but developer wants an answer tonight. Motion passed 3-2 with myself and CM Crawley dissenting that congregate care can be considered same as assisted living. My reason for voting no is that after reviewing the state definition of an assisted living center and considering traffic impact on the community, I don’t see many similarities other than age. Our code says that if something is not listed as a permitted use but can be found to be substantially the same as something that is a permitted use, the city may allow it. While I feel congregate care is a better fit, I don’t feel it can be considered substantially the same as assisted living. My opinion is that it is more residential in nature, which would have different restrictions for that zone.

Review/Action on Signage for Amsource Property

Planning Commission has reviewed the submitted signage for the Amsource site, and has made the recommendation to the City Council for approval. The proposed monument sign is constructed of the same materials (Old Virginia brick, Mountain Valley Sandstone) as the approved AFCU. The sign in 6’ high and approximately 13’ wide, with a planter box to enhance the landscaping. The Planning Commission gave feedback to Amsource to change the initial sign to match more closely the architectural themes of the Commercial Design Guidelines, and better compliment the AFCU building. Was approved with caveat that lighting at boundaries be within city code.

Review/Action on Fiscal Year 2015 Audit

Annually we contract with independent auditors to review the basic financial statements. The independent auditors are expected to obtain reasonable assurance that the financial statements are free from material misstatement and are fairly presented in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Biggest difference is that we shifted golf fund into two – one to show just operating revenue and expenses and one for the debt service. Audit was provided and presented by Allred Jackson. Total assets are $57,460,517 and total liabilities are $16,220,446. Financial situation is solid. No findings were found, everything was in compliance. The full audit will be available on the city’s website.

Review/Action on Adopting Municipal Wastewater Planning Program

As part of an annual system evaluation required by the Utah State Department of Environmental Quality, the city is required to pass a resolution stating we have prepared a Municipal Wastewater Planning Program Report, and have taken necessary actions to maintain effluent requirements contained in the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (UPDES) permit. Completing this process gives our system additional points on the Utah Wastewater Project Priority List System, which is used to allocate funds under the wastewater grant and loan program. Also the results are used to focus the state’s technical assistance program. This was approved.

Review/Action on Ordinance setting Council Meetings for 2015

Council dates for 2015 were approved.

Review/Action to Approve Dispatch Building Agreement with Utah Valley Dispatch

As a member city of the Utah Valley Dispatch Special Service District (UVDSSD), the City of Cedar Hills will be a partner in the proposed Dispatch Building Agreement as attached. As per the agreement, the City of Cedar Hills would have an associated expected cash contribution of $62,279.00 paid either in one cash payment prior to June 30, 2015, or two payments, with the first on or before June 30, 2015 and the other on or before December 31, 2015. However, this amount is an estimated portion of the capital payment anticipated, and may be adjusted to reflect the actual cost of the completed project. The District has received qualified proposals from architectural design firms and has proceeded through an interview process. The District Board may wish to award a design contract within the first month or two of 2015. In order to proceed with the award, the District would like to have the member entities approve the Dispatch Building Agreement by the end of December 2014. Site they are looking at is in Spanish Fork, which includes other county buildings for law enforcement. If they can do this, they would lease the land from the County instead of purchasing it. That could make our portion lower. Finance department recommends that we use general fund excess for this project and would like to do it as one payment. Was approved with condition that the contract be reviewed and approved by Eric Johnson.

Blu Line Development

Blu Line recently presented new conceptual plans to the Planning Commission for an assisted living or congregate care facility. Here are the drawings from the night.

This first picture shows the exterior (and I apologize it's sideways - I cannot figure out how to rotate it in Blogger). The entire facility is three stories. The windows that appear to be a fourth story are decorative dormers and not living space. The height of the building to the ceiling of the third floor is 33 feet. I didn't get an exact height for the building to the top of the roof, but was told it was just under 50 feet.

This next drawing shows the setbacks from 4600, Cedar Hills Drive, and the homes to the south. The top of this picture is the north end of the building, which is the part facing Cedar Hills Drive. You can see the shape of this new concept plan is different from past presentations. I made a few notes on this drawing. You'll see a rectangle in the northeast corner, which is a separate building and there was talk of this possibly being office space, like the offices across from it. On the northwest corner is another building that would be commercial in nature, but there are no specifics on what kind of commercial would go here.

I rotated this picture to show the perspective from Cedar Hills Drive. It also provides a good view of what the landscaping would look like.

This last picture shows entrances and access areas. It also says "monuments" but I have no idea what is meant by that. On the east side of the building there are now two exits onto 4600, as requested by the fire department, as the entrance from Cedar Hills Drive will only be available to those heading east, but the fire trucks/paramedics would be coming from the east. There are four elevator areas in the building; two in front and two in back. The smaller dots on the building show access areas into the building.

Blu Line originally came back with this as an assisted living center as that is listed as an permitted use in our design guidelines. However, after talking to the Planning Commission and the site plan review committee, they are asking whether an assisted living center or congregate care facility (55+ housing) is preferred. The direction from the Planning Commission was that the congregate care facility was preferred as it was felt those residents would provide more of a benefit to the community with regards to volunteerism and tax dollars.

The total number of units is somewhere between 250-300 (they didn't have an exact number that night) and approximately 340 parking stalls.

I believe that Blu Line plans to present these conceptual plans to the City Council in December. I encourage residents to stay involved and give feedback, especially with regards to the assisted living versus congregate care.