April 15, 2014 City Council Meeting

Work Session

Representative Mike Kennedy presented on the recent legislative session. He gave a tutorial on using the le.utah.gov website to track bills. We discussed best ways to reach him. CM Zappala gave some feedback on ways to make the le.utah.gov website more user-friendly so citizens can easily find what they are looking for and give feedback on any bill. Discussed a proposal for a bridge just south of Thanksgiving Point so that those going to Thanksgiving Point from I-15 can bypass Timpanogos Hwy altogether as that exit is already becoming congested and there is considerable growth in that area.

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Nobody signed up.

Public Hearing - Amendments to the City Code, Title 10, Regarding Zone Permitted Uses Relating to Foster Care Homes

Nobody signed up.

Report/Update – Water Conservation Citizens Advisory Committee

Committee met several times and have each individually done research on conservation. Consensus was only long term solution was to meter PI usage. Recommendation is to have meter system installed by 2015. For 2014 they will work on education with regards to water conservation. Some ideas are a rebate on utility bill for those who get a water analysis done for their yard. This is a free service offered by Utah Division of Water Resources. Also suggested a notification process to show weekly water consumption so residents are aware of how much is being used. Use city newsletter for water conservation tips and a weekly watering guide on the city website. Also suggested we do a water conservation education in the schools so kids are also aware of the need for conservation. Feeling of the committee is that those who are watering wisely will pay less than they do now, while those overwatering will see a spike in their PI bill. Committee feels there should be some sort of incentive to those who use less water.

Consent Agenda

The minutes from the March 19, 2014 City Council meeting were approved.

City Reports

David Bunker – We were first in participation for a city our size with Junior Jazz. Driving range fence is now up and will provide added protection to homes in that area. Soccer and t-ball are occurring.

CM Zappala – Utah Valley Dispatch meeting on Thursday. Will be discussing new dispatch center and combining facilities with other dispatch centers within the County.

Mayor Gygi – Received a grant for research on recreation issues in AF Canyon.

CM Augustus – Finance Committee will be meeting soon.

CM Crawley – Parks and Trails Committee has service day on May 3^rd. Five families are being determined. Need volunteers to help with that service project. Will be from 8am-12pm.

CM Rees – One press release issued. Easter Egg hunts are this weekend. The teen hunt is Friday evening at 8pm at the Rec Center. The childrens hunt is Saturday morning at 11am at Heritage Park. YCC is filling eggs. Family Festival committee meeting tomorrow night.

Review/Action on an Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the City Code, Relating to Foster Care Housing

State code has been changed to allow for any single family residential unit to house up to four foster children. We have had a resident request that City Code reflect that change as well. City Code currently restricts the number of foster children to three unrelated foster care occupants. State code

R501-12-6 (d) states, “No more than four foster children shall be in any one home”.

Went before the Planning Commission and this was approved. We removed the section stating how many foster children are allowed and changed the wording to state we would always comply with State code. This was approved.

Discussion on SR-146/Canyon Road

Council has asked that this item be placed on the agenda to update the City with additional information as it becomes available. Continuing discussion can be held on the costs associated with receiving jurisdictional control of the roadway and annual costs associated with maintenance of the roadway.

It seemed from the last meeting that the consensus of the Council was for the County to take ownership of the road and then contract with the City for maintenance. All of our costs would need to be covered in that contract so as not to burden Cedar Hills residents. Gary is discussing this with Commissioner Ellertson. Funding for ongoing maintenance would be Class B & C Road Funds. The way it is calculated, the County would get a little more funding than the City could obtain, but not by much. However, neither the City nor the County will get enough funds to cover the major maintenance needs, such as resurfacing. David suggested meeting with PG to understand their perspective on this as well as they are also affected by any decision made.

Discussion on Assigning Alternate Members to Certain Boards and Committees

City Council members and Staff act as resources, liaisons, and on some boards and committees may be voting members. Alternate members to these committees and boards are at times necessary to fill in and attend the meetings when the appointed member is not available to do so. On voting boards, the alternate may not be able to vote, but can receive and relay important information to the Council as needed. The Mayor makes the assignments to the various boards and committees, and may also assign an alternate if the board or committee cannot be attended by the assigned council member or staff.

Each Council Member will communicate with the others if they cannot attend an assigned meeting and will request an alternate, as needed.

Discussion on Pressurized Irrigation Water Meters

Based on the recommendations from the Water Conservation Citizens Advisory Committee, a discussion should be had to consider the potential means to fund the committee recommendations. Metering of the pressurized irrigation water city wide, as identified by the committee, is an important step in resolving long term water consumption conservation goals. The City council should consider the Water Conservation Committees recommendations and determine if the recommendations, including metering are to be implemented. In order to facilitate a metering project, identification of costs, project schedule, and funding ability will be necessary. As has been previously discussed, the Siemens Group has identified one avenue to facilitate the project if approved by the Council. Another avenue would be to self-fund and bid the project as a typical capital development within the city. The council should discuss the merits of each, if metering were to be implemented.

If the Council determines to implement metered PI, a funding source needs to be identified. Siemens has given one option, which doesn’t require a bond and the City would pay for it with savings. More information on that option can be found in my earlier notes. Another option is to apply for grants or to get low interest loans. In order to get it online for 2015 we would need to start working on it in October of 2014 so the contractor would have enough time to completely install. Estimates would be about $650-$700 per household for installation of the meter (residents wouldn’t pay for this directly, it would be paid for with the savings and/or loan). This will continue to be a discussion item.

Discussion on the Commercial Zone

Amsource has presented preliminary plans for the subdivision located at the SE corner of 4800 W and

Cedar Hills Dr. to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved the plans for recommendation to the Council with the caveat that the Council consider phasing in the project in order to address City staff concern’s regarding the future public road that borders the east side of the Amsource property.

One issue is that current site plan shows an entrance/exit onto a currently non-existent road. The road is planned to go through the commercial zone; however, that land is owned by the Smart family and that road won’t be developed until their property sells. America First Credit Union has stated they won’t start building their building until 2015. Amsource would like to build the two retail buildings sooner, but not having that road is an issue. Smart family has indicated they are willing to work with Amsource on negotiating a solution to this issue. AFCU new plans are in compliance with the commercial guidelines.

Discussion on City Branding/Slogan

As part of the follow up for the 2013 branding project completed by Radi8 Creative and finalization of the 2014 FY budget, it is incumbent to identify remaining costs associated with the current task schedule. One specific task would be to identify what and if a tagline will be implemented as previously recommended. A discussion and final determination would be appropriate as the city prepares to close the FY 14 budget.

Will move forward with tagline “Trailhead to Adventure”. We have a graphic designer working on an infographic and most of the other branding items for FY2014 have been completed.

Discussion on a Decisions Survey

Staff will update the City Council on the timeline and process to complete the Decisions Survey as prepared by Dan Jones & Associates.

Will meet with the city next week to start the process. CM Rees and Zappala will attend that first meeting next week.

City Council Meeting - April 1, 2014

Work Session

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Nobody signed up. 

Consent Agenda

Minutes from the March 4, 2014 City Council meeting were approved.

City Reports

CM Rees – YCC is preparing for the annual Easter egg hunts. The teen hunt will be in the evening on Friday, April 18^th and the childrens’ egg hunt will be Saturday morning on April 19^th. Each child who participates will receive a bag of candy when they turn in their eggs so every child goes home with a good amount of candy. Last year we purchased an additional 4,000 eggs so it will be even bigger this year. The YCC is in the process of planning for the teen hunt after party, which will be at the rec center and we will make sure there are enough chaperones. Also, Emily Cox reached out to the principal of Lone Peak and has arranged for YCC members to get 0.5 school credits for serving on the YCC. This means we will add more accountability in order to obtain the credit, such as a required number of meetings to attend and activities to plan for. She and Nicole Allen are working with the YCC on recruiting for next year and applications are due May 1^st. There will be a more formal interviewing process this time.

Family Festival Committee is hard at work. The city website and newsletter are being updated with information to keep residents informed. Macey’s will be our food vendor for swim night and the Dinner and Movie night. Jerianne is lining up food vendors for the carnival, which will include food trucks. The Arts Committee is working on the Concert in the Park. The Parade chair is working on getting Noelle Pikus Pace as our Grand Marshal and we will know soon is she’s available. Our new service project is planned for the Wednesday of Family Festival and residents can now donate supplies or money. The logo has been designed and the magazine is being worked on. Sponsorship goal is $25,000.

CM Zappala – Attended the Utah Valley Dispatch awards banquet. Discussed dispatch calls handled very professionally by staff. Dispatch does a great job.

Mayor Gygi – LPPSD chair will be Kimberly Bryant from Alpine. May be meeting next week to discuss role of LPPSD responding in AF Canyon. County Sheriff will attend. Water Conservation Committee is putting together a conservation proposal and will present to the Council at the next meeting. Arts Committee is meeting tomorrow to set dates for Summer Concert Series.

CM Geddes – Planning Commission met last week. Amsource presented proposed plans for America First Credit Union on corner lot. Item was tabled as the plans didn’t meet design guidelines and several items were missing. Planning Commission is willing to hold a special meeting so they don’t have to wait 30 days for the next presentation.

CM Crawley – Beautification Committee met and planned for first annual Beautification Day. Working on determining which families need the most help. This Beautification Day will be May 3^rd from 9am-12pm. Volunteers are needed.

CM Augustus – North Pointe board met. Annual audit done by Squire & Company. No concerns were found. Board was given an A rating for financial reporting.

Review/Action on Resolution Appointing an Alternative Member to the Utah Valley Dispatch Special Service District

The Utah Valley Dispatch Special Service District requires that appointing a Member Representative or alternate be made through the adoption of a Resolution. David Bunker was suggested to be the alternate member. CM Zappala is the regular member representative. This was approved.

FY 2015 Budget Presentation – Water and Sewer Fund

Rates would go up based on Bowen, Collins & Associates recommendations approved a few years ago. This would be to cover increases in maintenance and future project needs. Pending projects are irrigation pumps that need to be replaced (2019), chlorination stations (2020), sewer improvements (2014-2020), and a storm drain retention project (2016). The storm drain retention project is based on EPA requirements for handling storm drainage. More requirements are coming, which will require additional funding. TSSD is proposing a 14% increase.

Debt service is for PI system and additional culinary well.

Line 51-38-115, Sewer fees for non-resident is new line item. This is for 100 houses outside of the City whose sewer metering was moved into our city. This is paid as part of our TSSD expense.

Line 51-75-820 include funds of $100,000 being transferred to the Capital Projects Fund to help pay for maintenance shed.

Line 51-73-800, supplementary water expenses going up $12,000. We purchase this from CUP just in case we need extra water throughout the year. We try to hold on to this water until the end of the year, but in drought years we may need it sooner. Budgeting for this helps us make sure we can access, if needed.

Employee benefits expected to increase 10%, but looking at different vendor to see if this can be reduced.

Discussion on Canyon Road

Staff updated the City Council on the latest improvement application submitted to Mountainland

Association of Governments (MAG) for Canyon Road. Staff also discussed the financial estimates for annual maintenance of the roadway section within the city boundaries for the design life of the street surface, and possible operational options. Canyon Road has been an issue for some time. It is a State road, but it isn’t maintained well and UDOT has stated it isn’t a priority for them. State would like the two cities (Cedar Hills and PG) to take ownership of road. UDOT and Utah County have both stated they would give funds to the cities to improve the road and maintain for a period of time. It is estimated we could get $10 million to fix the road issues, including drainage. This would include some funds for 10 years’ worth of maintenance. However, year 11 the cities would both be responsible for ongoing maintenance needs. It would be very expensive moving forward starting year 11. It would be about $85,000/year for maintenance, which does not include inflation. Originally, the County was supposed to take ownership of the road but they feel it doesn’t make sense for them to take as all of their stations and equipment are in South Utah County, so it would take long periods of time to get manpower to North Utah County for things such as snow removal.

One option is for the County to take ownership of the road and then they pay the cities to maintain the road. However, in order to handle snow removal we would need another snow plow and probably additional manpower. These expenses would need to be included in any contract with the County.

I am personally opposed to Cedar Hills taking over that road. 11 years will come fast and having to come up with an additional $100,000 each year, plus funds for additional staff and equipment, shouldn’t fall upon the shoulders of our residents. Having the County take possession and enter into an agreement with us to maintain the road makes more sense, as long as all of our expenses are covered in the contract with the County. This discussion would need to occur with the County Commissioners.

Discussion on Decisions Survey

Item was removed as the representative from the survey group could not attend tonight. It will be on the agenda in a future meeting.

March 19, 2014 Council Meeting

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Nobody signed up.

Consent Agenda

Appointment of members to the Arts Committee. Chairs will be Curt and Missy Peterson. Other members will be Steve & Johanne Perry, David Osmond, Jared Osmond, Tom & Rebecca Gleason.

City Reports

David Bunker – Family Festival committee has met with Macey’s for dinner night and will show “The Love Bug” as the movie. Tball registration opens soon. Financial seminars and nutrition classes will be happening at the rec center this year. Looking for people to do photography and gardening classes. Working with PG to offer a pickle-ball class. ULCT mid-year conference is mid-April.

CM Zappala – Met regarding avalanche that happened in AF Canyon. Meeting was with board members of Utah Valley Dispatch as well as fire chief. He will get us his notes. Primary issue was that call was entered into dispatch at police and search & rescue call, but not as medical call. This is why Lone Peak wasn't notified.

CM Rees – Family Festival committee is meeting and has added a service night to the week. More info to come.

CM Augustus - North Pointe board meeting will be coming up.

CM Crawley – Beautification service day on May 3^rd where residents can help clean up the area and help five families in the city who are in financial need. Need additional committee members for Parks & Trails committee. All residents received a golf certificate for a free round of golf.

Review/Action of Preliminary Plan by Blu Line Design

The proposed Rosegate facility, located at approximately 4600 W Cedar Hills Dr, has met with the Planning Commission, and received a recommendation to present their preliminary plans to the City Council. Staff has sent the proposed plans through engineering, zoning, and public safety reviews. Those recommendations were presented to the Planning Commission, as well as Doug Young. Those recommendations are not reflected on the submitted plat; however, they are being implemented. See the city council packet for notes and drawings. Changes include moving sewer lines to 4600 West, all frontage improvements needed for entire project.

Estimated value of Rosegate is $24-$30 million. It would be evaluated as a commercial facility so would be taxed at 100% of the value of the building. This would bring in an estimated $68-$86k annually to the city in property taxes. Next closest is Walmart, which brings in $23,264 in property taxes. While any development will require some infrastructure needs, the developer will be responsible for the improvements not already in place. Roads, sewer, and water lines are already in place. Upon final approval, the developer would be required to purchase water rights. Demand on pressurized irrigation would not be high. Below is an analysis put together by staff.

Cory Shupe with Blu Line presented. Gave some background information on the project, which can be found in my previous notes. Expressed his opinion on why this project is essential to commercial development in Cedar Hills. This is a congregate care facility that is privately funded. There are many restrictions on who can live in the facility. Has been working with the city to create a main street that works in conjunction with the exit from Walmart. That main street would go through the entire commercial zone. What is significant about this facility is that it is bringing more people and a demographic of people that have more disposable income that will bring in more business to Walmart and more interest to other commercial businesses. Their conversations with those who represent retailers have shown that Cedar Hills doesn’t yet have the number of rooftops needed to generate interest at this point. It will be difficult for small shops or boutiques that compete with Walmart to start a business here as they cannot financially compete with what Walmart offers. This facility will help that. Taxes to Alpine School district would be about $260,000 each year without any negative impact on schools as no school age children can live there. Studies done show impact to roads and traffic will be minimal due to walkability and that not all unit renters will have a car. Pulled stats on other similar facilities with regards to impact on public safety. Average number of 911 dispatch calls was 6 per year. There are several areas in the facility that provide amenities for those residents, including large gathering spaces for family get togethers, exercise rooms, computer rooms, theater rooms, etc.

Doug Young clarified that this is a 55+ community. They are restricted by both federal and city guidelines that keep any young families from living in the facility. Also clarified this is not a subsidized housing, so no low-income individuals. They do a background check on every potential resident and turn away anyone convicted of a felony. As the developer maintains ownership of the building, they want it to maintain a certain level. Has contacted UTA who has agreed to provide additional buses to get to mass transit stops, such as TRAX or Frontrunner.

He would like to hear from residents in attendance and have the decision tabled until they've had a chance to make some changes recommended by residents.

Public Hearing

Nathan Gibbons – Appreciates time that has been put into the design. Doesn't feel a four-story building is low impact and doesn't feel it fits in Cedar Hills. Went to facility in Sandy and it fits well there, but not here. It would make sense if it was closer to 100 units and less parking. Feels this will be a problem. Would like Council to reject it and have it go back to see if it can be smaller to make more sense for the community.

Deborah Gibbons – Drove by a four-story complex in Orem that dwarfs everything else. The Sandy building is smaller than this one being proposed, yet they have a bigger population than Cedar Hills. 10% of Cedar Hills’ population would be on that corner. Lives down the street from this and doesn't see that there is much for these residents to walk to. Commercial areas develop due to other commercial attractions. Doesn't see how an apartment complex will help. Concerned about size of building.

Devin Baldwin – Excited for a place like this to come to Cedar Hills, but not quite this. His parents both have cars and need more than just Walmart. Feels others living here would be in the same position. Concerned won’t be able to fill all units. Doesn't trust the bank like he does the developer and if developer pulls out, then bank could turn it over to a different entity with different views.

Cory Olson – Loves Cedar Hills. Loves the family values. Doesn't believe a structure of this size represents community values of Cedar Hills. Wants to see something within the city guidelines of two stories. Let Highland bring in the wrong businesses and we can do it right. He runs by the empty commercial zone often and loves it, is fine with it empty. Asks Council to vote based on city guidelines.

Marilyn Groneman – Concerned about the size of the building. Could maybe like it if it was 1/3 of the size. Moved to Cedar Hills because of the quality, which was better than where she lived in American Fork. Feels high density will hurt that quality. Doesn't feel we need high density housing. Would prefer it be an empty lot. Most people who live there would need two cars per unit.

Martin Johnson – He is in the 55+ age group. Looks at traffic and children walking home from Lone Peak. Knows he probably doesn't have the reaction time that he did when he was younger than 55. Worried about impact on the kids walking home from school. Also worried about impact on local churches with that many new residents. Roundabout in that area will be busier, which impacts the elementary school kids walking to school. Agrees that building is too high. Would like to have something built that benefits all of the community, not just 55+.

Tana Johnson – Is 70 years old. At 55 years of age still had children at home. Children come back home, especially in this economy. Feels it is too tall and too many people in one area. There isn't enough parking as each unit will need two cars. That is 600 extra cars. Concerned about schools and the kids walking. Lived in an area with similar bylaws, but they weren't followed. More cars and more traffic is her concern.

Lance Allen – Lived in Cedar Hills for 14 years and loves it. He and his wife are part of the 55+ generation with kids in the basement. Worked at Charleston for a time and that facility is fairly large. Residential development does not bring in revenues that commercial development does. Not against development, sees his taxes going up, but wants to see development being done responsibly. Concerned about fire aspect as we don’t have ladder truck tall enough to get to the top of the building. More inclined to go with more commercial for the city.

Jared Bradley – What he wanted to say has been said. Went to the Sandy location and saw it is a huge building. It has 159 units, of which 65 are doubles. Would not fit in well with what Cedar Hills is about. Looks like a beautiful building but worried about long-term fit for the community. Doesn't feel the people that will come to live in this facility will make or break our commercial area. Feels we need commercial that will attract people from other cities in our area, not just those living in Cedar Hills.

Julie Sessions – Asks for Council to listen to residents and concerns. Feel there are many reasons why risks outweigh the benefits. The size does not fit in our community. Everything else there fits nicely. Moved to Cedar Hills for the small feel. This building would block views. Likes the idea of the facility if it is 2-stories or less. Would prefer to see empty field than 4-story building. Can’t imagine being able to fill 300 units.

Angela Johnson – Wants to know if developer would build a 2-story complex. Knows they want to make money but would like smaller complex. Residents want to be able to see skyline, not something so tall. Questions she has is do most residents want 300 units? Would residents be fine with 2-story 150 unit building? Would this help with traffic issues? Thinks 2-stories is reasonable. The Sandy facility is large and is only 2 stories. Losing small town feel. If developer can’t do 2-stories then wants us to wait.

Bobby Siegmiller – Pro development. Likes the look of the proposed development, but not in this location. Role of city government is to protect the taxpayer and doesn't feel this development does so. Parking is inadequate. Pleasant Grove has a mixed zone areas and both have 2 or more parking per unit. PG and AF have several units and would like to see feasibility study to show if Cedar Hills can accommodate this many units. Idea of design guidelines was that no building was more than 50% residential. Won’t generate sales tax. If Smart family would lower price of land then more developers would be interested in purchasing.

Ken Severn – MidTown village has had lawsuits and bank write-offs, is concerned about similar happening here. Doesn't trust federal guidelines. Harts and McDonald’s seem to be doing fine. No traffic generated by empty field.

Steve Proffit – Loves lifestyle of Cedar Hills. Likes the empty field and knows we will have to concede some. Appreciates Blu Line being willing to work with residents and changes that have been made. Has shown team work and class in working through this. Likes the idea of 55+ community, likes the trail around the facility. Feels this is a win and has taken hard work and will continue to do so. His parents have expressed an interest in a facility like this. Doesn't want to bring in businesses just to generate revenue, but something that fits in community.

Mike McGee – Wants to see feasibility study on strain on first responders. Wants to know if sewer line in 4800 West was ever expanded. Property tax consumption by commercial property is 80-90% and residential is 120%. Feels it would be a net loss to the city. Water rights is not the same as water availability. Doesn’t feel it meets green space requirements or height restrictions. Feels a library in a city of our size is not viable. This will add 2 wards, which means another church building will be needed and would need to go into commercial space. Walmart draws other big box stores. Doesn't trust banks or management companies. Mass transit here isn't same as in Sandy. Would like to see studies supporting any claims made by developers.

Michael Stuy – Can’t add anything to what has been said. Appreciates the time that Blu Line has put into designs and presentations. Feels building is way too high. Moved from Tooele to Cedar Hills to get away from that type of development. Doesn't trust banks if developers walk away. Would like to see 2-story building with fewer units. Too big, too high, doesn't fit in with the rest of the city. Extra traffic will be concern with school children walking to and from school.

Jason Randall – Loves Cedar Hills. UTA has already said they are not coming to Cedar Hills with Frontrunner in American Fork as the pressure is to make that successful. This building is high density residential, not commercial. He’s a law enforcement officer and would like to see studies on impact on public safety as claims made tonight have not been his experience. This is not the loud minority, but the silent majority that is rising up against this project. This is what Cedar Hills would be known for instead of family atmosphere.

Council Discussion

Mayor Gygi thinks it’s a beautiful building and likes the amenities. Blu Line has been great to work with. Has concerns with number of units, and that if it doesn't get leased out then the rest of the commercial doesn't get built out. We have one shot to do this right.

CM Rees - I want to start by stating that I personally like the proposed facility. It is a beautiful building with amenities that would be wonderful for our community. I would much prefer this building than a strip mall or more offices as the office building we have across the street struggles to keep tenants and doesn't offer community amenities. That being said, I recognize my role at this table is to represent residents of Cedar Hills. I have spoken with many residents in person, on the phone, and via email and the overwhelming feedback I have received is that this facility as currently shown is not desired by the community. The concerns I've heard are valid and fair. The height of the building would by far exceed any others in the area and the density is a lot for that corner spot. The biggest concern for me is the offer of high density with no guarantee that we will get any commercial businesses built any time soon. Our residents have been very clear that what is desired is retail shops and sit down restaurants. It may be many more years before we have these types of commercial businesses interested in coming to Cedar Hills, but the feedback I've received is that our residents are fine with waiting for that time to come, even if it is several years out. So while I appreciate all that Blu Line has done over the past 10 months in listening to resident input and making some changes, as well as the Planning Commission who have put a lot of time and effort into this, my vote as a representative is no to this preliminary plan. If it does not pass tonight I would encourage Blu Line to look into the possibility of coming back to the Planning Commission with a 2-story, 100 unit facility as I feel this would be much better received by our residents.

CM Geddes – Thanked everyone for participating. Has been working on this project for 10 months, first as a member of the Planning Commission. Has a tremendous amount of respect for the developers and for the Smart family, who owns this property. Also respects those residents who have given feedback. Has been a proponent of the project. This portion of the commercial property is not the most desirable part of our commercial area. Feels we need more density in order to get the commercial we want. Would like to see some restaurants and boutique shopping, which he feels will come with this development. There would be over $3million in impact fees paid by this developer. We don’t have financial issues in our city, but this money helps infrastructure. In favor of tabling the proposal for now and letting developers come back with changes after what they've heard tonight.

CM Zappala – Has pushed resident engagement and thanks everyone who attended. Loves the building but not the high density. Keeps going back to design guidelines and city code. Looked at commercial zone and what it intended for our community. Intent is that it would be compatible with nearby residential homes. Design guidelines say that what is developed is to primarily benefit the residents of Cedar Hills. Most here tonight stated they don’t feel it benefits the community. Part of the parcel is in what is considered the neighborhood/retail district. In design guidelines it says that Cedar Hills Drive should not be for residential development.

CM Augustus – Thanks everyone for coming to meeting. It’s not often to see so many residents come to these meetings. Has received many emails, some hateful and some supportive. Has seen that when people are happy with the status quo then they tend not to get involved. Looks forward to the long-term prospects that this could bring. Most of the feedback we've received from commercial real estate agents are that they don’t like our property. There isn't enough traffic or rooftops. We need to find balance between what works for the city and what can actually be done. Encouraged residents to know that we research these items extensively and are looking at the community has a whole, so even if we don’t always agree, we are trying to do what is right.

Item was tabled so that Blu Line can go back and make changes after hearing comments.

Review/Action on Awarding Bid for Roadway Repair

Due to the need for maintenance on Sugarloaf, Ironwood, Ferguson, 3900 W, 4000 W, seven cul-de-sacs and Bayhill Drive, request for bids for the 2014 Spring Street Improvements Project have been announced and received. The apparent low bidder is Staker Parson Companies at $193,900. Approved with CM Crawley and Geddes abstaining.

Review/Action on Bid for Mesquite Park Restroom

As per council direction, plans and specifications for the Mesquite Park restroom and storage building were prepared for public bid. Bids were received on Friday February 28, 2014. The bids received include the new construction of a women’s and men’s restrooms and a storage area for park and recreation supplies. Bids received range from a low of $66,860 to a high of $128,205. Low bidder is England Construction at $66,860. We budgeted about $77,000 for this project. Some money has been expended but with this quote we will come in just under budget. Approved.

Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Presentation for Golf Fund

Removed as it was discussed during work session. I was unable to attend work session today so will get my questions answered at a later time.

March 4, 2014 City Council Meeting

Work Session

Discussed FY 2015 budget. Current economic forecast done by Department of Workforce Services for Utah County shows 3.9% unemployment, significantly below national level. Economy in Utah County is better than last year. For the city, sales tax and franchise fees revenues have continued to grow. Motor vehicle tax is decreasing. Distribution is based upon population of cities and as Cedar Hills population is flat while other cities are growing means we will get less of the distribution. Telecom fees are also going down as it based on voice usage and more people are using less voice and more data, so telecom taxes are lower. Considering creating a Class C Road fund where road funds would be held so as to better manage those funds. Expected increase of sales tax revenues is $50,000 or 4.55%. This is a conservative number as we received more in FY 2014 than expected.

Public Safety expenses are increasing $52,827. Fire going up 4.2% and police going up 3.5%. Park maintenance going up $22,300. This includes $4,800 requested from the Parks, Trails, Beautification and Recreation Committee for community projects, more Christmas lights at roundabout, and landscaping rock on Canyon Road. Street expenditures going up $10,000. Public Works increasing $29,917 to add an additional full-time person. Legal services are expected to go up $20,000 based on large GRAMA requests and appeal. This may go down but trying to be conservative. Community Services to increase $17,072 for building maintenance, advertising, new table linens, and community events. The increase in building maintenance and linens is due to higher usage of building with more events.

Anticipated subsidies:

·         Family Festival expected is $24,500 (though we generally get about $20,000 in donations)

·         YCC is $2,500

·         Library reimbursement is $10,200

·         Community events $3,000

·         Recreation programs $54,321.34

·         Events center will have a profit of $12,394.09

·         Parks is $157,700

·         Golf Operations is $114,716

·         Golf Debt is $358,670

Public Works need addition of one full-time employee as they have taken on many new projects over the past few years in order to save the city money from utilizing other companies. This includes things like street light maintenance, recreation center maintenance, additional storm water duties required by federal law, GIS data collection and management, and additional park areas.

Staff looking at a telehealth option for employees to supplement health insurance. It is $15 per month per person or $29 per month per family. It can be started and stopped at any time, not locked into a contract. Offers 24x7 telehealth coverage. Staff proposes to add to budget $15 per month per official and employee for this program.

The rest of the budget is discussed below during Council meeting.

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Nobody signed up.

Consent Agenda

The minutes from the February 4, 2014 and February 18, 2014 City Council meetings were approved. The appointments of Paul Blaine Clyde, Randy Gehring, and Jon Traveller to the Water Conservation Committee were also approved.

City Reports

CM Rees – Working on press release and issued a city statement in response to some incorrect information posted on a recent GRAMA request. Would like to move next Council meeting from March 18^th to the 25^th so that we do not have a conflict with the political caucus that night. YCC hosting a dodgeball tournament on March 15^th for those ages 12-18 at Velocity Sports in American Fork. Teams of 6 will cost $12. More publicity coming soon.

David Bunker – Jr Jazz wrapping up this weekend. In Motion golf classes had about 50 participants. Karate classes going well with great participation. Mix and Mingle event went well. Sammy’s has limited hours in winter but opening up as golf season begins. Five new poles have been added to golf range, just waiting for new netting to come in.

CM Zappala – LPPSD meeting and working on budget. Need to charge County for areas that LPPSD is covering. Discussing if they should become a taxing district instead of special service district. Had emergency preparedness townhall, which went well.

CM Geddes – Planning Commission met last week. Discussed Blu Line proposal of senior living center. Voted to approve preliminary plans and will now move on to Council.

Mayor Gygi – Water Conservation Committee meeting again soon. Efforts on Capitol Hill have been fruitful. GRAMA bill that was potentially bad for cities appears to be dead.

CM Augustus – Will discuss finance items and North Pointe items during those scheduled agenda times.

CM Crawley – Parks & Trails committee having beautification day soon to help a few families who are in need of financial help with yards. Need additional volunteers for this committee.

Review/Action on Adopting Impact Fee Plans

This has been discussed in depth in previous meetings so please see my blog posts from earlier meetings for more details. Information has been sent to the UVHBA with a positive response. City is getting UVHBA some final information on how the Public Safety fee is calculated for multi-family units, but they were fine with us moving forward. The Impact fees being updated are for the Public Safety, Culinary Water, Sanitary Sewer, Parks and Transportation systems. Once approved, new impact fee rates don’t go into effect for 90 days.

Review/Action on North Pointe Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement

This has also been discussed in depth in prior meetings so more detailed notes are available on my previous blog posts. We did receive bids from Waste Management for hauling rates if we do a direct haul. We now have rates from North Pointe, DCD, and IRL.

·         North Pointe tipping rates are $31.50/ton. They do anticipate rate increases. Contract is an initial term of six years with 12 two-year terms that automatically renew. 13 month notice to withdraw.

·         IRL is $15/ton. Waste Management would direct haul to IRL and would charge $2.98 per household per month to direct haul to IRL. This total cost would exceed what we pay to North Pointe now.

·         DCD is $28/ton. There is no additional charge for Waste Management to haul to DCD as the distance to DCD is the same as North Pointe. This rate would be locked in for five years.

·         When including anticipated recycling tipping fees, we would save approximately $6,000-$10,000/year to go with DCD. Staff still needs to confirm this recycling rate.

DCD facility on Geneva Road has been around for about five years. They are planning to expand this summer to be on similar scale of North Pointe.

The savings of switching aren’t as high as we had hoped. The benefit to being with North Pointe is we are a member, therefore we have a voice on the board and we have an established relationship with them. The agreement with North Pointe passed 4-1 with CM Crawley voting nay.

Fiscal Year 2015 Budget Presentation

See notes above from work session for beginning of discussion.

Proposed 4% salary increase for employees. Health insurance costs increasing 6%. Utah Retirement System increase projected at 1.14-1.18%.

My questions:

·         Line 10-33-450, what will the Emergency Management Grant be used for? This is a new grant that pays for our staff member of emergency preparedness.

·         Line 10-35-110, why are recreation program revenues going down $15,000? Moved to another line item. I would like to begin charging rent to Tree Fitness, as we do for other entities who utilize our recreation center.

·         Line 10-35-130, is park reservations a new line item? It shows $0 in prior years. This is an new line item to better track revenues that come in for park reservations.

·         Line 10-40-305, what is the expected increase in legal fees for? Did we go over this year? Increase is to cover GRAMA requests and appeal.

·         Line 10-41-110 and 10-41-211 (increases for Mayor and Council) - I would rather see those increases go back into our library reimbursement than a raise and increase in training expenses for Mayor and Council. We cut $4,000 out of library reimbursement and I’d like to see us add it back in this year.

·         Employee benefit line items – why is each going up so much? To cover increase in fees as well as telehealth program.

·         Line 10-69-913, how close are we to being accurate on the anticipated golf subsidy? We are close this year and anticipate the same next year.

Discussion on Golf Course Maintenance Shed

Staff has prepared preliminary cost estimates for the golf course maintenance shed. The analysis identifies costs associated with construction of a new facility vs. the retro-fit and reconstruction of the existing facility. Retro-fit and reconstruction will take much more time and have higher costs because of how it would need to be done for safety and compliance, and includes much more labor. If we build a new building the estimated cost is $288,000. To do a rebuild of the existing building is estimated at $387,500. Efficiency on new construction leads to savings. Labor costs of rebuild are a huge cost.

Discussion on Development of SC-1 Commercial Zone Senior Living Facility

On Thursday, February 27, 2014, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the proposed

Senior Living facility located at 4600 W and Cedar Hills Drive (Smart property) to the City Council for preliminary approval. Doug (Blu Line) has met with the City regarding the City’s property along 4800 W. Doug has also met with other developers throughout Utah (i.e. The Boyer Group) regarding the development of the City’s property. Doug has requested to have a chance to update the City Council on the proposals for the commercial zone, as well as to give an update on the Smart property.

Traffic study was done by Hales Engineering. Based on similar facilities it was determined that 0.41 parking stalls per unit were needed, though this facility has over 1 stall per unit planned.

Met with Boyer Company and Mountain West, who either work with or represent retail companies and large restaurants, to get a better understanding of potential interest in our area. There are not any sit down restaurants or retailers who are interested in coming to Cedar Hills today. Quick serve restaurants are more actively looking for sites. These include things such as Café Rio, Rumbi’s, Dickey’s BBQ, etc. However, most of these are already located near Cedar Hills and didn’t indicate interest in looking at Cedar Hills. Feels right now there isn’t a lot of interest for commercial development for our area right now. After meeting with Boyer, Doug feels that building the senior living center will bring in interest to the area because of the increase in number of residents as well as walkability. Doug continues to feel confident he will have no problems filling this facility because of location to shopping, to a temple, and the quality of the neighborhood.

In order to make it economically viable they must have at least 275 units. They have widened the building to reduce it from five stories, but have needed to keep the number of units close to 300. Rent will range from $800-$1200 per unit. This will be similar to other units they own in other cities in Utah.

Like to establish relationships with local schools to provide charitable contributions for libraries and such, and also work with senior residents who are interested in volunteering at schools or mentoring students. Meeting with Alpine School District now.

Blu Line would keep ownership of the building and would engage in leases with those living in the facility. Nobody under the age of 19 would be allowed to live there at any time and it would always remain a 55+ facility based on development agreements entered into with the city.

Review/Action on Road Maintenance

Tabled until next meeting as it was added to the agenda on Monday.

Review/Action on Mesquite Park Restroom

Tabled until next meeting as it was added to the agenda on Monday.

February 27, 2014 Planning Commission Meeting

Updated overall site plan shows a park behind the homes on the southwest part of the plan, between the yards and the parking lot for the proposed movie theater. Also eliminated all exits onto 9900 North.

Current setback is 179.3 feet from residents on the south portion behind the senior living center. Some concerns were expressed about HOPA laws. To qualify for HOPA (Housing for Older Persons Act of 1995) the facility must be 80% occupied by residents 55+, owner must publish intent for this type of housing, and owner must verify ages of those who plan to lease units. 80% excludes unoccupied units, any units occupied by employees, and any units lived in by nursing staff. The developer can reserve units for those 55 and older. Nobody under age of 19 will be allowed to live in facility.

Chandler (Assistant City Manager) would like to see some lighting on the trail around the facility as it currently does not have any in the plans. This would help alleviate concerns with vandalism or crime. There will be several security cameras around the facility and also viewing the trail. They will be noticeable and signage will exist telling people security cameras are being used.

Landscaping includes many trees around the entire facility to beautify the property. Sewer line would need to connect to 4800 West, instead of the current drawing of 4600 West. Still need to submit a storm drain plan consistent with federal law. Culinary water main coming in off of Cedar Hills Drive. Also needs to submit noise study once size of the building has been finalized.

Met with Fire Chief to discuss safety. Will need 7 fire hydrants. Need to identify location of stairwells and elevators. Floor plans will be submitted to the fire marshal. Parking lot is larger than required for fire truck access.

Current plans are less than 300 units (didn’t present actual numbers). Height of facility is about 38 feet for ceiling of top floor, 58 feet to peak of roof, and 68 feet on the decorative columns. Design guidelines says living space should be below 50 feet and this would comply with that guideline. Units are about 800-1200 square feet.

Low monument signage for the building so as to keep residential feel. Retention ponds on east side with underground storage tank installed to collect storm drain runoff. This is consistent with all retention ponds in the city.

Culinary water system has capacity for all units with great pressure, as verified with Chief Freeman for fire department needs as well as residential needs. Landscaping will be irrigated. Power poles will be taken out and utilities will be installed underground so as to not interfere with landscaping. Blu Line is working with Utah Power on this now.

Experience of Blu Line is that the entire facility will fill in 8 months with 55+ individuals. They are also looking to build a similar facility in the Provo area. The reason why these facilities are successful in an area like Cedar Hills is because of the younger families nearby and many of these residents want to live near their children and grandchildren. In their Salt Lake facility there are only 6 out 160 units that have residents under 55 living in them.

Public Comment

George Munton – Have seen some units similar to this in other areas and have considered leasing something like this. Does not want anything in the city that will de-value the current properties. Thinks the size of the units are too small for an active adult.

Mrs. Munton – Would like to see ramps for those in wheelchairs. Feels the height is too high for our community.

Daniel Zappala – Has concerns. Design guidelines state this area should be used for commercial and that mixed use would only be on a second story of a facility. Second that the developer has not made a bid on the city owned 9 acres. Third, would like to see height of building go down to 3 stories. Fourth, that pedestrian access needs significant improvement from all corners. Would like to see easier access for those living in the facility to get to trail around facility.

Debra ?? – Concerned about children who are walking to school in that area. 300 units would be 600 cars if each unit has 2 cars each. Worried about impact on school system.

David Jardine – Owner of Harts Gas Station. Excited to see development in the area. Would like to see access from Cedar Hills Drive. Feels what has been presented looks nice.

Marisa Wright – Would prefer to see an outdoor mall or whole foods, but those parties have never approached the city with interest. Feels Blu Line has jumped through several hoops to get this far. Drawings are beautiful. Worried that real estate market will fall and Smart family has to fire sell the property. Might get a tacky strip mall and this project looks much better. Asks Planning Commission to not keep making them jump through hoops so much that Blu Line gives up and moves on. She’s in favor of the development.

Stephanie Martinez – Would like to commend Blu Line and all businesses who are here and kept standards high. Was happy to see height come down to 3-4 stories and more brick added. She is for the development and hopes it’s approved.

Trent Augustus – Development agreement that developer would be required to sign can limit the ages of people living there and how many people can live in each unit. Also, this corner lot where the senior center would be located is the least desirable space in our commercial area as it isn’t located on a main street and has zero visibility on North County Blvd. This is why there hasn’t been much interest from commercial businesses. Bringing in a residential component brings in more sales tax revenue from increase in shopping at WalMart, Harts, etc.

Planning Commission Discussion

Blu Line has made significant changes after listening to feedback from residents, Planning Commission, and City Council. There hasn’t been a significant desire from other commercial entities and doesn’t feel it is our right to keep property owners from selling to Blu Line because we want different commercial. Height is within our design guidelines. Doesn’t feel units will have too many cars or cause traffic concerns. Doesn’t feel this corner lot lends itself to different commercial. Blu Line is working on site plan for the 9 acres owned by the City so it can accommodate what the residents living in that area are looking for. They have a vested interest in getting the commercial area developed as it will attract people to live in the facility.

The city has received multiple calls regarding purchasing this property, but every call has been from parties interested in building apartments on that lot. This area has been zoned commercial for almost 20 years without significant interest from commercial businesses.

General feel is that we have gotten as many changes as we can get and still have this make sense for the developer. Planning Commission unanimously recommends the plans move forward to be presented to the City Council.

Council Meeting - February 18, 2014

Work Session

Eric Johnson (city attorney) provided our annual training and the Open and Public Meetings Act.

Council Meeting

Public Comment

Kim Groneman – Speaking about GRAMA requests and has concerns. Anyone can make a GRAMA request and we as a city know nothing about them. Law says city doesn’t have to make person pay for a request but can provide for free. We aren’t in a position to judge if a person’s motive is in the best interest of the public. Best option for the city is to treat each citizen equally, don’t make special exceptions for anyone, and require everyone to pay what is legally acceptable for any GRAMA requests.

Ken Kirk – Treat everyone the same for GRAMA requests. It is inappropriate to give special exceptions for some. It is fair and within the law to charge for requests. On North Pointe Solid Waste, we have been a member for 30 years. It is a non-profit organization that is made up of member cities. Don’t make mistake of thinking that the agreement is to raise tipping fees, it is to guarantee a certain tonnage to keep the business going. Stay with the service provided by the community and don’t go with a profit making organization.

Mike Dunn – Manager of DCD Transfer station in Orem. There have been changes in the valley with municipal landfills that has changed the game. There are now other options and the Council should review them all. Knows there is a big cost savings and renewal periods are smaller. He is willing to discuss further with any member of the council.

Tonya Edvalson – (via letter to Mayor). Believes that requestor should be charged for GRAMA requests as it takes staff time and effort. Requests take a considerable amount of time and effort and she is concerned about resources being taken away from other city services.

Ken Cromar – Wants to thank CM Zappala and Crawley for sitting down to talk with him. Feels his requests have met with ridicule and harsh comments. Met with city representatives in December to discuss his request. Feels that sorting emails takes a matter of minutes and doesn’t understand why the city is stating it will take longer. Wants documents as is and feels it is in the public’s best interest for him to receive. Hopes he won’t have to appeal his request for free records.

Darin Lowder – Followed the GRAMA topic. Appreciate council members’ efforts in defining what is a benefit of the public. Trusts the majority of residents and council. Feels the majority is a safe approach. Makes sense to stay consistent with fulfilling requests. Feels GRAMA laws are a good thing and most residents would agree with that. Feels most would agree that this recent request is not reasonable. Appreciates being informed via the newsletter so residents know how money is being spent. Feels like we can’t put time and effort into other city issues when often dealing with this.

Joe Phelon – Been a resident for 10 years. Believes council has done what we feel is best for the city as we make decisions for the city. Asking that council approve the commercial development as it will bring in additional revenue and enable the city to meet its obligations. On GRAMA he appreciates his ability to petition city for records but also recognizes the cost. Suggests each household get three free GRAMA requests each year up to one hour of work. He is concerned with waste of tax dollars and knows excessive requests become a burden on taxpayers.

John Howard – GRAMA laws are a good thing but feels there should be a fee after the 15 free minutes. Excessive requests need to have a cost to them. Thinks it would be good to figure out what is in the public’s best interest. What public issue will the request solve would be a good question to ask on each request.

Consent Agenda

The minutes from the January 21, 2014 Council meeting were approved.

City Reports

CM Rees – Issued a press release on the upcoming mix and mingle in the Vista Room. This will be held on the 22^nd and there will be a variety of vendors in the industry attending. It’s a great time for residents and others to come see the Vista Room and what it offers. The Family Festival Committee will be meeting tomorrow night. YCC met and discussed a possible dodge ball tournament.

David Bunker – Golf course opened today and had some business. Indoor golf lessons starting next week. Jr. Jazz has two more weeks and has been successful. Had annual BYU game invitation for residents and Cedar Hills had the most attendees. Meet and greet at the Vista Room this Saturday. Members of the community are invited and vendors will be available. This is from 10am-2pm. February 28^th will be bid opening for city streets projects.

CM Geddes – Planning Commission meets next week.

CM Crawley – Parks & Trails meeting this week. CM Zappala and Crawley met with Mr. Cromar’s group a week ago to discuss GRAMA request and established some common ground. Feels it was a productive meeting. Mr. Cromar has decided to postpone taking his appeal to the State Records Committee, (though he still has time to file it). He feels goodwill was established and asks for additional meetings in a more formal setting. Feels it will reduce costs to city.

Mayor Gygi – Created Water Conservation Committee and they had their first meeting last week. Went well and will be working with city staff on water usage.

CM Augustus – North Pointe meeting two weeks ago and will discuss during agenda item. Still working with UVHBA on reviewing our impact fee study.

Discussion on Concept Plan by Blu Line Designs

Based on Planning Commissions and City Council requests, as well as resident feedback concerning the overall layout of the site plan, Blu Line Design and Doug Young have modified the proposal to accommodate these concerns. The proposed modifications further reduce the impact of the proposed commercial development on the residents in the surrounding area. The proposal incorporates three and four stories, rather than four and five.

Please see my notes from the recent Planning Commission meeting as the plans are mostly the same. They did add a small park near the senior living center. Another change is adding green space between the parking lot and the homes on the south side (near the proposed movie theater). Traffic studies will determine if losing this much parking space will still work. Mayor Gygi complimented Blu Line on listening to the residents and making changes. He is concerned that Blu Line still hasn’t talked to the city about purchasing the 9 acres owned by the city and doesn’t want to go too far down the high density without knowing the 9 acres will be developed. He still feels there are too many units. We have Charleston, Osmond Senior Assisted Living, and Bridgestone in our community that meets many of the needs of the same demographics. Mayor would be happier with 150 units instead of 300. I mentioned that we are still receiving a lot of feedback from residents that four stories is too high and that 300 units is too many units. Designer presenting tonight isn’t the developer so he doesn’t know what the minimum number of units that the developer insists upon to make this financially work for them. This is something that still needs to be figured out. CM Zappala would prefer that the entire first floor be retail with residential on upper floors, but would be willing to give on this if the building was less than four stories. CM Augustus said we are trying to maximize our commercial space, which is why it was talked about making the building taller instead of wider, so we don’t reduce our commercial space.

Blu Line indicated that this type of building is working in Utah. They will be presenting more detailed information next week to the Planning Commission.

Discussion on GRAMA Fees and Charges

The City Council has asked to discuss GRAMA requests, fees and charges. During calendar year 2013, approximately 50 GRAMA requests were received and filled. During the calendar year 2012, approximately 56 GRAMA requests were received and filled. The average compilation time spent to fulfil an average request is approximately 30 minutes or less. Several voluminous requests have also been received. The compilation time spent to fulfil those requests varies depending on the scope of the information provided. In addition to compilation efforts by staff, redaction of private, protected, or privileged information is also necessary and may require legal review. Fees and charges for legal review are borne by the City.

Eric Johnson presented on difference between personal versus public benefit. Mr. Cromar uses the emails he obtains for his own personal political agenda, which is seen by the way he editorializes each of his posts on his website. He portrays items as illegal or unethical when they are not. In a case handled by the Idaho State Supreme Court, it was indicated that the use of public funds to help a political agenda is never appropriate. This is one of the reasons why the city does not provide email records to Mr. Cromar at no cost. Mr. Johnson believes if we fulfill this new request for free we will be violating constitutional principles.

CM Crawley asked for clarification on how we charge and when something is in the public’s interest. Mr. Johnson explained we can charge for copying and compilation. First 15 minutes of work is always done at no cost, per law. If the request is going to exceed $50 then city is allowed to ask for prepayment before working on the request. Assessing whether something is in the public’s best interest is done on a case by case basis and Mr. Johnson recommends the requestor indicate why they feel it is in the public’s best interest. He believes that as a general rule it is good for us to charge as other taxpayers shouldn’t be on the hook for paying for the request. Should be fair and equitable so as to avoid discriminating against certain groups or people.

Most of the Council expressed a desire to treat each GRAMA request the same so that one person or group isn’t receiving special treatment, and agreed that we should charge for compilation of records. It was discussed that there is no such thing as a “free” request – if the requestor doesn’t pay for compilation then the rest of the taxpayers are paying for it. CM Crawley indicated that Mr. Cromar’s group was unaware of the cost that went into compiling this many records and had they been made aware they may not have made such large requests. I mentioned that I have been in more than one meeting where the city discussed how the compilation of emails has to be handled so it is untrue to state that Mr. Cromar was not aware of the process. I also clarified that the city has never been unwilling to meet with Mr. Cromar (multiple meetings have already occurred) nor has the city been unwilling to provide public records. Once compilation fees have been paid then the city will begin working on the request. The thing that Mr. Cromar is appealing with this request is our refusal to provide him with all of these records at no cost.

Review/Action Proclaiming February 24^th – March 1^st as Non-Traditional Student Awareness Month

The Utah Valley University Non-Traditional Student Recruiters are participating in Governor Herbert’s “On PACE to 66% by 2020” plan. The plan is to ensure that Utah is on pace to have 66 percent of the adult population earn a post-secondary degree or certification by the year 2020.

UVU has asked for the City’s participation and support with this initiative by declaring the week of February 24 – March 1, 2014 as “Non-Traditional Student Awareness Week.”  UVU will be hosting a Non-Traditional Mini Conference on March 1st at the UVU Sorensen Student Center. The conference is designed to help the non-traditional student overcome obstacles that stand in the way of receiving a degree. They invite the City to display their proclamation at this mini conference. Also, at their UVU men’s basketball game on February 27th, there will be special announcements and recognition of city officials at the game. This was unanimously approved.

Review/Action on North Pointe Solid Waste Interlocal Agreement

The North Pointe Solid Waste District acting as administrator of the solid waste special service district of Utah County has prepared the proposed Interlocal agreement. Some key points include the following:

·         The initial term shall commence immediately through a term to December 31, 2019.

·         Twelve 2-year terms will automatically renew the agreement following the initial term.

·         A 13-month notice is required to withdraw from the District.

·         Upon withdrawal, cities would forfeit any interest and pay additional fees to dispose of waste.

·         A fee will be assessed to rejoin the District at a later date. It is also important to note that the contract REQUIRES the city commit its entire waste stream regardless of our contracted hauler. This may limit some haulers from giving the city a competitive bid in the future.

·         The tipping rate for North Pointe is currently $31.50/ton. The City tips approximately 3,650 tons/year.

We received tipping rates as proposed by Intermountain Regional Landfill. In addition to tipping fees, our contract hauler would have an increase in hauling cost. We also received a proposal from DCD Transfer for MSW if delivered to their facility in Orem.

IRL will charge $15/ton, but does not include any hauling so we would need to find out what our waste company would charge for this. IRL is much farther from our current station.

DCD will charge $28/ton and guarantee those rates for five years. Waste Management already hauls near this location so we wouldn’t have any additional hauling fees.

Item has been tabled until we have numbers back from Waste Management on direct haul if we go with IRL.

Discussion on City Code Regarding Fences

City Council has requested that a discussion be held concerning the current City Code regarding fencing (10-5-18). Current City Code has special language regarding fencing adjacent to public parks, trails, and certain major streets. In these areas identified on the City’s master plan for parks and trails, only open fences may be constructed (open is defined as 40% open). Council has asked to discuss this provision and possibly make a recommendation to the Planning Commission for its modification.

I have been approached by some residents who live on the east side of Sugarloaf, where their backyards are along Canyon Road. Because there is a trail behind their yard they are unable to have a privacy fence. However, just a few houses down on Canyon Road there are other residents who are allowed to have a privacy fence simply because it is a sidewalk there and not a trail. These residents would like the same right to have a privacy fence installed. I have suggested that the Planning Commission review this and make less restrictions for those homes that are on a trail but where there will never be a privacy fence on the other side of the trail. In this instance, the other side of the trail is Canyon Road and then the golf course, so the trail wouldn’t be enclosed on both sides. This would also allow residents on Bayhill west of Canyon Road and residents on Silver Lake Drive to be able install a privacy fence. CM Zappala recommended the Planning Commission look at requiring some landscaping in that area if privacy fences are allowed and CM Augustus recommended the city check for any development agreements regarding fencing. This will go to the Planning Commission for further discussion.