Highland City Council Meeting Report
March 15, 2011
General Observations
1. This evening the City Council/City Staff appeared to be well prepared, efficient, and harmonious.
2. Mayor Ritchie and the council are keeping their campaign promises.
a. Last months meeting minutes were approved and are available.
b. They have realigned the accounting to correlate income with costs. For example, they now know the money collected for pressurized irrigation does not cover the cost. They also know the $20 a month fee collected from the residents of the Open Space subdivisions does not cover the maintenance cost. ($245K collected vs $359K expended).
c. The new website will provide residents greater access to more information in keeping with the pledge for open/transparent government.
d. The council is actively addressing issues that have been ignored for as long as ten years like park and trail maintenance. For example, $15K is proposed for trail maintenance this year.
e. The Open Space Committee and the Parks and Trails Committee are aggressively re-evaluating the entire park and trail system. Everyone recognizes we cannot afford everything that is on the master plan. For example, seven or eight years ago $6.5M park was proposed for the Beacon Hills area. Eight years later, it is still an undeveloped field. The city plans to do some infrastructure work and develop the park in phases (trying to keep the promise made years ago) but the park will be significantly less grand than the one originally proposed.
3. The debt burden plus increased Utah County assessments and a Federal Storm Sewer improvement mandate combined with the smaller than expected (three years ago) revenue stream continue to prevent Highland from making the improvements to parks and adding other amenities.
4. An amendment to the shopping center plan was approved. The developer proposed several of the lots be combined or reconfigured to give greater flexibility to the use of the land. They are trying to find an anchor store for the north side of Highland Highway (SR-92).
5. The Open Space plan for the Beacon Hills Plat D subdivision was approved giving residents permission to improve and maintain strips of city owned property at the resident’s expense thus eliminating weed patches. This will reduce city maintenance costs and improve the look of the city. There are 18 such subdivisions in Highland. Beacon Hill is the third to get approval. The rest are in the queue. The Open Space Committee works with the residents to organized the presentation to the City Council.
6. Councilwoman Kathryn Schramm proposed, in the spirit of openness, that Highland enact an ordinance that would require everyone on boards, commissions or city appointed committees to submit a conflict of interest disclosure form. The intent was to alert those on committees, etc. to the conflict of interest issue and to protect them from possible legal exposure. For example, it is a 3nd degree felony if your vote benefits you more than $250.
There was a spirited discussion and the council and the audience were split on the proposal. John Park made the winning argument by pointing out that the proposal would increase the city bureaucracy and most of the danger could be controlled through good business management and oversight. The motion failed 3 to 2.
7. BUDGET – City staff presented the first draft of the budget to the City Council. The read through went very well. The mayor and the new city council members are familiar with the budget process now, most of the accounting changes have been made, and John Park is a very good administrator. Points of interest:
a. The cost of the piping of the Murdock Canal is borne by Utah County but Highland has to pay for the moving of the utilities like water and sewer. This is not a huge expense but has a significant impact on a tight budget.
b. The number of part time summer help was increased (20% absenteeism is common) to better maintain our parks and open space. Fertilizer and weed killer was included in the budget this year; an item missed when the city took over from MD Properties last year. We will still have a significant saving ($200K?).
c. $500K is budgeted for city roads. The city roads are in bad shape and preventative maintenance will save big bucks down the road. (Pun intended.
d. A Federal Storm Sewer mandate was unexpected and greatly impacted the budget. I missed the discussion so I don’t know how much it will cost nor what is required.
e. Pressurized irrigation fees will go up this year. The increase was proposed last year but I think the City Council held off because of the sewer fee increase last year. We have to make the 2nd of three payments to the County for the additions being made to the sewage treatment facility. I sat through the budget working session last year and it was really painful.
f. The Public Works Capital Purchases (new pick up truck, new dump truck, etc.) were NOT funded. Road repair first was the reason.
g. Some of the cuts to last year’s police budget were restored this year. In a private conversation with Marv Whiting last week, he said crime in general is down all over the country. He said it is pretty quiet these days at BYU and the murder rate in Central Los Angeles (he was a detective in LA) has dropped from 300 a year to around 60. He suggested that maybe one reason for the drop in gang shootings could be due to the kids being inside playing video games instead of out on the streets looking for trouble.
Foot note: John Park asked the council to thoroughly review the proposed budget and said the city staff will answer questions. He complimented Matt Shipp (Director of Public Works) for a job well done and Mayor Ritchie said it was an excellent start. They are a full month ahead of last year and in much better shape.
Devirl Barfuss
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
Feb. 1, 2011 City Council
MINUTES - HIGHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING - February 1, 2011
Regular Session at 7:00 p.m.
Highland City Council Chambers
5400 West Civic Center Drive, Highland Utah 84003
7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION – CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Lynn Ritchie
INVOCATION – Tom Butler
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Larry Mendenhall
APPEARANCES
1. Time has been set aside for the public to express their ideas,
concerns, and comments.
• Tim Garlick
Tim owns an Ice SnowShack and wanted to see if the seasonal permit
term could be extended from 90 to 120 days. He also wanted approval to
put a “Shack” in the parking lot of LPHS. He has been talking with ASD
about this but needs city approval due to zoning issues.
Both items will be considered once a new city planner is in place
• Jane Dalling (?)
She expressed polite but firm concerns about the proposed changes to
the housing ordinance which change the regulations regarding
“accessory” apartments. She had a number of issues from the
possibility that there would be too many cars to making sure that the
requirements for owner occupancy remain in place. She compared what
could happen to Highland to what happened in Provo. Also, voiced a
concern for general safety issues.
• Richard Sudwick (?) (officer of The Library Foundation)
Expressed support for the agenda item that would create a separate
bank account for the library in library fees and fines would be put.
This money with CC approval would be used to fund future library
budgets.
• Jenny Thacker
Asked for partial funding for a N. County pageant tied into the Miss
America program. She will seek funding from businesses, Cedar Hills,
and Alpine. Pageant date is tentatively set for Aug 13. She provided
info and the matter will be considered at a future date.
2. Planning Commission Appointments
• Trixie Williams (Alternate) approved
3. Minutes
• Minutes from the previous council meeting approved with minor
corrections
4. RESOLUTION – Declaring Surplus Property (Equipment) for the
Purposes of Disposal
BACKGROUND: (Presentation by John Park, City Administrator) The City
Council recently approved a Building Use Policy for the new Community
Center (formerly the City Hall) located at 5378 W 10400 North. In
preparation for getting the building ready for public use there are
some items that need to be removed that remain from when the building
was used as the former City Hall. Pursuant to Highland City Municipal
Code 2.44 the City Council shall hold a public hearing prior to
declaring City property/equipment surplus.
RESOLVED: The file cabinets, desks, counters will be sold via KSL.com
(unanimously approved)
5. ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City FY2011 Budget.
BACKGROUND: (Presentation by Lynn Ruff, Finance Director) It is
necessary to amend the budget to adjust for additional revenues
collected and various unanticipated expenditures in the various funds
of the City. Some of the proposed amendments deal with the Library
funds, pressurized irrigation funds, sidewalk repairs, the Community
Center remodel and other items. The City Council held a public hearing
on the budget amendments on January 18, 2011. No public comment was
received.
City councilman had a number of questions on the budget amendment; at
one point the discussion devolved to comments around an impending $10
per month rate hike for pressurized irrigation. However, the
resolution seemed to be mostly about reallocating existing funds to
cover expenses already incurred (i.e. putting the money in the right
bucket).
RESOLVED: The amended budget was approved 4 to 1 with Kathryn being
the sole negative vote.
6. ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City Development Code Chapter 10
Definitions relating to the definition of a family.
BACKGROUND: (Presentation by Nathan Crane, Community Development
Director) Councilmember Butler has requested the definition of family
be amended to make it easier for property owners to rent their
basements. The proposed amendment would allow a homeowner to rent a
portion of a home to one or two families. The proposed amendment does
not address parking or other requirements. This item reviewed at the
February 18, 2011 City Council meeting and staff was directed to
revise the definition to be consistent with State Statute and address
public safety issues.
Lots of discussion on this item. The proposed language would allow a
homeowner to rent an accessory apartment to two adults (unrelated to
the owners) and their children. The language could be interpreted as
two single adults and their respective children or two adults (a
couple) and their children. Brian thought that the new language would
permit only owner occupied rentals whereas the city attorney said no.
Because of the second family definition (4 unrelated adults living in
the same home). This definition of a family was put into law by our
state legislature. Jane again spoke before the council and reiterated
her concerns regarding the new language. Scott, Kathryn, Tom, and
Brian all expressed their opinions as well.
One of the concerns about the current language was that in order to
rent out part of your home there must be a common area (i.e. you can’t
rent out a basement apartment it is separate from the rest of the
house – it has a separate entrance, its own bathroom and kitchen).
Tom went into a long speech on property rights quoting everyone from
Bastiat to President David O Mckay. The quotes were interesting but
I’m not sure how they applied to the issue at hand. Tom did mention
that Alpine has a very loose ordinance around accessory apartments
which has been in effect for 16 yrs and only 4% of the home owners
have chosen to avail themselves of it.
Brian said the he could not support the ordinance as he was
uncomfortable with risks associated with unintended consequences.
RESOLVED: The ordinance changes were adopted by a 3 to 2 vote. Brian
and Larry were opposed while Scott, Kathryn, and Tom approved.
Note, this is probably not the end of this discussion given the amount
of issues that were raised.
Below is the existing and new language that was approved with respect
definition of a family as related to single family homes:
Existing Definition:
“Family - A individual or two or more persons related by blood,
marriage, or adoption, living together in a single dwelling unit and
maintaining a common household. A family may include two, but not more
than two, non-related persons living with the residing family. The
term family shall not be constructed to mean a group of non-related
individuals, a fraternity, club or institutional group.”
Proposed (and adopted) Definition:
“Family:
(1) One or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or legal
guardianship, including foster children, and no more than two adults
and their children who are unrelated to the residing family; or
(2) A group of not more than four persons not related by blood,
marriage, adoption or legal guardianship, including foster children
living together as a common household.”
7. ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City Development Code Section
5-4-300: Major Subdivision Option and Chapter 5-10: Amending a
Recorded Plat to remove the public hearing requirements for
preliminary plats and modifying the review process for final plats.
BACKGROUND: (Presentation by Nathan Crane, Community Development
Director) The proposed amendment modifies the review process for
preliminary and final plats for major subdivisions. The primary
objectives of this amendment are to streamline the review process and
to amend the process to be consistent with the new legislation and to
clarify the review process. The City Council considered this item on
January 18, 2011 and directed staff to revise the amendment to include
a public hearing before the Planning Commission for all preliminary
plats.
After a lot of discussion and back and forth it this amendment was
adopted with the provision that the City Council entertain comments
from the community when considering preliminary plats. The planning
commission and community dev director felt it was important that
public comment be received as soon in the process as possible but the
city council wanted to sure that they were being a transparent as
possible as well. The reason that the term public hearing was not used
for the City Council meeting was that there are specific communication
requirements that need to be performed for a hearing versus simply
public comment.
The city manager pointed out that the new city website (coming soon)
will allow city members to sign up to receive notices on a range of
subjects so that they can be as involved as they want.
RESOLVED: Amendment adopted with the proviso for allowing public
comments at City Council meetings as discussed above. The vote was
unanimous.
COMMUNICATION ITEMS BY MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL & STAFF
These items are for information purposes only and do not require
action or discussion by the City Council.
8. DISCUSSION – Utah County Metro Fire Agency – John Park, City
Administrator
9. FINANCIAL REPORT – Lynn Ruff, Finance Director
10. REPORT – North Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District –
Kathryn Schramm
Regular Session at 7:00 p.m.
Highland City Council Chambers
5400 West Civic Center Drive, Highland Utah 84003
7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION – CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS
CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Lynn Ritchie
INVOCATION – Tom Butler
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Larry Mendenhall
APPEARANCES
1. Time has been set aside for the public to express their ideas,
concerns, and comments.
• Tim Garlick
Tim owns an Ice SnowShack and wanted to see if the seasonal permit
term could be extended from 90 to 120 days. He also wanted approval to
put a “Shack” in the parking lot of LPHS. He has been talking with ASD
about this but needs city approval due to zoning issues.
Both items will be considered once a new city planner is in place
• Jane Dalling (?)
She expressed polite but firm concerns about the proposed changes to
the housing ordinance which change the regulations regarding
“accessory” apartments. She had a number of issues from the
possibility that there would be too many cars to making sure that the
requirements for owner occupancy remain in place. She compared what
could happen to Highland to what happened in Provo. Also, voiced a
concern for general safety issues.
• Richard Sudwick (?) (officer of The Library Foundation)
Expressed support for the agenda item that would create a separate
bank account for the library in library fees and fines would be put.
This money with CC approval would be used to fund future library
budgets.
• Jenny Thacker
Asked for partial funding for a N. County pageant tied into the Miss
America program. She will seek funding from businesses, Cedar Hills,
and Alpine. Pageant date is tentatively set for Aug 13. She provided
info and the matter will be considered at a future date.
2. Planning Commission Appointments
• Trixie Williams (Alternate) approved
3. Minutes
• Minutes from the previous council meeting approved with minor
corrections
4. RESOLUTION – Declaring Surplus Property (Equipment) for the
Purposes of Disposal
BACKGROUND: (Presentation by John Park, City Administrator) The City
Council recently approved a Building Use Policy for the new Community
Center (formerly the City Hall) located at 5378 W 10400 North. In
preparation for getting the building ready for public use there are
some items that need to be removed that remain from when the building
was used as the former City Hall. Pursuant to Highland City Municipal
Code 2.44 the City Council shall hold a public hearing prior to
declaring City property/equipment surplus.
RESOLVED: The file cabinets, desks, counters will be sold via KSL.com
(unanimously approved)
5. ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City FY2011 Budget.
BACKGROUND: (Presentation by Lynn Ruff, Finance Director) It is
necessary to amend the budget to adjust for additional revenues
collected and various unanticipated expenditures in the various funds
of the City. Some of the proposed amendments deal with the Library
funds, pressurized irrigation funds, sidewalk repairs, the Community
Center remodel and other items. The City Council held a public hearing
on the budget amendments on January 18, 2011. No public comment was
received.
City councilman had a number of questions on the budget amendment; at
one point the discussion devolved to comments around an impending $10
per month rate hike for pressurized irrigation. However, the
resolution seemed to be mostly about reallocating existing funds to
cover expenses already incurred (i.e. putting the money in the right
bucket).
RESOLVED: The amended budget was approved 4 to 1 with Kathryn being
the sole negative vote.
6. ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City Development Code Chapter 10
Definitions relating to the definition of a family.
BACKGROUND: (Presentation by Nathan Crane, Community Development
Director) Councilmember Butler has requested the definition of family
be amended to make it easier for property owners to rent their
basements. The proposed amendment would allow a homeowner to rent a
portion of a home to one or two families. The proposed amendment does
not address parking or other requirements. This item reviewed at the
February 18, 2011 City Council meeting and staff was directed to
revise the definition to be consistent with State Statute and address
public safety issues.
Lots of discussion on this item. The proposed language would allow a
homeowner to rent an accessory apartment to two adults (unrelated to
the owners) and their children. The language could be interpreted as
two single adults and their respective children or two adults (a
couple) and their children. Brian thought that the new language would
permit only owner occupied rentals whereas the city attorney said no.
Because of the second family definition (4 unrelated adults living in
the same home). This definition of a family was put into law by our
state legislature. Jane again spoke before the council and reiterated
her concerns regarding the new language. Scott, Kathryn, Tom, and
Brian all expressed their opinions as well.
One of the concerns about the current language was that in order to
rent out part of your home there must be a common area (i.e. you can’t
rent out a basement apartment it is separate from the rest of the
house – it has a separate entrance, its own bathroom and kitchen).
Tom went into a long speech on property rights quoting everyone from
Bastiat to President David O Mckay. The quotes were interesting but
I’m not sure how they applied to the issue at hand. Tom did mention
that Alpine has a very loose ordinance around accessory apartments
which has been in effect for 16 yrs and only 4% of the home owners
have chosen to avail themselves of it.
Brian said the he could not support the ordinance as he was
uncomfortable with risks associated with unintended consequences.
RESOLVED: The ordinance changes were adopted by a 3 to 2 vote. Brian
and Larry were opposed while Scott, Kathryn, and Tom approved.
Note, this is probably not the end of this discussion given the amount
of issues that were raised.
Below is the existing and new language that was approved with respect
definition of a family as related to single family homes:
Existing Definition:
“Family - A individual or two or more persons related by blood,
marriage, or adoption, living together in a single dwelling unit and
maintaining a common household. A family may include two, but not more
than two, non-related persons living with the residing family. The
term family shall not be constructed to mean a group of non-related
individuals, a fraternity, club or institutional group.”
Proposed (and adopted) Definition:
“Family:
(1) One or more persons related by blood, marriage, adoption or legal
guardianship, including foster children, and no more than two adults
and their children who are unrelated to the residing family; or
(2) A group of not more than four persons not related by blood,
marriage, adoption or legal guardianship, including foster children
living together as a common household.”
7. ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City Development Code Section
5-4-300: Major Subdivision Option and Chapter 5-10: Amending a
Recorded Plat to remove the public hearing requirements for
preliminary plats and modifying the review process for final plats.
BACKGROUND: (Presentation by Nathan Crane, Community Development
Director) The proposed amendment modifies the review process for
preliminary and final plats for major subdivisions. The primary
objectives of this amendment are to streamline the review process and
to amend the process to be consistent with the new legislation and to
clarify the review process. The City Council considered this item on
January 18, 2011 and directed staff to revise the amendment to include
a public hearing before the Planning Commission for all preliminary
plats.
After a lot of discussion and back and forth it this amendment was
adopted with the provision that the City Council entertain comments
from the community when considering preliminary plats. The planning
commission and community dev director felt it was important that
public comment be received as soon in the process as possible but the
city council wanted to sure that they were being a transparent as
possible as well. The reason that the term public hearing was not used
for the City Council meeting was that there are specific communication
requirements that need to be performed for a hearing versus simply
public comment.
The city manager pointed out that the new city website (coming soon)
will allow city members to sign up to receive notices on a range of
subjects so that they can be as involved as they want.
RESOLVED: Amendment adopted with the proviso for allowing public
comments at City Council meetings as discussed above. The vote was
unanimous.
COMMUNICATION ITEMS BY MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL & STAFF
These items are for information purposes only and do not require
action or discussion by the City Council.
8. DISCUSSION – Utah County Metro Fire Agency – John Park, City
Administrator
9. FINANCIAL REPORT – Lynn Ruff, Finance Director
10. REPORT – North Pointe Solid Waste Special Service District –
Kathryn Schramm
Jan. 18, 2011 City Council
Highland City Council 1/18/11
Unfortunately, my workday ran very long, so I did not get to the meeting until these items came up. My apologies CBH.
• Highland Library will accept an $800.00 grant
• ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City Development Code Chapter 10 Definitions relating to the definition of a family. Amend the definition of a family for a single dwelling unit. Essentially not more than2 unrelated person and their children living and residing with the family. Family =An individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption,,, living together in a single dwelling unit and maintaining a common household. A family may include 2, but not more than 2, non-related persons and their children living with the residing family not related to the residing family and living with the homeowner. Also, shall not mean a group of non-related individuals, a fraternity, club or institutional group.” (Highlighted areas are the change).
o State is pressuring Highland to have more affordable residences. Tuscana helps, but does not help us to meet the demands.
Mr. Butler: current basement ordinances does not allow for live-in help or family etc. nor does it allow leases. And, any change requires separate meters, building upgrades, etc. It only addresses new construction and is cost prohibitive for existing homes. Now, we can rent to 2non-related relatives in a common household.
• Planning commission recommended a change to the ordinance.
o Safety concerns: People are going to do this anyway and rent space. 911 calls to get to someone in a basement etc. Need 2 doors or 1 door and conforming sized window. 1 hour fire rated door and fire-rated ceiling between the 2 residences. (Sheetrock in ceiling). (Fire chief). Nonflammable storage in utility room. Smoke alarms and Co2 in basement. Residency occupancy limit.
o Will discuss definition of a family now and later rentals and off street parking
o Property Values: Perception of rentals is that they reduce property values. Alpine has3200 homes with apartments without a property value difference. There is ~$100,000.00 price difference in property values between a similar sized home…Alpine is more.
o Liability: Attny says no city liability
o Affected Neighborhood: Off-street parking.
o Concern of Control: Owner occupied can rent out portions of their homes… or is the city micro-manage person’s home.
o He also states that we are discriminating against lower income individuals if we do not have a change to this ordinance. (My personal opinion at the moment is to let market forces happen CBH)
• Mr. Smith disagrees: Homes could up to 16 people living in the home. Not opposed to related living in common areas but opposed to unrelated doing so for liability and safety issues. He asked how many basement apartments are in Highland since the original ordinance was put in place in the past 18 months. (possibly 1-2). He supports redefining the family, but needs more information for safety and liability.
• Mr. Braithwaite: What is the urgency? (Butler says the council has been discussing for weeks and needs closure) Braithwaite says….so no urgency. The goal is to have affordable housing in the city correct? It isn’t a definition of a family, it is more of an affordable living situation. Butler disagrees saying that this is only one reason. Braithwaite is against. He is agreement to changes in the ordinance for more flexibility and feels this does not meet the need.
• Ms Schramm: Most people who rent their basement do it to make ends meet. They don’t have the funding to retrofit to meet Highland’s ordinance. She recommends redefining “Family” (2 adults 18 years old or older) etc.
• Mayor: Family means cannot be limited to less than 4 people according to state law. So, you could have an owner and 3 unrelated. Our ordinance is too restrictive according to the state law.
• Attorney: No liability for changing the definition of a family. He suggests occupancy limits, then we may have constitutional issues for limiting family size. Laws are designed to protect to the weakest in our society. Theoretically, you could have someone renting out their home with one family (1 adult, 3 unrelated adults, and kids) with up to 9 people in a one bedroom unit. Fire chief is concerned with occupancy limits for rentals.
• Mr. John Park (City Administrator): The current ordinance discriminates against those already finished basements.
Motion made to adopt the definition: Moved and seconded. Attorney said this is illegal because it does not meet the state definition. Substitute motion made to continue it. First and seconded….motion carried.
• Revised “Family-An individual or 2 or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, living together in a single dwelling unit. A family may include 2 persons and their children not related to the residing family and living with the home owner. The term family shall not be constructed to mean a group of non-related individuals, a fraternity, club, or institution group” This is still under advisement.
• MOTION – Approval of a Subdivision Maintenance Plan and lifting of the moratorium for
open space agreements for the Canterbury Circle and Greenland Mountain Vista subdivisions. They want to be exempted from the open space agreement requirements. The city is proposing writing the agreement so that it can still be applicable in 5-7 years from now.
• The Home owners want to responsible for Maintenance for portions of it (4000 square feet up to 1 acre for lots 1-14). All lots need to enter into the agreement all at once to allow for all homeowners to have access to the entire lot of land. This land was supposed to also be used as a trail, and homeowners are not wishing to have a trial behind their homes. It would require the permission of the property owners to use it as a trail and cannot use Eminent Domain. However, the map for trails already exists and the homeowners need to know that at a future time there would be a trail (?).
• Greenland Mountain Vista: Originally had an Equestrian trail planned and has been construction. This is an easement and is not owned by city. If the Murdoch Connector gets constructed, this trail may not be needed. This is for lots 2-4 and home owners be responsible for 2000-4000 sq feet. City suggests abandoned this land. This is not like any other open space area.
• Ed ? : deferred to a Stan Phillips from Cantebury subdivision. When he bought the property, the open space was for horses and there was not mention of a trail. The owners now have an uncared for piece of property. The developer did not follow through. These people pay a maintenance fee to the city and are not getting the maintenance. There already is a trail in their park, why put another trail behind the same homes that front the city park. Homeowners want to maintain the property and no trail.
• Ed (?): Went over the city code. Improvements need to abide by open space plan. This will not cover any existing structures. No permanent structures. He recommends that the city provide the Moratorium. Let the people apply for open space maintenance by home owners. It would not be deeded to the homeowners.
• Mr. Smith: So, asking for a moratorium on the agreement so that homeowners maintain it and relieve the city of this ‘burden’.
• Motion made to separate the two subdivisions and approve subdivision Maintenance plan for Cantebury. Motion carried. On the Greenland Mtn Vista: recommend giving the property back and abandon the easement. The staff to look into it. Motion to work with residents these lots to allow residents rights to landscape their property per city admin. Seconded. Motion carried.
DISCUSSION – FY2011 Highland Fling Budget – John Park, City Administrator
• Ron Jewett presented plan. Budget is for $35,000.00. This is like seed money and try to have each event make back 50% more than what it costs. He projects the city will get 12-15,000 back, so the actual cost is less. The goal is to have it be a zero-budget item in a few years.
o Mr. Butler: what did it cost us and what did we make back last year.
Mr. Jewitt: Same events last year but better? Last year $18,035 net cost. $35,000 was allocated and the city made back $12,000.00. Mr. Jewett states there are ways to save money in many of the events. Once the sponsor realizes it is a good option for them, then sponsors will come. Last year, one person did the work, this year there will be a committee will be made back. He is hoping to gain $20,000.00 this year.
Mr. Jewitt learned that he is chairman for 4 years.
Ms Schramm asked if they could do it for $30,000 since the city has cut so many things this year. Mr. Jewitt said yes, but something would be cut. He says he needs $35,000.00 to start, but much comes back.
ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City Development Code Section 5-4-300: Major Subdivision Option and Chapter 5-10: Amending a Recorded Plat to remove the public hearing requirements for preliminary plats and modifying the review process for final plats.
Removed requirement for public hearing for preliminary plats,
City council approve preliminary plats
CC approval of final plats
Still have public input
Concurrent review for …..(they took the slide away….sorry)
Essentially delineates legislative and administrative actions of the Council.
What is a subdivision(divide land)
What is the role of the City: public safety, health, welfare and zoning.
The state requires approval of applicant if they meet all the requirements. If they meet the codes whether we like the applicant or not (No one mentioned it, but I am thinking of the Tuscana issue).
o State law requires a public meeting but not public input.
Plans:
o Concept Plan (does it meet code or not)
o Preliminary Plat: fatal flaw analysis, preliminary Infrastructure, design-Lot Layout, Street Location, Widths etc Regulation Conformance.
o Final Plat: Civil Engineering Drawings, Regulation Conformance, Right-of-way and Easement Dedications.
Current Review Process:
o Concept: DRC and Adjacent Property Notification happens
o Preliminary Platt
Planning Commission Public Hearing
o Final Plat: Planning commission to City Council and public meeting.
o So where is the appropriate place for CC input. Because the comments are coming in the Final plat, the developers were having to change things at the last minute at great expense.
Proposed:
Concept
Preliminary:
o Preliminary Planning Commission
o City Council Meeting
o Preapplication
Final Plat
o Preapplication if necessary
o City Council meeting
Non-residential, apartment, condominiums, townhome subdivision.
Site plan approval before plat approval
Facilitate economic development
So, it looks like they are trying to fix the process that was notably flawed for the Tuscana issue.
Planning Commission did hold a public meeting regarding these changes, Ms. Schramm had issues at that time.
Comments from the Council: If there a controversial issue, maybe able to insert a public meeting. Can open to public comment. DRC is the only time for public comment is in the daytime. We need to have public comment…there is a lot of ‘shall’ words. It seems like we have no choice than to be approval. We don’t have a lot of discretion in the project. The only difference is that we can have public comment in Planning Commission and at City Council. Ms. Schramm suggested that they be invited to DRC to keep them informed (she gave the example of someone asking her about the arrival of Artic Circle and she was unaware of it). Mr. Braithwaite states that many were struck and wanted to know why. He feels that having additional eyes can only help the procedure. He states that there is opportunity for public input. He feels it makes it more difficult for the applicant. He wanted to know who gets notified (neighbors and applicant). The old code provided for this reportedly. What happens if turned down and re-file. How long is the re-file good for? Again, the old code provided with. Clarification from Nathan about sections that would remain. Apparently CC only got a copy of the copy with only the suggested changes.
Staff will need to make sure that Staff accomplishes everything in the DRC. The CC will have 2 opportunities to make sure all requirements are met. If applicant meets requirements, neither Planning Committee nor CC can disapprove it. They want another public hearing back in…..suggested after Planning Commission. (This means our group may need to send someone to Planning Commission so that we can be alerted to possible unwanted projects and attending the public meeting before it gets to City Council as the only Public Hearing will occur between the two meetings).
Ms Schramm: motion to insert into procedure that a public hearing be on the Preliminary Platt at the City Council. Motion failed.
Mr. Butler: City Council amend 504-300 etc maintaining public hearing at Planning commission and keep preliminary and final plats at CC. Seconded. Mr. Braithwaite : substitute motion: give a list of concerns to “Nathan” to address and continue until next meeting to clearly identify for the CC. Moved and seconded. Motion carries.
REPORT – Lone Peak Public Safety District (Police) – Larry Mendenhall:
Total of over 700 incidences:
68 alarm calls
100 animal problems
16 criminal mischief
Others 10 or less.
No real “high crimes” due to officers, populations, and the good citizens.
Police Dog: Reached the monetary goal to purchase the dog. So next week they will visit 2 kennels in the US that provide this type of specially trained job. Other issues need to be dealt with before the dog can be utilized as envisioned. Police Chief thanked all that contributed to this worthy cause.
Mr. Park gave a proposed budget calendar for 2011 to avoid “crunch time” before the deadline. Will have a preliminary budget by March15, 2011. Then April 5th the City Council comments. Will kick off the new website hopefully with this budgetary process. On April 19, 2011 will be a public open house on the proposed budget. The information from this meeting would be brought on May3, 2011. June 7th would be a legal public hearing. Adopt budget on June 21, 2011 (due June 25th). These are proposed dates only. He wants to get as much public input as possible….yea for that!
Meeting adjourned.
Unfortunately, my workday ran very long, so I did not get to the meeting until these items came up. My apologies CBH.
• Highland Library will accept an $800.00 grant
• ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City Development Code Chapter 10 Definitions relating to the definition of a family. Amend the definition of a family for a single dwelling unit. Essentially not more than2 unrelated person and their children living and residing with the family. Family =An individual or two or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption,,, living together in a single dwelling unit and maintaining a common household. A family may include 2, but not more than 2, non-related persons and their children living with the residing family not related to the residing family and living with the homeowner. Also, shall not mean a group of non-related individuals, a fraternity, club or institutional group.” (Highlighted areas are the change).
o State is pressuring Highland to have more affordable residences. Tuscana helps, but does not help us to meet the demands.
Mr. Butler: current basement ordinances does not allow for live-in help or family etc. nor does it allow leases. And, any change requires separate meters, building upgrades, etc. It only addresses new construction and is cost prohibitive for existing homes. Now, we can rent to 2non-related relatives in a common household.
• Planning commission recommended a change to the ordinance.
o Safety concerns: People are going to do this anyway and rent space. 911 calls to get to someone in a basement etc. Need 2 doors or 1 door and conforming sized window. 1 hour fire rated door and fire-rated ceiling between the 2 residences. (Sheetrock in ceiling). (Fire chief). Nonflammable storage in utility room. Smoke alarms and Co2 in basement. Residency occupancy limit.
o Will discuss definition of a family now and later rentals and off street parking
o Property Values: Perception of rentals is that they reduce property values. Alpine has3200 homes with apartments without a property value difference. There is ~$100,000.00 price difference in property values between a similar sized home…Alpine is more.
o Liability: Attny says no city liability
o Affected Neighborhood: Off-street parking.
o Concern of Control: Owner occupied can rent out portions of their homes… or is the city micro-manage person’s home.
o He also states that we are discriminating against lower income individuals if we do not have a change to this ordinance. (My personal opinion at the moment is to let market forces happen CBH)
• Mr. Smith disagrees: Homes could up to 16 people living in the home. Not opposed to related living in common areas but opposed to unrelated doing so for liability and safety issues. He asked how many basement apartments are in Highland since the original ordinance was put in place in the past 18 months. (possibly 1-2). He supports redefining the family, but needs more information for safety and liability.
• Mr. Braithwaite: What is the urgency? (Butler says the council has been discussing for weeks and needs closure) Braithwaite says….so no urgency. The goal is to have affordable housing in the city correct? It isn’t a definition of a family, it is more of an affordable living situation. Butler disagrees saying that this is only one reason. Braithwaite is against. He is agreement to changes in the ordinance for more flexibility and feels this does not meet the need.
• Ms Schramm: Most people who rent their basement do it to make ends meet. They don’t have the funding to retrofit to meet Highland’s ordinance. She recommends redefining “Family” (2 adults 18 years old or older) etc.
• Mayor: Family means cannot be limited to less than 4 people according to state law. So, you could have an owner and 3 unrelated. Our ordinance is too restrictive according to the state law.
• Attorney: No liability for changing the definition of a family. He suggests occupancy limits, then we may have constitutional issues for limiting family size. Laws are designed to protect to the weakest in our society. Theoretically, you could have someone renting out their home with one family (1 adult, 3 unrelated adults, and kids) with up to 9 people in a one bedroom unit. Fire chief is concerned with occupancy limits for rentals.
• Mr. John Park (City Administrator): The current ordinance discriminates against those already finished basements.
Motion made to adopt the definition: Moved and seconded. Attorney said this is illegal because it does not meet the state definition. Substitute motion made to continue it. First and seconded….motion carried.
• Revised “Family-An individual or 2 or more persons related by blood, marriage, or adoption, living together in a single dwelling unit. A family may include 2 persons and their children not related to the residing family and living with the home owner. The term family shall not be constructed to mean a group of non-related individuals, a fraternity, club, or institution group” This is still under advisement.
• MOTION – Approval of a Subdivision Maintenance Plan and lifting of the moratorium for
open space agreements for the Canterbury Circle and Greenland Mountain Vista subdivisions. They want to be exempted from the open space agreement requirements. The city is proposing writing the agreement so that it can still be applicable in 5-7 years from now.
• The Home owners want to responsible for Maintenance for portions of it (4000 square feet up to 1 acre for lots 1-14). All lots need to enter into the agreement all at once to allow for all homeowners to have access to the entire lot of land. This land was supposed to also be used as a trail, and homeowners are not wishing to have a trial behind their homes. It would require the permission of the property owners to use it as a trail and cannot use Eminent Domain. However, the map for trails already exists and the homeowners need to know that at a future time there would be a trail (?).
• Greenland Mountain Vista: Originally had an Equestrian trail planned and has been construction. This is an easement and is not owned by city. If the Murdoch Connector gets constructed, this trail may not be needed. This is for lots 2-4 and home owners be responsible for 2000-4000 sq feet. City suggests abandoned this land. This is not like any other open space area.
• Ed ? : deferred to a Stan Phillips from Cantebury subdivision. When he bought the property, the open space was for horses and there was not mention of a trail. The owners now have an uncared for piece of property. The developer did not follow through. These people pay a maintenance fee to the city and are not getting the maintenance. There already is a trail in their park, why put another trail behind the same homes that front the city park. Homeowners want to maintain the property and no trail.
• Ed (?): Went over the city code. Improvements need to abide by open space plan. This will not cover any existing structures. No permanent structures. He recommends that the city provide the Moratorium. Let the people apply for open space maintenance by home owners. It would not be deeded to the homeowners.
• Mr. Smith: So, asking for a moratorium on the agreement so that homeowners maintain it and relieve the city of this ‘burden’.
• Motion made to separate the two subdivisions and approve subdivision Maintenance plan for Cantebury. Motion carried. On the Greenland Mtn Vista: recommend giving the property back and abandon the easement. The staff to look into it. Motion to work with residents these lots to allow residents rights to landscape their property per city admin. Seconded. Motion carried.
DISCUSSION – FY2011 Highland Fling Budget – John Park, City Administrator
• Ron Jewett presented plan. Budget is for $35,000.00. This is like seed money and try to have each event make back 50% more than what it costs. He projects the city will get 12-15,000 back, so the actual cost is less. The goal is to have it be a zero-budget item in a few years.
o Mr. Butler: what did it cost us and what did we make back last year.
Mr. Jewitt: Same events last year but better? Last year $18,035 net cost. $35,000 was allocated and the city made back $12,000.00. Mr. Jewett states there are ways to save money in many of the events. Once the sponsor realizes it is a good option for them, then sponsors will come. Last year, one person did the work, this year there will be a committee will be made back. He is hoping to gain $20,000.00 this year.
Mr. Jewitt learned that he is chairman for 4 years.
Ms Schramm asked if they could do it for $30,000 since the city has cut so many things this year. Mr. Jewitt said yes, but something would be cut. He says he needs $35,000.00 to start, but much comes back.
ORDINANCE – Amending the Highland City Development Code Section 5-4-300: Major Subdivision Option and Chapter 5-10: Amending a Recorded Plat to remove the public hearing requirements for preliminary plats and modifying the review process for final plats.
Removed requirement for public hearing for preliminary plats,
City council approve preliminary plats
CC approval of final plats
Still have public input
Concurrent review for …..(they took the slide away….sorry)
Essentially delineates legislative and administrative actions of the Council.
What is a subdivision(divide land)
What is the role of the City: public safety, health, welfare and zoning.
The state requires approval of applicant if they meet all the requirements. If they meet the codes whether we like the applicant or not (No one mentioned it, but I am thinking of the Tuscana issue).
o State law requires a public meeting but not public input.
Plans:
o Concept Plan (does it meet code or not)
o Preliminary Plat: fatal flaw analysis, preliminary Infrastructure, design-Lot Layout, Street Location, Widths etc Regulation Conformance.
o Final Plat: Civil Engineering Drawings, Regulation Conformance, Right-of-way and Easement Dedications.
Current Review Process:
o Concept: DRC and Adjacent Property Notification happens
o Preliminary Platt
Planning Commission Public Hearing
o Final Plat: Planning commission to City Council and public meeting.
o So where is the appropriate place for CC input. Because the comments are coming in the Final plat, the developers were having to change things at the last minute at great expense.
Proposed:
Concept
Preliminary:
o Preliminary Planning Commission
o City Council Meeting
o Preapplication
Final Plat
o Preapplication if necessary
o City Council meeting
Non-residential, apartment, condominiums, townhome subdivision.
Site plan approval before plat approval
Facilitate economic development
So, it looks like they are trying to fix the process that was notably flawed for the Tuscana issue.
Planning Commission did hold a public meeting regarding these changes, Ms. Schramm had issues at that time.
Comments from the Council: If there a controversial issue, maybe able to insert a public meeting. Can open to public comment. DRC is the only time for public comment is in the daytime. We need to have public comment…there is a lot of ‘shall’ words. It seems like we have no choice than to be approval. We don’t have a lot of discretion in the project. The only difference is that we can have public comment in Planning Commission and at City Council. Ms. Schramm suggested that they be invited to DRC to keep them informed (she gave the example of someone asking her about the arrival of Artic Circle and she was unaware of it). Mr. Braithwaite states that many were struck and wanted to know why. He feels that having additional eyes can only help the procedure. He states that there is opportunity for public input. He feels it makes it more difficult for the applicant. He wanted to know who gets notified (neighbors and applicant). The old code provided for this reportedly. What happens if turned down and re-file. How long is the re-file good for? Again, the old code provided with. Clarification from Nathan about sections that would remain. Apparently CC only got a copy of the copy with only the suggested changes.
Staff will need to make sure that Staff accomplishes everything in the DRC. The CC will have 2 opportunities to make sure all requirements are met. If applicant meets requirements, neither Planning Committee nor CC can disapprove it. They want another public hearing back in…..suggested after Planning Commission. (This means our group may need to send someone to Planning Commission so that we can be alerted to possible unwanted projects and attending the public meeting before it gets to City Council as the only Public Hearing will occur between the two meetings).
Ms Schramm: motion to insert into procedure that a public hearing be on the Preliminary Platt at the City Council. Motion failed.
Mr. Butler: City Council amend 504-300 etc maintaining public hearing at Planning commission and keep preliminary and final plats at CC. Seconded. Mr. Braithwaite : substitute motion: give a list of concerns to “Nathan” to address and continue until next meeting to clearly identify for the CC. Moved and seconded. Motion carries.
REPORT – Lone Peak Public Safety District (Police) – Larry Mendenhall:
Total of over 700 incidences:
68 alarm calls
100 animal problems
16 criminal mischief
Others 10 or less.
No real “high crimes” due to officers, populations, and the good citizens.
Police Dog: Reached the monetary goal to purchase the dog. So next week they will visit 2 kennels in the US that provide this type of specially trained job. Other issues need to be dealt with before the dog can be utilized as envisioned. Police Chief thanked all that contributed to this worthy cause.
Mr. Park gave a proposed budget calendar for 2011 to avoid “crunch time” before the deadline. Will have a preliminary budget by March15, 2011. Then April 5th the City Council comments. Will kick off the new website hopefully with this budgetary process. On April 19, 2011 will be a public open house on the proposed budget. The information from this meeting would be brought on May3, 2011. June 7th would be a legal public hearing. Adopt budget on June 21, 2011 (due June 25th). These are proposed dates only. He wants to get as much public input as possible….yea for that!
Meeting adjourned.
Friday, November 5, 2010
Nov. 3, 2010 City Council Meeting
Highland City Council Meeting
November 3, 2010 7:00 PM - ???
I attended the session from7:00 PM until 9:50 PM at which time the City Council and Mayor went into Executive Session. They were expected to be 1 hour, at which point I came home.
Community Issues:
Mary Lowe - Highland Citizen, addressed the Council. She indicated her backyard bordered a major road and asked that consideration be given whereby she could build a 6’ high privacy fence. Request being considered.
Kent Gibson – Highland Citizen, addressed the Council. He made the identical same request as Mary Lowe above. Request being considered.
Michael Smith – Highland Citizen and student at Lone Peak addressed the Council. He indicated the curb has been painted red on the road that loops behind the high school and wanted to know if he would be ticketed if he parked curbside. It was decided that the curb had been painted red in error and that he could park curbside without fear of a ticket. The City will sandblast the red paint off the curb.
Minutes:
October 19, 2010 – City Council Work Session. After some discussion and correction to the written record the minutes were approved.
October 19, 2010 – Regular City Council Meeting. After some discussion and correction to the written record the minutes were approved.
Scheduled Items:
Motion:
Chris Lee and wife – Future Potential Highland Residents have placed an offer on Lot 8 in the Hyde Estates. This is on a court. There is an existing trail that goes right thru the middle of the court. The City wanted the garage placed (side entry garage) such that it would force the residents to drive out of their driveway instead of backing out of the driveway. According to the City this would be safer for the pedestrians using the trail. Councilman (CM) Braithwaite said public safety was king and the stipulation should not be waived. Tom Butler said we have been surrendering our freedoms for 10 years now, private property was king, and that the side entry garage stipulation should be waived. Hikers should have enough common sense to look both ways before crossing the court and that if they were struck by an auto driven by the Lee family then that is what insurance is for. Butler gets my vote in the future. The council waived the stipulation.
Motion:
The site plan and architectural plan for a new Walgreens retail store complete with a drive-thru located on Lot 6 (northwest corner of SR92 and the Alpine Highway) was approved by the Council.
Ordinance:
Amending Section 3-612, Fences, Walls and Hedges, relating to fencing requirements for property adjacent to arterial, collector streets, and open space areas, fencing between different uses, and fencing design requirements.
Current fencing regulations have led to several concerns from property owners with homes that abut open spaces and are either adjacent to or in close proximity to a public street or active open space area. The concerns expressed have focused on privacy and security issues. The Open Space Committee is recommending that the fencing requirements be changed to allow 6’ opaque fences adjacent to main transportation corridors and open space areas greater than fifty feet in width.
The police chief was not in favor indicating such a fence, which blocks the view of the back of the Barbecoa Fast Food Franchise made it easy for that particular establishment to recently be burglarized. CM Braithwaite felt a 4’ high fence with another 2’ of open fencing would be sufficient for property owners and that that would allow police and other neighbors to monitor each other’s property. He also felt that this kind of a fence would result in safer trails, where open spaces were fenced on both sides. He argued that open spaces fenced on both sides were not safe as they became alleyways and no one from the outside could see in and monitor the well being of pedestrians. CM Tom Butler than spoke his piece. He again said private property is king. If the owner wanted a 6’ opaque fence for privacy issues than he should be able to have it. CM Butler said crime concerns in the “alleyways” could be controlled if more residents got their conceal carry permits or even open carried their weapons. He said people that wanted to leave their private property and travel the public trails should accept some responsibility for their own safety and well-being. CM Smith indicated 50 feet was a lot of real estate and that that should be brought down to 40 feet.
The fencing regulation as proposed two paragraphs above was adopted except that the 50 feet will be changed to 40’.
Motion:
Adopting a new Open Space Agreement & Application for Improvement of open space. An open space agreement allows a resident, in certain circumstances, the ability to landscape a portion of the City owned open space…this would typically appear as the extension of someone’s back yard. A moratorium was placed on additional open space agreements on August 3, 2010 until it could be reviewed and possibly amended.
There was a lot of discussion led by CM Smith. He was in favor of waiving the $240 annual fee as the resident who did the landscaping would then take care of it, reducing the burden on the City, who wouldn’t do as good a job of keeping it up as the private resident probably would do. It was decided by the rest of the council however that there wasn’t enough data collected to make that determination. The new Open Space Agreement is going to be adopted. The annual fees will remain in place until enough data is collected to allow a logical determination as to whether it should be waived at some time in the future or not.
Jim S.
November 3, 2010 7:00 PM - ???
I attended the session from7:00 PM until 9:50 PM at which time the City Council and Mayor went into Executive Session. They were expected to be 1 hour, at which point I came home.
Community Issues:
Mary Lowe - Highland Citizen, addressed the Council. She indicated her backyard bordered a major road and asked that consideration be given whereby she could build a 6’ high privacy fence. Request being considered.
Kent Gibson – Highland Citizen, addressed the Council. He made the identical same request as Mary Lowe above. Request being considered.
Michael Smith – Highland Citizen and student at Lone Peak addressed the Council. He indicated the curb has been painted red on the road that loops behind the high school and wanted to know if he would be ticketed if he parked curbside. It was decided that the curb had been painted red in error and that he could park curbside without fear of a ticket. The City will sandblast the red paint off the curb.
Minutes:
October 19, 2010 – City Council Work Session. After some discussion and correction to the written record the minutes were approved.
October 19, 2010 – Regular City Council Meeting. After some discussion and correction to the written record the minutes were approved.
Scheduled Items:
Motion:
Chris Lee and wife – Future Potential Highland Residents have placed an offer on Lot 8 in the Hyde Estates. This is on a court. There is an existing trail that goes right thru the middle of the court. The City wanted the garage placed (side entry garage) such that it would force the residents to drive out of their driveway instead of backing out of the driveway. According to the City this would be safer for the pedestrians using the trail. Councilman (CM) Braithwaite said public safety was king and the stipulation should not be waived. Tom Butler said we have been surrendering our freedoms for 10 years now, private property was king, and that the side entry garage stipulation should be waived. Hikers should have enough common sense to look both ways before crossing the court and that if they were struck by an auto driven by the Lee family then that is what insurance is for. Butler gets my vote in the future. The council waived the stipulation.
Motion:
The site plan and architectural plan for a new Walgreens retail store complete with a drive-thru located on Lot 6 (northwest corner of SR92 and the Alpine Highway) was approved by the Council.
Ordinance:
Amending Section 3-612, Fences, Walls and Hedges, relating to fencing requirements for property adjacent to arterial, collector streets, and open space areas, fencing between different uses, and fencing design requirements.
Current fencing regulations have led to several concerns from property owners with homes that abut open spaces and are either adjacent to or in close proximity to a public street or active open space area. The concerns expressed have focused on privacy and security issues. The Open Space Committee is recommending that the fencing requirements be changed to allow 6’ opaque fences adjacent to main transportation corridors and open space areas greater than fifty feet in width.
The police chief was not in favor indicating such a fence, which blocks the view of the back of the Barbecoa Fast Food Franchise made it easy for that particular establishment to recently be burglarized. CM Braithwaite felt a 4’ high fence with another 2’ of open fencing would be sufficient for property owners and that that would allow police and other neighbors to monitor each other’s property. He also felt that this kind of a fence would result in safer trails, where open spaces were fenced on both sides. He argued that open spaces fenced on both sides were not safe as they became alleyways and no one from the outside could see in and monitor the well being of pedestrians. CM Tom Butler than spoke his piece. He again said private property is king. If the owner wanted a 6’ opaque fence for privacy issues than he should be able to have it. CM Butler said crime concerns in the “alleyways” could be controlled if more residents got their conceal carry permits or even open carried their weapons. He said people that wanted to leave their private property and travel the public trails should accept some responsibility for their own safety and well-being. CM Smith indicated 50 feet was a lot of real estate and that that should be brought down to 40 feet.
The fencing regulation as proposed two paragraphs above was adopted except that the 50 feet will be changed to 40’.
Motion:
Adopting a new Open Space Agreement & Application for Improvement of open space. An open space agreement allows a resident, in certain circumstances, the ability to landscape a portion of the City owned open space…this would typically appear as the extension of someone’s back yard. A moratorium was placed on additional open space agreements on August 3, 2010 until it could be reviewed and possibly amended.
There was a lot of discussion led by CM Smith. He was in favor of waiving the $240 annual fee as the resident who did the landscaping would then take care of it, reducing the burden on the City, who wouldn’t do as good a job of keeping it up as the private resident probably would do. It was decided by the rest of the council however that there wasn’t enough data collected to make that determination. The new Open Space Agreement is going to be adopted. The annual fees will remain in place until enough data is collected to allow a logical determination as to whether it should be waived at some time in the future or not.
Jim S.
Thursday, October 21, 2010
City Council Oct. 19, 2010
Thanks to Jill C. for this.
Last night, I attended the CC Meeting. Here is my summary of what was discussed:
I. Four citizens made appearances at the beginning:
1. Gerald Omer: lives in a rental that backs up to a public trail. He maintains his area of the trail, but is concerned about debris, concrete chunks, and other misc. that has been showing up on the other parts of the trail. Wanted to know if the city could do a once a year clean up, or post signs.
2. Gina Brown: She stated that money from the city has been set aside for landscaping a hill in the ViewPoint Hill area. She wanted to know if the neighbors could have some input/help plan what is to be landscaped on this hill. Response by John Park (City Administrator): Sprinklers have been put in place. It is a very steep hill and they are looking at planting wildflowers.
3. Kip Gibson: (from Beacon Hills area). Wanted to know if they have revised the fence ordinance and if he was on an upcoming agenda or if there was an update. Response from Nathan Crane (Comm. Dev. Dir.): It is on the Planning Commission Agenda next week. They will work on the proposed ordinance, then it will be come back to the City Council.
II. There was no Public Hearing. It was cancelled because there was no 10 day notice given.
III. Presentation- Annual Library Report (Presented by Kent Slade):
Last year, they had over 6000 borrowers (1/3 of the city). 166k items were circulated. Their goal was to have 25k items and they've exceeded that goal and now have over 29k items catalogued. They have circulated 449 items from other libraries. They've had over 9300 uses on their computers. Over 3,000 children used their Children's Programs. In October 2011 they can submit for a Certified Library and then patrons can use other libraries. This has been their first FULL year of service. We can compare our library size to Payson and Brighm City. They are in need of new staff and money for materials. The videos wear out very quickly. They have a very energetic Library Board. Brian B. asked about goals. Mr. Slade answered that their long range plan is to become State Certified. They have met their goals for this, now it is just waiting time. Scott S. stated that the library is almost built out. In future we'll need to make a plan. Mr. Slade stated that if they could get $10k in next year's budget, they would be able to hire one PT staff.
The question was then brought up about the library fees, and where were they going? Lynn Ruff stated that they money can go back to the Library Foundation. The Mayor requested that the above statistics be mailed to himself and the CC members.
IV. CC Minutes from 10/5/10: A few grammatical changes to the minutes (from Kathryn S). Minutes were adopted and approved.
V. Open Space Improvement (this was the longest portion of the meeting):
Here is the history taken from last night's agenda:
BACKGROUND:
On June 15, 2010 the City Council approved an Open Space Improvement application submitted by
Robert Boyer for property located at 4071 West Park Circle in the View Pointe Subdivision.
On July 20, 2010 Debbie Kinjo, a View Pointe Subdivision resident appeared before the City Council
regarding this approval and asked the application be reconsidered. At the July 20, 2010 meeting Mayor
Ritchie noted correctly that Matt Shipp was working with Mr. Boyer to suspend the agreement until
the Open Space Committee has time to address this and other issues on Open Space agreements. Mr.
Shipp informed Mr. Boyer via e-mail on July 20 that his open space agreement was rescinded.
• Staff has been told that Mr. Boyer intends on planting trees in the open space area the weekend
of October 16, 2010.
• A few neighbors in the View Pointe subdivision have contacted member(s) of the City Council
concerning lack of proper notification of the surrounding neighbors.
• The City Council is working with the Open Space committee to establish details to allow open
space agreements based on individual circumstances unique to every open space subdivision.
• The open space agreement dated May 27, 2010 states the following in paragraph seven of the
agreement, “City may in its sole discretion require the removal of said improvements at any
time”.
• Although the City Council did inform Mr. Shipp to work with Mr. Boyer to not allow the
improvements until they have a chance to rework the open space policy, Council never took
formal action.
• At least one member of the City Council has expressed concern that the Council was not
properly informed that the improvements were to take place on open space that was previously
improved.
On October 13, 2010 the City Administrator contacted Mr. Boyer via e-mail asking Mr. Boyer to not
improve the open space the weekend of October 16th in order to allow time for the City Council to
officially review this application.
Back on June 15, when Mr. Boyer submitted his original landscape plan and request to plant on the Open Space behind his home, the plan had included bushes, flower beds, and many trees. The city council told him that he could just plant the trees. According to Mr. Boyer, he had contacted several of the neighbors before talking to the city and they were ok with his plan. After the city approved his plans, the neighbors decided that they didn't want the trees in their open space. The reasons they cited were 1) it would block their views, and 2) it would take up too much space in the Open Space that they all share, and 3) it would be used as a fence for privacy and they don't want fences. After receiving complaints from the neighbors, the city asked Mr. Boyer to not plant the trees until something could be worked out.
Within the last week, several of the City Council Members went and looked at all of the homes locations, the height of the homes, the size of the open space, etc. Mr. Boyer came to the meeting last night ready to revise his landscaping plan to include 6 trees (3 maples, and 3 dwarf blue spruce) which he had already purchased. He wanted to plant all 6 of them 5' off of the back of his property line on the Open Space property. There were several neighbors there and they didn't want that. After MUCH discussion between the City Council members and all of the neighbors, it was decided by the City Council that he can plant 3 trees (of any variety) no more than 5' off of his property and the other 3 trees will have to go on his own property. After this decision was made, the Mayor gave a plea to the neighbors to not let something so small as this mar the relationships they have with one another. The final vote from the CC was: "Yes" Tom, Kathryn, Scott; "No" Larry and Brian.
VI. Communication Items:
1. Lone Peak Public Safety & Police Report (by Larry Mendenhall):
Larry read a bunch of statistics:
Last month they responded to 421 public generated calls and 355 officer generated calls. They did 68 traffic stops, and reponded to 20 medical calls. In Alpine there were 22 animal calls and 22 for Highland. There were 13 abandoned 911 calls in Alpine and 20 abandoned 911 calls in Highland.
Kathy Loveland is our Victim Assistant. She assists citizens in community paperwork, provides leadership, listening ear, and helps family members when there is a death (until other family members arrive).
Chief Botkin recommends that for greater safety we lock up our homes, shut garage doors, and keep animals locked up.
2. Cedar Hills Boundary Adjustment (presented by John Park):
Cedar Hills wants some of our property. They are calling it a "Boundary Adjustment" which is similar to an "Annexation". Part of the property that Cedar Hills wants from us includes their golf course and the Highland Hill by the GC and some county property on SR-92.
Scott S. stated that we need to keep in mind the properties that could some day be developed for a tax base. John Park (City Adm) stated that our city neighbors to the east and west are aggressively expanding their commercial tax bases and we get all of the headache (traffic, etc) and none of the benefits.
What Cedar Hills wants will leave a penninsula for Highland, which by state law should not be done.
Kathryn reminded us that Zone #2 is a "Well Protection Site".
Tom wanted to know if this is a land swap, or is Cedar Hills just wanting our land.
Mayor said that we will send 2 CC members, the city adm. and himself to meet with 2 of their CC members, city adm. and mayor. Kathryn and Brian volunteered to be a part of this committee.
3. Future Work Session (presented by Mayor Ritchie) will be Nov. 3. Nov. 16th the County is invited to go through the Interlocal Agreement. It is very detailed and they need to go through it before it gets put on an agenda. Larry wanted to know why we need to do an Audit Work Session. Kathryn stated that she wants more transparency. $700k and $900k were supposed to be paid to Highland and she want to make sure they were depostied.
John talked about Exaction Fees: There is a contractor (interested in some developing in Highland--I think he said) who wants a session concerning these fees. A work session was set up for Dec. 16th 5:00 before the CC Mtg.
4. Last June, the CC was informed that the monthly water bills (for every citizen) have been $5.02 short for the last 5-7 years. That ends up being $18k short per month and a $215k per year loss. We haven't been running in the red, but because of this, our reserves are not as high as they should be. Last June, it was decided that , since the taxes had already been raised, that they would not raise the water bill yet and wait until the next budget session (in July 2011). Now, there is a need for a new pump. It will take a month before Matt Shipp can get the pump out of the ground to see what it will take to repair it (costs would range from $10k to $200k). Kathryn was very adamant about not raising the fees without public notice. They will discuss this more after they find out how much the repair bill will be. The Public Hearing will be determined at a future time.
Last night, I attended the CC Meeting. Here is my summary of what was discussed:
I. Four citizens made appearances at the beginning:
1. Gerald Omer: lives in a rental that backs up to a public trail. He maintains his area of the trail, but is concerned about debris, concrete chunks, and other misc. that has been showing up on the other parts of the trail. Wanted to know if the city could do a once a year clean up, or post signs.
2. Gina Brown: She stated that money from the city has been set aside for landscaping a hill in the ViewPoint Hill area. She wanted to know if the neighbors could have some input/help plan what is to be landscaped on this hill. Response by John Park (City Administrator): Sprinklers have been put in place. It is a very steep hill and they are looking at planting wildflowers.
3. Kip Gibson: (from Beacon Hills area). Wanted to know if they have revised the fence ordinance and if he was on an upcoming agenda or if there was an update. Response from Nathan Crane (Comm. Dev. Dir.): It is on the Planning Commission Agenda next week. They will work on the proposed ordinance, then it will be come back to the City Council.
II. There was no Public Hearing. It was cancelled because there was no 10 day notice given.
III. Presentation- Annual Library Report (Presented by Kent Slade):
Last year, they had over 6000 borrowers (1/3 of the city). 166k items were circulated. Their goal was to have 25k items and they've exceeded that goal and now have over 29k items catalogued. They have circulated 449 items from other libraries. They've had over 9300 uses on their computers. Over 3,000 children used their Children's Programs. In October 2011 they can submit for a Certified Library and then patrons can use other libraries. This has been their first FULL year of service. We can compare our library size to Payson and Brighm City. They are in need of new staff and money for materials. The videos wear out very quickly. They have a very energetic Library Board. Brian B. asked about goals. Mr. Slade answered that their long range plan is to become State Certified. They have met their goals for this, now it is just waiting time. Scott S. stated that the library is almost built out. In future we'll need to make a plan. Mr. Slade stated that if they could get $10k in next year's budget, they would be able to hire one PT staff.
The question was then brought up about the library fees, and where were they going? Lynn Ruff stated that they money can go back to the Library Foundation. The Mayor requested that the above statistics be mailed to himself and the CC members.
IV. CC Minutes from 10/5/10: A few grammatical changes to the minutes (from Kathryn S). Minutes were adopted and approved.
V. Open Space Improvement (this was the longest portion of the meeting):
Here is the history taken from last night's agenda:
BACKGROUND:
On June 15, 2010 the City Council approved an Open Space Improvement application submitted by
Robert Boyer for property located at 4071 West Park Circle in the View Pointe Subdivision.
On July 20, 2010 Debbie Kinjo, a View Pointe Subdivision resident appeared before the City Council
regarding this approval and asked the application be reconsidered. At the July 20, 2010 meeting Mayor
Ritchie noted correctly that Matt Shipp was working with Mr. Boyer to suspend the agreement until
the Open Space Committee has time to address this and other issues on Open Space agreements. Mr.
Shipp informed Mr. Boyer via e-mail on July 20 that his open space agreement was rescinded.
• Staff has been told that Mr. Boyer intends on planting trees in the open space area the weekend
of October 16, 2010.
• A few neighbors in the View Pointe subdivision have contacted member(s) of the City Council
concerning lack of proper notification of the surrounding neighbors.
• The City Council is working with the Open Space committee to establish details to allow open
space agreements based on individual circumstances unique to every open space subdivision.
• The open space agreement dated May 27, 2010 states the following in paragraph seven of the
agreement, “City may in its sole discretion require the removal of said improvements at any
time”.
• Although the City Council did inform Mr. Shipp to work with Mr. Boyer to not allow the
improvements until they have a chance to rework the open space policy, Council never took
formal action.
• At least one member of the City Council has expressed concern that the Council was not
properly informed that the improvements were to take place on open space that was previously
improved.
On October 13, 2010 the City Administrator contacted Mr. Boyer via e-mail asking Mr. Boyer to not
improve the open space the weekend of October 16th in order to allow time for the City Council to
officially review this application.
Back on June 15, when Mr. Boyer submitted his original landscape plan and request to plant on the Open Space behind his home, the plan had included bushes, flower beds, and many trees. The city council told him that he could just plant the trees. According to Mr. Boyer, he had contacted several of the neighbors before talking to the city and they were ok with his plan. After the city approved his plans, the neighbors decided that they didn't want the trees in their open space. The reasons they cited were 1) it would block their views, and 2) it would take up too much space in the Open Space that they all share, and 3) it would be used as a fence for privacy and they don't want fences. After receiving complaints from the neighbors, the city asked Mr. Boyer to not plant the trees until something could be worked out.
Within the last week, several of the City Council Members went and looked at all of the homes locations, the height of the homes, the size of the open space, etc. Mr. Boyer came to the meeting last night ready to revise his landscaping plan to include 6 trees (3 maples, and 3 dwarf blue spruce) which he had already purchased. He wanted to plant all 6 of them 5' off of the back of his property line on the Open Space property. There were several neighbors there and they didn't want that. After MUCH discussion between the City Council members and all of the neighbors, it was decided by the City Council that he can plant 3 trees (of any variety) no more than 5' off of his property and the other 3 trees will have to go on his own property. After this decision was made, the Mayor gave a plea to the neighbors to not let something so small as this mar the relationships they have with one another. The final vote from the CC was: "Yes" Tom, Kathryn, Scott; "No" Larry and Brian.
VI. Communication Items:
1. Lone Peak Public Safety & Police Report (by Larry Mendenhall):
Larry read a bunch of statistics:
Last month they responded to 421 public generated calls and 355 officer generated calls. They did 68 traffic stops, and reponded to 20 medical calls. In Alpine there were 22 animal calls and 22 for Highland. There were 13 abandoned 911 calls in Alpine and 20 abandoned 911 calls in Highland.
Kathy Loveland is our Victim Assistant. She assists citizens in community paperwork, provides leadership, listening ear, and helps family members when there is a death (until other family members arrive).
Chief Botkin recommends that for greater safety we lock up our homes, shut garage doors, and keep animals locked up.
2. Cedar Hills Boundary Adjustment (presented by John Park):
Cedar Hills wants some of our property. They are calling it a "Boundary Adjustment" which is similar to an "Annexation". Part of the property that Cedar Hills wants from us includes their golf course and the Highland Hill by the GC and some county property on SR-92.
Scott S. stated that we need to keep in mind the properties that could some day be developed for a tax base. John Park (City Adm) stated that our city neighbors to the east and west are aggressively expanding their commercial tax bases and we get all of the headache (traffic, etc) and none of the benefits.
What Cedar Hills wants will leave a penninsula for Highland, which by state law should not be done.
Kathryn reminded us that Zone #2 is a "Well Protection Site".
Tom wanted to know if this is a land swap, or is Cedar Hills just wanting our land.
Mayor said that we will send 2 CC members, the city adm. and himself to meet with 2 of their CC members, city adm. and mayor. Kathryn and Brian volunteered to be a part of this committee.
3. Future Work Session (presented by Mayor Ritchie) will be Nov. 3. Nov. 16th the County is invited to go through the Interlocal Agreement. It is very detailed and they need to go through it before it gets put on an agenda. Larry wanted to know why we need to do an Audit Work Session. Kathryn stated that she wants more transparency. $700k and $900k were supposed to be paid to Highland and she want to make sure they were depostied.
John talked about Exaction Fees: There is a contractor (interested in some developing in Highland--I think he said) who wants a session concerning these fees. A work session was set up for Dec. 16th 5:00 before the CC Mtg.
4. Last June, the CC was informed that the monthly water bills (for every citizen) have been $5.02 short for the last 5-7 years. That ends up being $18k short per month and a $215k per year loss. We haven't been running in the red, but because of this, our reserves are not as high as they should be. Last June, it was decided that , since the taxes had already been raised, that they would not raise the water bill yet and wait until the next budget session (in July 2011). Now, there is a need for a new pump. It will take a month before Matt Shipp can get the pump out of the ground to see what it will take to repair it (costs would range from $10k to $200k). Kathryn was very adamant about not raising the fees without public notice. They will discuss this more after they find out how much the repair bill will be. The Public Hearing will be determined at a future time.
Tuesday, August 17, 2010
City Council Meeting 8/17/2010
Hi All:
There were two huge things discussed tonight:
First, approving a contract for the Murdock Connector Highway. It was approved. See my notes. Basically, if the highway costs more than $4 million, Highland City carries ALL costs.
Second, approving expenditures to make the former City Building ADA compliant. $66K approved. I think this is ridiculous.
*********************************
Highland City Council Meeting
August 17th, 2010, 7:00pm
Open Petitions:
1. A woman petitioned for the city to consider reducing building permit fees. She is building a windmill on her property, and has a $260 building permit fee and a $480 conditional use fee (I think because the pole is 45 feet high?)
2. A man showing his support, and also those of his neighbors, for agenda item #7 regarding remodeling the former city hall per ADA requirements. They would like to see it as a building for use of dance recitals and other community events.
Motion: Perpetual Easement on Property to the rear of the former Highland Water Company.
Global Signal Acquisitions has requested to perpetually lease the property. They would essentially purchase it for $223,000. Currently, the income is $16,512/annually. The city would not ever need access to the land. It was recommended by the City Commissioner to table it until they get further information because he feels they have incomplete information. Motion made to continue this item when all information is gathered.
Motion: Approve or Deny the request from Alpine School District for a water requirement reduction for the 9600 N, 6900 W subdivision.
Alpine School District currently owns the subdivision, which consists of 3 lots. One lot is owned by the LDS church, which has already had the requirement waved. The School District asked for the requirement to be waved on the other 2 lots (which are asphalt roadway).
This would set a precedent for excluding waving the water reduction requirements on roads.
My comment: this seems a bit ridiculous. Of course roads should not have a watering requirement.
Moved: to deny the request. Seconded.
Motion: Approving the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Utah County for the Highway project known as “Murdock Connector”.
Utah County will reimburse $186,605 of design work purchased by Highland City. Utah County will not reimburse Highland City until they sign the contract.
Utah County obligates Highland City over $4 million dollars for the highway. The city will own the highway and be responsible for maintenance.
A debate ensued for a long time concerning assuming the cost over $4 million on the road. One council member believes the road will cost about $8 million. Another city council member believes this is a great way to get a very good road that we need anyway, and at least we get part of it, if not all, paid for.
Motion to accept the contract, seconded. Ammendment proposed to have $4 million dollars clarified—how exactly will that be spent. Seconded. All in favor.
Motion: Authorizing expenditures as a capital priority to remodel the former City Hall per ADA requirements.
Cities exist to better the residents. We need a gathering place. We need a way to encourage kids to get off the couch and participate, to interact. Two grand pianos have gone unused and been ruined. There is no place to gather for senior citizens. If we have recitals/family events, grandparents will attend. It must be ADA compliant. Arts Council promises to do fundraising for any other costs above making the building ADA complaint. They would not come back to the city for additional funding.
Utilities, paid for by the city, would be about $4000/year. The possibility was raised of recouping that money through rental costs of the rooms in the building.
Is the cash flow good enough for us to do that? $33,000 would come from capital building fund. The rest would come from the general fund.
One Council Member expressed concern that the Highland City has been in crisis mode for the past year and agreed not to discuss this for six months, yet it’s only been two. He believes would should be conservative and wait. He is concerned that this building will simply be a place for the Arts Council and not a community center. He mentioned that the Pointe Academy could work with the Arts Council to use their rooms. Let’s look at the options.
Motion made by Larry Mendenhall to approve the expenditure.
Discussion: City Managers says they feel comfortable with cash flow in approving this request.
Approved.
There were two huge things discussed tonight:
First, approving a contract for the Murdock Connector Highway. It was approved. See my notes. Basically, if the highway costs more than $4 million, Highland City carries ALL costs.
Second, approving expenditures to make the former City Building ADA compliant. $66K approved. I think this is ridiculous.
*********************************
Highland City Council Meeting
August 17th, 2010, 7:00pm
Open Petitions:
1. A woman petitioned for the city to consider reducing building permit fees. She is building a windmill on her property, and has a $260 building permit fee and a $480 conditional use fee (I think because the pole is 45 feet high?)
2. A man showing his support, and also those of his neighbors, for agenda item #7 regarding remodeling the former city hall per ADA requirements. They would like to see it as a building for use of dance recitals and other community events.
Motion: Perpetual Easement on Property to the rear of the former Highland Water Company.
Global Signal Acquisitions has requested to perpetually lease the property. They would essentially purchase it for $223,000. Currently, the income is $16,512/annually. The city would not ever need access to the land. It was recommended by the City Commissioner to table it until they get further information because he feels they have incomplete information. Motion made to continue this item when all information is gathered.
Motion: Approve or Deny the request from Alpine School District for a water requirement reduction for the 9600 N, 6900 W subdivision.
Alpine School District currently owns the subdivision, which consists of 3 lots. One lot is owned by the LDS church, which has already had the requirement waved. The School District asked for the requirement to be waved on the other 2 lots (which are asphalt roadway).
This would set a precedent for excluding waving the water reduction requirements on roads.
My comment: this seems a bit ridiculous. Of course roads should not have a watering requirement.
Moved: to deny the request. Seconded.
Motion: Approving the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement with Utah County for the Highway project known as “Murdock Connector”.
Utah County will reimburse $186,605 of design work purchased by Highland City. Utah County will not reimburse Highland City until they sign the contract.
Utah County obligates Highland City over $4 million dollars for the highway. The city will own the highway and be responsible for maintenance.
A debate ensued for a long time concerning assuming the cost over $4 million on the road. One council member believes the road will cost about $8 million. Another city council member believes this is a great way to get a very good road that we need anyway, and at least we get part of it, if not all, paid for.
Motion to accept the contract, seconded. Ammendment proposed to have $4 million dollars clarified—how exactly will that be spent. Seconded. All in favor.
Motion: Authorizing expenditures as a capital priority to remodel the former City Hall per ADA requirements.
Cities exist to better the residents. We need a gathering place. We need a way to encourage kids to get off the couch and participate, to interact. Two grand pianos have gone unused and been ruined. There is no place to gather for senior citizens. If we have recitals/family events, grandparents will attend. It must be ADA compliant. Arts Council promises to do fundraising for any other costs above making the building ADA complaint. They would not come back to the city for additional funding.
Utilities, paid for by the city, would be about $4000/year. The possibility was raised of recouping that money through rental costs of the rooms in the building.
Is the cash flow good enough for us to do that? $33,000 would come from capital building fund. The rest would come from the general fund.
One Council Member expressed concern that the Highland City has been in crisis mode for the past year and agreed not to discuss this for six months, yet it’s only been two. He believes would should be conservative and wait. He is concerned that this building will simply be a place for the Arts Council and not a community center. He mentioned that the Pointe Academy could work with the Arts Council to use their rooms. Let’s look at the options.
Motion made by Larry Mendenhall to approve the expenditure.
Discussion: City Managers says they feel comfortable with cash flow in approving this request.
Approved.
Wednesday, July 21, 2010
City Council Meeting Minutes 20 July 2010
by Devirl
It was a five-hour meeting but an important one for the Country Club Subdivision.
Appearances
1. Greg Parkinson, member of the Open Space Steering Committee (OSSC), spoke first. There is a new U-Haul storage facility in Highland. – Greg asked the City Council to tell the Planning Commission to verify the information an applicant gives them before approving anything. The picture shown to the PC was nothing like what is actually on the site. The buildings were never built and RV’s, boats etc. are being parked there without permission from the City. There are two problems.
a. No PC member visited the site and therefore the PC made an uniformed decision.
b. Enforcement issue - City is not enforcing its own regulations. NOTE: The City Development Director once told me (EDB) that enforcement wasn’t his (City Hall’s) job. They depend on the residents to point out infractions; reactive, not proactive. That assumes the residents know the law and take the initiative to report the problem. It’s been my experience that even when infractions are reported, the city historically does not respond well. I talked to Councilman Smith about this after the meeting. He’s had the same experience and the Council will move to improve on that. I suspect the new City Administrator, John Park, will get an assignment. By the way John came across in the meeting as quite knowledgeable and is not shy about speaking up.
2. Dave Hall, also a member of the OSSC, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance to allow street legal ATV’s to be operated on the city streets. The CC approved the new ordinance and directed Police Chief Botkin to enforce the ordinance ie pull over the ATV drivers and verify that the vehicle is street legal, the driver is licensed and over sixteen. Objective is get the “five year old ATV drivers” off the residential street. The chief said the police department will respond to calls from citizens.
3. Resident Compliant – Similar situation to #1 above: The City Council recently approved an application for a resident to landscape ten feet into an open space area. The applicant misrepresented the impact on the open space area and the neighbors No one actually went out and looked. Scott Smith took responsibility for the bad decision. The applicant’s neighbors complained to the Open Space Committee Monday and spoke at the CC meeting Tuesday. The approval is being rescinded. “This will not happen again.” said Smith.
At this point we were twenty minutes into a five-hour meeting and this report is on its way to being ten pages long. The rest of the notes will be much more cryptic. The meeting minutes will be on the website in about thirty days for those who want all the detail.
Agenda Items – not taken is sequence by the CC.
6.1 Tree Commission Report – Highland was given the Tree City USA award again for about the 12th year. Mayor Ritchie was very complimentary. We were one of just a couple cities that planted over 400 trees this year. The annual tree planting included 3 Eagle Scout projects, 132 volunteers, 258 volunteer hours, and about $8000 in grant money. I’m guessing the replacement value of the trees planted over the past ten years exceeds $3,000,000. Their value will triple in the next ten years.
7.1 & 7.2 Group Home and Elderly Home Ordinances passed. We, the residents in the Country Club Subdivision, received several complements and expressions of appreciation from the Mayor, three council persons and a couple members of the Planning Commission. Some of the comments were:
a. “You did work that we did not have to do.”
b. “This is a model ordinance for other cities to follow.”
c. “I read the ordinance very carefully and couldn’t find anything I would change.”
Larry Mendenhall of the old regime told me personally that they really thought there was nothing they could do but to approve the Makin application. He voted in favor of the new ordinance and was very happy to do so.
7.3 CC approved a temporary change to the Town Center development plan to limit the number of residences to 162 (Toscana Town Houses). The CC still has a lot of research and debate left concerning the town center development.
The CC had three difficult issues handed to them in January. A legal battle over a rehab facility, a large town house development that nobody wanted and a budget that had to be cut. In addition they have the SR-92 construction and the 4800 West widening going on. The covering of the Murdock Canal and the addition of a major trail have added significantly to their burden. They are working hard (the CC probably 20 hours a week each and mayor Ritchie 40+) and solving tough problems.
7.4 Street legal ATV on Highland streets. Alpine passed a similar ordinance 18 months ago and Chief Botkin said the police have not had an increase in accidents, etc. in Alpine.
7.? The CC discussed a farmer’s market for Highland. There was considerable deliberation. The CC was very careful to word it well. I think it got approved.
9.1 There was a serious safety issue so the CC approved a change to Wendy’s drive through traffic flow. “This is a big improvement.” Councilman Smith said he asked a U-DOT supervisor about putting a light in where Town Center Drive enters SR-92. He was told, “Do even talk to me about that.” Matt Shipp, City Engineer, shrugged his shoulders, bounced his head a couple times and said ”Don’t’ worry about it Scott. He says that to everyone. We’re working on it.”
8.1 Use of Highland City Hall for meetings. Tom Butler championed the reduction in use fee for the residents, pushed for longer hours and more availability. Tom said, the building belongs to the residents of Highland and they should be able to use it. He’s trying to make the building more accessible to the citizens. The new cost will be between $10 and $15 per hour and is open to everything but a religious meeting. Tom checked the insurance liability coverage and it’s not a problem. Councilman Smith wanted to verify Tom’s findings.
9.2 There is $460K earmarked for Beacon Hills Park. This is money that has already been collected from developers and can only be spent on the Beacon Hills park. The only problem is the money was collected and sort of moved around over the last couple years and $0 has been spent up there on grass, trees and facilities. The current CC budgeted some money for this and is collecting the funds. They approved $72K to be spent to finalize the plan and start making park like improvements. This has been dragging on for seven years. The current administration is working long overdue issues.
9.3 The CC approve $35K for sod for the Highland Hills Detention Pond. NOTE: The CC is acting in a fiscally responsible way. They check cash flow before funding budgeted projects. If the cash flow drops off they will delay projects that are in the budget. Remember, they cut 9.9% out of the city budget in order to balance the books going forward and to have a little money for long overdue projects. Matt Shipp is making a serious contribution to the city’s cash position by bringing work in house and cutting his budget.
5.1 The CC eliminated an ordinance pertaining to rock crushing outside the gravel pit. West Rock is crushing rock on site so the CC is acting proactively to eliminate the possibility of someone else coming along and setting us a rock crushing facility some where else in Highland. NOTE: West Rock pays Highland City about $12,000 a month for the rock they pull out of the pit. This will go on for another 5 to 10 years.
5.2 International Building Code was adopted by Highland City Council on a 3 to 2 vote. There were about eight companion codes that were included. One of them is the International Fire Code. NOTE: The only thing not specifically called out in the Group Home ordinance that we wanted was a reference to the IFC. The Group Home ordinance states that ”all applicable building and safety ordinances will apply”. We indirectly got the IFC too!! It can be done.
It was a long and successful night. The new administration is making a few minor mistakes BUT they are taking responsibility for them and moving quickly to rectify those errors and are taking steps to resolve many tough issues inherited from the previous administration.
Make it a point to attend the Planning Commission, Tree Commission, Open Space Steering Committee and/or the City Council meetings some time during the next six months. They are public meetings. They are often tedious but what is talked about affect all Highland residents one way or another. We all can make a difference.
It was a five-hour meeting but an important one for the Country Club Subdivision.
Appearances
1. Greg Parkinson, member of the Open Space Steering Committee (OSSC), spoke first. There is a new U-Haul storage facility in Highland. – Greg asked the City Council to tell the Planning Commission to verify the information an applicant gives them before approving anything. The picture shown to the PC was nothing like what is actually on the site. The buildings were never built and RV’s, boats etc. are being parked there without permission from the City. There are two problems.
a. No PC member visited the site and therefore the PC made an uniformed decision.
b. Enforcement issue - City is not enforcing its own regulations. NOTE: The City Development Director once told me (EDB) that enforcement wasn’t his (City Hall’s) job. They depend on the residents to point out infractions; reactive, not proactive. That assumes the residents know the law and take the initiative to report the problem. It’s been my experience that even when infractions are reported, the city historically does not respond well. I talked to Councilman Smith about this after the meeting. He’s had the same experience and the Council will move to improve on that. I suspect the new City Administrator, John Park, will get an assignment. By the way John came across in the meeting as quite knowledgeable and is not shy about speaking up.
2. Dave Hall, also a member of the OSSC, spoke in support of the proposed ordinance to allow street legal ATV’s to be operated on the city streets. The CC approved the new ordinance and directed Police Chief Botkin to enforce the ordinance ie pull over the ATV drivers and verify that the vehicle is street legal, the driver is licensed and over sixteen. Objective is get the “five year old ATV drivers” off the residential street. The chief said the police department will respond to calls from citizens.
3. Resident Compliant – Similar situation to #1 above: The City Council recently approved an application for a resident to landscape ten feet into an open space area. The applicant misrepresented the impact on the open space area and the neighbors No one actually went out and looked. Scott Smith took responsibility for the bad decision. The applicant’s neighbors complained to the Open Space Committee Monday and spoke at the CC meeting Tuesday. The approval is being rescinded. “This will not happen again.” said Smith.
At this point we were twenty minutes into a five-hour meeting and this report is on its way to being ten pages long. The rest of the notes will be much more cryptic. The meeting minutes will be on the website in about thirty days for those who want all the detail.
Agenda Items – not taken is sequence by the CC.
6.1 Tree Commission Report – Highland was given the Tree City USA award again for about the 12th year. Mayor Ritchie was very complimentary. We were one of just a couple cities that planted over 400 trees this year. The annual tree planting included 3 Eagle Scout projects, 132 volunteers, 258 volunteer hours, and about $8000 in grant money. I’m guessing the replacement value of the trees planted over the past ten years exceeds $3,000,000. Their value will triple in the next ten years.
7.1 & 7.2 Group Home and Elderly Home Ordinances passed. We, the residents in the Country Club Subdivision, received several complements and expressions of appreciation from the Mayor, three council persons and a couple members of the Planning Commission. Some of the comments were:
a. “You did work that we did not have to do.”
b. “This is a model ordinance for other cities to follow.”
c. “I read the ordinance very carefully and couldn’t find anything I would change.”
Larry Mendenhall of the old regime told me personally that they really thought there was nothing they could do but to approve the Makin application. He voted in favor of the new ordinance and was very happy to do so.
7.3 CC approved a temporary change to the Town Center development plan to limit the number of residences to 162 (Toscana Town Houses). The CC still has a lot of research and debate left concerning the town center development.
The CC had three difficult issues handed to them in January. A legal battle over a rehab facility, a large town house development that nobody wanted and a budget that had to be cut. In addition they have the SR-92 construction and the 4800 West widening going on. The covering of the Murdock Canal and the addition of a major trail have added significantly to their burden. They are working hard (the CC probably 20 hours a week each and mayor Ritchie 40+) and solving tough problems.
7.4 Street legal ATV on Highland streets. Alpine passed a similar ordinance 18 months ago and Chief Botkin said the police have not had an increase in accidents, etc. in Alpine.
7.? The CC discussed a farmer’s market for Highland. There was considerable deliberation. The CC was very careful to word it well. I think it got approved.
9.1 There was a serious safety issue so the CC approved a change to Wendy’s drive through traffic flow. “This is a big improvement.” Councilman Smith said he asked a U-DOT supervisor about putting a light in where Town Center Drive enters SR-92. He was told, “Do even talk to me about that.” Matt Shipp, City Engineer, shrugged his shoulders, bounced his head a couple times and said ”Don’t’ worry about it Scott. He says that to everyone. We’re working on it.”
8.1 Use of Highland City Hall for meetings. Tom Butler championed the reduction in use fee for the residents, pushed for longer hours and more availability. Tom said, the building belongs to the residents of Highland and they should be able to use it. He’s trying to make the building more accessible to the citizens. The new cost will be between $10 and $15 per hour and is open to everything but a religious meeting. Tom checked the insurance liability coverage and it’s not a problem. Councilman Smith wanted to verify Tom’s findings.
9.2 There is $460K earmarked for Beacon Hills Park. This is money that has already been collected from developers and can only be spent on the Beacon Hills park. The only problem is the money was collected and sort of moved around over the last couple years and $0 has been spent up there on grass, trees and facilities. The current CC budgeted some money for this and is collecting the funds. They approved $72K to be spent to finalize the plan and start making park like improvements. This has been dragging on for seven years. The current administration is working long overdue issues.
9.3 The CC approve $35K for sod for the Highland Hills Detention Pond. NOTE: The CC is acting in a fiscally responsible way. They check cash flow before funding budgeted projects. If the cash flow drops off they will delay projects that are in the budget. Remember, they cut 9.9% out of the city budget in order to balance the books going forward and to have a little money for long overdue projects. Matt Shipp is making a serious contribution to the city’s cash position by bringing work in house and cutting his budget.
5.1 The CC eliminated an ordinance pertaining to rock crushing outside the gravel pit. West Rock is crushing rock on site so the CC is acting proactively to eliminate the possibility of someone else coming along and setting us a rock crushing facility some where else in Highland. NOTE: West Rock pays Highland City about $12,000 a month for the rock they pull out of the pit. This will go on for another 5 to 10 years.
5.2 International Building Code was adopted by Highland City Council on a 3 to 2 vote. There were about eight companion codes that were included. One of them is the International Fire Code. NOTE: The only thing not specifically called out in the Group Home ordinance that we wanted was a reference to the IFC. The Group Home ordinance states that ”all applicable building and safety ordinances will apply”. We indirectly got the IFC too!! It can be done.
It was a long and successful night. The new administration is making a few minor mistakes BUT they are taking responsibility for them and moving quickly to rectify those errors and are taking steps to resolve many tough issues inherited from the previous administration.
Make it a point to attend the Planning Commission, Tree Commission, Open Space Steering Committee and/or the City Council meetings some time during the next six months. They are public meetings. They are often tedious but what is talked about affect all Highland residents one way or another. We all can make a difference.
Monday, May 24, 2010
Emergency Services may be cut
Here is some information that we received. We don't know who the original source is.
"I attended the meeting this morning (Public Safety Board Meeting? - Thursday morning at 7:00 AM), for the public input at the Highland City offices on EMS/Police budgets. (It was at 7:00am, which is darn near impossible for people to attend for public input!!!!)
For right now, they adopted a temporary budget. But these 2 cities are still not in the clear, which will greatly affect our school! If they go with the proposed budget, it will mean we will NOT have a full-time officer on campus next year, and we will NOT be offering the Law Enforcement class. (because Officer Thurston will have to go out on patrol to replace the positions lost)
There are still 2 more times you can give a show of support and request that they DO NOT cut the bduget.
Alpine City Council meeting May 25th 7:00pm
Highland City Council meeting June 1st 7:00pm
PLEASE get the word out, get your neighbors to attend 1 or both of these meetings if you live up here. I don't live in this area, but I am going to both meetings because I work in this area, and so do all of you. If any of you happen to need an ambulance, or police service, you may or may not get it if there aren't enough officers or paramedics able to respond (they cannot leave a call until they are finished, so you would have to WAIT YOUR TURN).
Channel 4 News at 5:00pm tonight will be commenting on this. "
--------------------------------------------
This is what I (EDB) found out.
I talked to Lorie Adams first. She has been the secretary for the Safety Board for 13 years.
I talked to Police Chief Botkin for a few minutes at Lorie's desk.
I talked to Jess Adamson (past mayor) this afternoon.
Jess and I attended the CC budget working meeting Saturday morning.
BACKGROUND - Emergency Medical Services (EMS) -the paramedics and fire fighters - and the Police have separate budgets and different jurisdictions.
POLICE - Two cities served - Alpine and Highland - The board meets at least monthly and each town is represented by two city councilmen. Larry Mendenhall is the chairman this year and Tom Butler is the second representative from Highland. Ken Hastings (sp?) represents Alpine along with one other Alpine city councilman.
Budget Issue - The board is split. Tom and Ken want to cut the police budget more and the other two are holding the line. Lorie said a split board has never happened before. The respective City Councils will have to direct the board members as to how to vote.
Manpower Issue -
1. The current force has 18 police which is the MINIMUM required for double coverage (responder has a backup) and to have Officer Thurston stationed at Lone Peak H. S. One officer retired a few weeks ago so the current staff is 17.
2. According to Jess, the City determined in about 2005 that the Highland/Alpine area needed 20 officers to adequately patrol the area. This was based on the crime rate in 2004. This provided .873 officers per 1000 residents. The national average is 1.7. Lehi and American Fork run around 1.25. NOTE - Two things have changed since 2005. The populations of both cities have grown AND we are currently in a down economy which historically boosts the crime rate. Our current coverage is about .65/1000 or about half of our neighboring towns.
3. The consequence of NOT replacing the retired officer (bring the force back to the 18 minimum) is, according to Chief Botkin, Officer Thurston will have to leave LPHS and go back out on patrol. There are two problems with this scenario. First, LPHS has historically had a serious drug problem and Officer Thurston's presence is seen as a significant deterrent. He may be indirectly lowering the crime rate in the two cities by curtailing the drug traffic. Second, the Alpine School District gives the Highland police department $34K per year (according to Chief Botkin) to have Officer Thurston on campus full time. If we put Officer Thurston back on the street, we loose $34K. In essence, Officer Thurston is a low cost officer doing crime prevention and he is available to respond to an emergency anywhere in the city.
Rumor - There is some talk about reducing the force to 13 officers.
Conclusion - Based on the information i've been given, it appears to me that 18 officers is the minimum force we should have which means we need to hire an officer, pronto.
Citizen Action Item - Go to both the Alpine and Highland City Council public hearings and tell them what you want them to do. Alpine hearing - Tuesday 25 May at 7:00 PM. Highland hearing - Tuesday, 1 June at 7:00 PM.
EMS & FIRE PROTECTION - Three cities served - Alpine, Highland, Cedar Hills. I think the board has five or six members - not sure.
I have conflicting information. I believe Lorie said the EMS budget was alright. Jess however believes the funding for EMS is in big trouble. I have not had time to verify any of what follows.
HISTORY - Highland was the first city to have 24 hours EMS coverage in all of North County. I saw a presentation by the Fire Chief and we have a very impressive operation. If you have an emergency, as a Highland resident you will be attended by highly qualified personnel and they are less than five minutes away.
Budget Issue
1. Highland got a five year grant for 4 paramedics. The grant runs out this year.
2. EMS has to budget $150K per year for the new fire station. This is only the second year, I think.
3. The EMS department ran a "transfer service" for most of North County - taking people to American Fork hospital - but since AF set up their own EMS department last year, they have taken over much of that service. This WAS a major revenue source.
Obvious Conclusion - It appears EMS has lost much of its funding and will see significant cuts IF some creative alternatives are not found soon. The aging population will probably want 24 hour EMS coverage.
Action Item - Again, attend the public hearings and voice an opinion.
BUDGET MEETING LAST SATURDAY
The new City Administrator, John Park?, was at the meeting. He lives near the Highland boarder in American Fork. He takes office on 6 July 2010. I don't know anything more about him.
Budget - Highland appears to be solvent. That's the good news. The bad news is the City Fathers are looking for ways to establish an operating cushion. This means raising fees on sewer, water, etc. Jess and I talked about this after the meeting and applaud their fiscal responsibility but believe there is a better approach. I'm running some numbers and gathering data. More later.
Budgeting and Accountability - Good news. This council is adjusting some of the fees so the money that is collected is used for that service. Today, for example, the sewer charges generate an overage that historically has been moved to other uses. That is how the $700K the developer paid for the Beacon Hill park got used on ... who knows what. Councilman Braithwaight confided in me that he was on the council a year before he realized how the money was being handled. He is adamant about using the money for what it is collected.
BOTTOM LINE -
Government is as good as the citizens make it.
You may want to understand why your fees are going to go up.
Your services are going to go down in the name of cost cutting if you let it.
The City Council wants your input/support.
These are difficult times.
Hard decisions are being made.
You may want to participate.
IDEA -
Would you be interested in a citizen opinion poll?
I could build an email list of "interested citizens" and when an issue comes up I would be willing to gather the background information and then ask your opinion.
For example: Given the discussion on the police force above, would you vote to decrease the force some more, increase the force to 20 or keep it at the current level (18) even if it meant a small ($2/month) increase in your taxes?
"I attended the meeting this morning (Public Safety Board Meeting? - Thursday morning at 7:00 AM), for the public input at the Highland City offices on EMS/Police budgets. (It was at 7:00am, which is darn near impossible for people to attend for public input!!!!)
For right now, they adopted a temporary budget. But these 2 cities are still not in the clear, which will greatly affect our school! If they go with the proposed budget, it will mean we will NOT have a full-time officer on campus next year, and we will NOT be offering the Law Enforcement class. (because Officer Thurston will have to go out on patrol to replace the positions lost)
There are still 2 more times you can give a show of support and request that they DO NOT cut the bduget.
Alpine City Council meeting May 25th 7:00pm
Highland City Council meeting June 1st 7:00pm
PLEASE get the word out, get your neighbors to attend 1 or both of these meetings if you live up here. I don't live in this area, but I am going to both meetings because I work in this area, and so do all of you. If any of you happen to need an ambulance, or police service, you may or may not get it if there aren't enough officers or paramedics able to respond (they cannot leave a call until they are finished, so you would have to WAIT YOUR TURN).
Channel 4 News at 5:00pm tonight will be commenting on this. "
--------------------------------------------
This is what I (EDB) found out.
I talked to Lorie Adams first. She has been the secretary for the Safety Board for 13 years.
I talked to Police Chief Botkin for a few minutes at Lorie's desk.
I talked to Jess Adamson (past mayor) this afternoon.
Jess and I attended the CC budget working meeting Saturday morning.
BACKGROUND - Emergency Medical Services (EMS) -the paramedics and fire fighters - and the Police have separate budgets and different jurisdictions.
POLICE - Two cities served - Alpine and Highland - The board meets at least monthly and each town is represented by two city councilmen. Larry Mendenhall is the chairman this year and Tom Butler is the second representative from Highland. Ken Hastings (sp?) represents Alpine along with one other Alpine city councilman.
Budget Issue - The board is split. Tom and Ken want to cut the police budget more and the other two are holding the line. Lorie said a split board has never happened before. The respective City Councils will have to direct the board members as to how to vote.
Manpower Issue -
1. The current force has 18 police which is the MINIMUM required for double coverage (responder has a backup) and to have Officer Thurston stationed at Lone Peak H. S. One officer retired a few weeks ago so the current staff is 17.
2. According to Jess, the City determined in about 2005 that the Highland/Alpine area needed 20 officers to adequately patrol the area. This was based on the crime rate in 2004. This provided .873 officers per 1000 residents. The national average is 1.7. Lehi and American Fork run around 1.25. NOTE - Two things have changed since 2005. The populations of both cities have grown AND we are currently in a down economy which historically boosts the crime rate. Our current coverage is about .65/1000 or about half of our neighboring towns.
3. The consequence of NOT replacing the retired officer (bring the force back to the 18 minimum) is, according to Chief Botkin, Officer Thurston will have to leave LPHS and go back out on patrol. There are two problems with this scenario. First, LPHS has historically had a serious drug problem and Officer Thurston's presence is seen as a significant deterrent. He may be indirectly lowering the crime rate in the two cities by curtailing the drug traffic. Second, the Alpine School District gives the Highland police department $34K per year (according to Chief Botkin) to have Officer Thurston on campus full time. If we put Officer Thurston back on the street, we loose $34K. In essence, Officer Thurston is a low cost officer doing crime prevention and he is available to respond to an emergency anywhere in the city.
Rumor - There is some talk about reducing the force to 13 officers.
Conclusion - Based on the information i've been given, it appears to me that 18 officers is the minimum force we should have which means we need to hire an officer, pronto.
Citizen Action Item - Go to both the Alpine and Highland City Council public hearings and tell them what you want them to do. Alpine hearing - Tuesday 25 May at 7:00 PM. Highland hearing - Tuesday, 1 June at 7:00 PM.
EMS & FIRE PROTECTION - Three cities served - Alpine, Highland, Cedar Hills. I think the board has five or six members - not sure.
I have conflicting information. I believe Lorie said the EMS budget was alright. Jess however believes the funding for EMS is in big trouble. I have not had time to verify any of what follows.
HISTORY - Highland was the first city to have 24 hours EMS coverage in all of North County. I saw a presentation by the Fire Chief and we have a very impressive operation. If you have an emergency, as a Highland resident you will be attended by highly qualified personnel and they are less than five minutes away.
Budget Issue
1. Highland got a five year grant for 4 paramedics. The grant runs out this year.
2. EMS has to budget $150K per year for the new fire station. This is only the second year, I think.
3. The EMS department ran a "transfer service" for most of North County - taking people to American Fork hospital - but since AF set up their own EMS department last year, they have taken over much of that service. This WAS a major revenue source.
Obvious Conclusion - It appears EMS has lost much of its funding and will see significant cuts IF some creative alternatives are not found soon. The aging population will probably want 24 hour EMS coverage.
Action Item - Again, attend the public hearings and voice an opinion.
BUDGET MEETING LAST SATURDAY
The new City Administrator, John Park?, was at the meeting. He lives near the Highland boarder in American Fork. He takes office on 6 July 2010. I don't know anything more about him.
Budget - Highland appears to be solvent. That's the good news. The bad news is the City Fathers are looking for ways to establish an operating cushion. This means raising fees on sewer, water, etc. Jess and I talked about this after the meeting and applaud their fiscal responsibility but believe there is a better approach. I'm running some numbers and gathering data. More later.
Budgeting and Accountability - Good news. This council is adjusting some of the fees so the money that is collected is used for that service. Today, for example, the sewer charges generate an overage that historically has been moved to other uses. That is how the $700K the developer paid for the Beacon Hill park got used on ... who knows what. Councilman Braithwaight confided in me that he was on the council a year before he realized how the money was being handled. He is adamant about using the money for what it is collected.
BOTTOM LINE -
Government is as good as the citizens make it.
You may want to understand why your fees are going to go up.
Your services are going to go down in the name of cost cutting if you let it.
The City Council wants your input/support.
These are difficult times.
Hard decisions are being made.
You may want to participate.
IDEA -
Would you be interested in a citizen opinion poll?
I could build an email list of "interested citizens" and when an issue comes up I would be willing to gather the background information and then ask your opinion.
For example: Given the discussion on the police force above, would you vote to decrease the force some more, increase the force to 20 or keep it at the current level (18) even if it meant a small ($2/month) increase in your taxes?
Friday, April 23, 2010
April 20, 2010 City Council Meeting
Highland City Council
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Appearances:
• Beacon Hill representative expressed the responsibility of city to build a park in their subdivision citing a contractual obligation the city has to put the park in. Beacon Hill has collected money from lots sold specifically for the building of park. Law shows that impact fees must be accounted for. The citizens are getting angry.
Response: Lynn Ritchie expressed that the money has been spent on parks, but not on the Beacon Hill Park yet. He said we intend to do that, we just need the money. The code specifies that it needs to be spent on parks in six years, but not a specific park. They are looking to start a multi-year project to work towards putting one in.
• Paul Reynolds wants the city to revisit the fence ordinance in Beacon Hill.
Response: The city is in the process of putting together an Open Space Committee. They will be sending letters out to participants for that in the next day or two and will work with each of the subdivisions.
• Richard Miller from Highland Heights wants deck problem addressed.
Response: The Open Space Committee will address that too.
Presentation/Public Hearings:
• UDOT SR-92 – Widening Project Update
The overall corridor theme is to mimic what you would find in American Fork Canyon. The entrance city monument sign will be made of cultured stone, and “Highland City” will light up on the sign. There will be walls on the sides of Dry Creek, with a pedestrian pathway underneath highway. A box covert will carry the stream flow. The corridor will accommodate bikes. UDOT asked for acceptance of landscaping concept, concurrence of entry feature, agreement of city participation and maintenance agreement.
Response: Mr. Braithwaite expressed concern regarding the entrance logo, that it is too busy. UDOT will make adjustments in a week, and then the City will get back to UDOT in two weeks at the next meeting.
• Public Hearing on the Surplus of Property located along 4800 West to include the home at 10945 North 4800 West. Home was bought by city. It will be either sold and moved or demolished.
Action Items:
• 9.1 Gary Cooper owns the burned out house on 6800 West and appealed to the City Council to stay the condemnation of the structure until 31 July 2010. The City first contacted Mr. Cooper in September 2009 but for various reasons (some legitimate) he ignored the City. The City has been receiving as many as five phone calls a week about the structure and they finally sent Mr. Cooper a notice he couldn’t ignore. After about twenty minutes of discussion the Council agreed to give Mr. Cooper until 31 July to clear the property. The Council was rational in their deliberation, insistent and fair.
• 9.2 UDOT is widening SR-92 and will landscape both sides. UDOT is asking the city to sign an agreement to maintain the landscaping. “It the gateway to the city.” The Council did not give the Mayor permission to sign the agreement until certain clarifications were made. The Council anticipates approval on 4 May 2010.
It was interesting and pleasing to see care with which the Council debated the issue.
Councilman Brian Braithwaite questioned the wording of the agreement pointing out many inconsistencies and ambiguities in the process. “I want to make sure we understand what we are committing to.”
Councilman Scott Smith objected to the grass and tree plan because it is going to be expensive maintain AND we do NOT have the money to finish the parks in the city. Scott suggested we look at low maintenance, low water landscaping for at least part of the project. He wants a maintenance estimate before he approves it.
Councilman Tom Butler had estimated it would cost $5,500 a season to mow the mile lone landscape based on the number of square feet of grass involved. Water and sprinkler maintenance was not included.
Councilman Larry Mendenhall reminded the Council that SR-92 is the gateway to the city and it should not be landscaped and maintained “on the cheap”.
Councilman Scott Smith pointed out that we need to recognize that we live in a desert and need to conserve our resources. Someone supported this notion by pointing out the median on Alpine Highway is low maintenance and quite attractive.
• 9.3 Similar to 9.2 and continued to 4 May for the same reasons.
Minutes:
• 11.1 The PC and CC had a joint working session concerning the new ordinance for rehab facilities. The PC will discuss their final draft on 27 April and the CC anticipates reviewing in the following Tuesday, 4 May. Note: Mr. Barfuss submitted a one-page critique to the Planning Commission and City Staff on the current draft on 18 April. The ordinance, as written, looks quite good.
Council/Staff Reports
• 12.2 Open Space landscape maintenance cost $636,000 last year. The Parks Department estimates they can do the job in house at a substantial savings. Councilman Braithwaite was complementary BUT skeptical. There was considerable discussion. Councilperson Kathryn Schramm pointed out the MD Properties came back two different times asking for more money; an additional $111,000 for sprinkler repair, for example, in addition to a gas price increase and a cost of living increase.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
Appearances:
• Beacon Hill representative expressed the responsibility of city to build a park in their subdivision citing a contractual obligation the city has to put the park in. Beacon Hill has collected money from lots sold specifically for the building of park. Law shows that impact fees must be accounted for. The citizens are getting angry.
Response: Lynn Ritchie expressed that the money has been spent on parks, but not on the Beacon Hill Park yet. He said we intend to do that, we just need the money. The code specifies that it needs to be spent on parks in six years, but not a specific park. They are looking to start a multi-year project to work towards putting one in.
• Paul Reynolds wants the city to revisit the fence ordinance in Beacon Hill.
Response: The city is in the process of putting together an Open Space Committee. They will be sending letters out to participants for that in the next day or two and will work with each of the subdivisions.
• Richard Miller from Highland Heights wants deck problem addressed.
Response: The Open Space Committee will address that too.
Presentation/Public Hearings:
• UDOT SR-92 – Widening Project Update
The overall corridor theme is to mimic what you would find in American Fork Canyon. The entrance city monument sign will be made of cultured stone, and “Highland City” will light up on the sign. There will be walls on the sides of Dry Creek, with a pedestrian pathway underneath highway. A box covert will carry the stream flow. The corridor will accommodate bikes. UDOT asked for acceptance of landscaping concept, concurrence of entry feature, agreement of city participation and maintenance agreement.
Response: Mr. Braithwaite expressed concern regarding the entrance logo, that it is too busy. UDOT will make adjustments in a week, and then the City will get back to UDOT in two weeks at the next meeting.
• Public Hearing on the Surplus of Property located along 4800 West to include the home at 10945 North 4800 West. Home was bought by city. It will be either sold and moved or demolished.
Action Items:
• 9.1 Gary Cooper owns the burned out house on 6800 West and appealed to the City Council to stay the condemnation of the structure until 31 July 2010. The City first contacted Mr. Cooper in September 2009 but for various reasons (some legitimate) he ignored the City. The City has been receiving as many as five phone calls a week about the structure and they finally sent Mr. Cooper a notice he couldn’t ignore. After about twenty minutes of discussion the Council agreed to give Mr. Cooper until 31 July to clear the property. The Council was rational in their deliberation, insistent and fair.
• 9.2 UDOT is widening SR-92 and will landscape both sides. UDOT is asking the city to sign an agreement to maintain the landscaping. “It the gateway to the city.” The Council did not give the Mayor permission to sign the agreement until certain clarifications were made. The Council anticipates approval on 4 May 2010.
It was interesting and pleasing to see care with which the Council debated the issue.
Councilman Brian Braithwaite questioned the wording of the agreement pointing out many inconsistencies and ambiguities in the process. “I want to make sure we understand what we are committing to.”
Councilman Scott Smith objected to the grass and tree plan because it is going to be expensive maintain AND we do NOT have the money to finish the parks in the city. Scott suggested we look at low maintenance, low water landscaping for at least part of the project. He wants a maintenance estimate before he approves it.
Councilman Tom Butler had estimated it would cost $5,500 a season to mow the mile lone landscape based on the number of square feet of grass involved. Water and sprinkler maintenance was not included.
Councilman Larry Mendenhall reminded the Council that SR-92 is the gateway to the city and it should not be landscaped and maintained “on the cheap”.
Councilman Scott Smith pointed out that we need to recognize that we live in a desert and need to conserve our resources. Someone supported this notion by pointing out the median on Alpine Highway is low maintenance and quite attractive.
• 9.3 Similar to 9.2 and continued to 4 May for the same reasons.
Minutes:
• 11.1 The PC and CC had a joint working session concerning the new ordinance for rehab facilities. The PC will discuss their final draft on 27 April and the CC anticipates reviewing in the following Tuesday, 4 May. Note: Mr. Barfuss submitted a one-page critique to the Planning Commission and City Staff on the current draft on 18 April. The ordinance, as written, looks quite good.
Council/Staff Reports
• 12.2 Open Space landscape maintenance cost $636,000 last year. The Parks Department estimates they can do the job in house at a substantial savings. Councilman Braithwaite was complementary BUT skeptical. There was considerable discussion. Councilperson Kathryn Schramm pointed out the MD Properties came back two different times asking for more money; an additional $111,000 for sprinkler repair, for example, in addition to a gas price increase and a cost of living increase.
Tuesday, April 20, 2010
April 6, 2010 City Council Meeting
Items presented at the Highland City Council meeting on April 6, 2010
1) Delinquent Business Licenses. There were 29 out of 365 business licenses delinquent. Authorization to revoke these delinquent business licenses passed council unanimously.
2) Consideration of Removal of Stice Acres Subdivision Plat Condition, 6900 West 10300 North. Consideration about removing the restriction for Large Animals. After lengthy discussion, it was decided that the City does not have the authority to enforce the subdivision plat requirements.
3) Discussion about a proposal from UDOT to transfer the jurisdiction of SR-74 from UDOT to Highland City. Questions arose about the cost to Highland City to assume this jurisdiction. Discussion about exchanging 4800 West for SR-74 occurred. Motion to study the cost of each, 4800 West and SR-74, was passed. Also goal set to have UDOT present at a city council meeting to present more information passed unanimously.
4) IM Flash/Lehi Annexation Proposal discussed. IM Flash has requested that Highland not protest Lehi's annexation of IM Flash. Discussion covered following:
a) annexation is proposal of property owner (IM Flash) not Lehi City.
b) Kathryn Schramm argued that annexation policy had already been agreed on earlier.
c) Larry Mendenhall suggested a "sales pitch" to IM Flash for Highland's land.
Plan decided on: Letter from City to Lehi notifying that HIghland will protest the annexation. This was agreed on unanimously by the Council.
5) Timpanogos Special Service District Information. There are plans to expand this adjacent to the existing site. Bids are in. Highland utilities have already had one increase to support the cost of this facility. There will be two more increases over the next three years, likely a 15-20% increase in our sewer costs.
6) There is a Special Council Meeting set to interview the final 3 candidates for City Administrator on May 6th.
Though this summary seems short, the meeting lasted 2 1/2 hours; this is the Readers Digest version. Thanks to all for supporting HOPE and being involved in our community.
1) Delinquent Business Licenses. There were 29 out of 365 business licenses delinquent. Authorization to revoke these delinquent business licenses passed council unanimously.
2) Consideration of Removal of Stice Acres Subdivision Plat Condition, 6900 West 10300 North. Consideration about removing the restriction for Large Animals. After lengthy discussion, it was decided that the City does not have the authority to enforce the subdivision plat requirements.
3) Discussion about a proposal from UDOT to transfer the jurisdiction of SR-74 from UDOT to Highland City. Questions arose about the cost to Highland City to assume this jurisdiction. Discussion about exchanging 4800 West for SR-74 occurred. Motion to study the cost of each, 4800 West and SR-74, was passed. Also goal set to have UDOT present at a city council meeting to present more information passed unanimously.
4) IM Flash/Lehi Annexation Proposal discussed. IM Flash has requested that Highland not protest Lehi's annexation of IM Flash. Discussion covered following:
a) annexation is proposal of property owner (IM Flash) not Lehi City.
b) Kathryn Schramm argued that annexation policy had already been agreed on earlier.
c) Larry Mendenhall suggested a "sales pitch" to IM Flash for Highland's land.
Plan decided on: Letter from City to Lehi notifying that HIghland will protest the annexation. This was agreed on unanimously by the Council.
5) Timpanogos Special Service District Information. There are plans to expand this adjacent to the existing site. Bids are in. Highland utilities have already had one increase to support the cost of this facility. There will be two more increases over the next three years, likely a 15-20% increase in our sewer costs.
6) There is a Special Council Meeting set to interview the final 3 candidates for City Administrator on May 6th.
Though this summary seems short, the meeting lasted 2 1/2 hours; this is the Readers Digest version. Thanks to all for supporting HOPE and being involved in our community.
Friday, March 19, 2010
Mar. 2, 2010 City Council
Highland City Council Meeting
March 2nd, 2010
Attendees: Brain W. Braithwaite (Council Member), Tom Butler (Council Member), Larry Mendenhall (Council Member), Lynn V. Ritchie (Mayor), Kathryn Schramm (Council Member), Scott Smith (Council Member)
Open Issues:
1. Woman who was told that she could have animals on her property: She was told that she could by Highland City. Called ten times to confirm. Now she is told she is in violation. Asked that her two animals could remain on the property for the time being.
2. Fence needed on 4800 West Street. Petition signed by neighborhood. They were told they would get one. Would start at SR-92 and end at Canyon Road.
Public Hearing on the 2009-2010 Fiscal Budget:
1. Increase revenue for open spaces budget.
2. Had to adjust such items as traffic revenues, sales tax, and library revenue downward.
3. Adjusting salaries downward, such as city administrator which they don’t have at this time. Reducing benefit costs.
4. Most items were over-budgeted.
5. Adjusted parks and cemeteries upward (repairs).
6. Over-budgeted garbage by 100K.
7. Found savings on 220K on sewer.
8. Net savings: $297,292.
9. $262,400 net between revenues and expenditures.
My impressions: It seems that the gentleman who presented the financials did cost projections on actual figures. I’m not sure if whoever did the budget last year didn’t have any concrete numbers to base their figures on or if they were just lazy, but they were obviously way off.
The budget will be presented again in June. It will be updated twice per year.
Manuel Bueno, a citizen of Highland, posed the question of fiscal responsibility because the new mayor and city councilmen ran on this platform. There was no comment on this. Next meeting will have an ordinance to adopt the amendments to the budget.
Ordinance: Considering an ordinance amending the impact fee schedule
Wants to change impact fee schedule (for the towne center multi-family housing development Toscana) to be consistent with multi-family. Contends that the actual impact COSTS for builders (what it costs the city) is much higher. Proposes that we increase fees consistent with actual use. Based on 2.75 people per town home. FYI, impact fees are for items such as water (culinary and irrigation) and sewer. Personally, I agree. Kathryn Schramm asked who would pay for the water that would fill the Toscana pool (which will not be public). Answer: Toscana would hook up to fire hydrant and would be charged by the gallon (water would be metered). Other sites that would be affected: church and commercial.
Motion: For City Staff to schedule a public hearing to discuss amending the impact fee schedule. Seconded.
One of the Highland City citizens who drafted the Utah State impact fee laws commented: said the city was discussing five different issues. Impact fees historically are not high enough. Main point: collect impact fees to fund future obligations. You can charge impact fees based on different use, but it should be based on future infrastructure change/capital facilities plan. They have approximately seven years once they charge the fee to actually use the fee.
Motion retracted, and second retracted.
Motion: For City staff to identify from the capital improvements budget and other city needs through build out what the cost expectations will be for the city and that they return with proposed impact fee changes and bring it to the next meeting if possible. Seconded.
Ordinance: Considering an Ordinance to deal with disposal of real (public) property.
Motion: Council adopt an ordinance repealing section 2.44 and re-enacting 2.44 with changes stated clarifying real public property and equipment and licensed appraiser. Seconded.
Resolution: Considering a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a Provo Reservoir Canal Rights-of-way Greenway Interlocal Agreement for purpose of constructing a multi-use trail. There is a 7% match (Highland city has to match at 7%). The Mayor originally told the City it would be a zero cost project. There were over 100 people at the open house about the project, all in support. Scott Smith presented the issues related to this. He reviewed the state law and the proposed project in detail. He wants to make sure what the city’s entire obligation will be on this trail. Worried that the trail doesn’t follow the easement and will affect property owners. Answer: the trail isn’t clearly marked yet. Another concern: the trail won’t be fully landscaped except with native grasses. Also wondered if maintenance vehicles would be accommodated. Answer: yes.
My impressions:
The new mayor and city council are doing a great job. They are doing their due diligence about Toscana, the budget and the trail. Their attention to detail is impressive.
March 2nd, 2010
Attendees: Brain W. Braithwaite (Council Member), Tom Butler (Council Member), Larry Mendenhall (Council Member), Lynn V. Ritchie (Mayor), Kathryn Schramm (Council Member), Scott Smith (Council Member)
Open Issues:
1. Woman who was told that she could have animals on her property: She was told that she could by Highland City. Called ten times to confirm. Now she is told she is in violation. Asked that her two animals could remain on the property for the time being.
2. Fence needed on 4800 West Street. Petition signed by neighborhood. They were told they would get one. Would start at SR-92 and end at Canyon Road.
Public Hearing on the 2009-2010 Fiscal Budget:
1. Increase revenue for open spaces budget.
2. Had to adjust such items as traffic revenues, sales tax, and library revenue downward.
3. Adjusting salaries downward, such as city administrator which they don’t have at this time. Reducing benefit costs.
4. Most items were over-budgeted.
5. Adjusted parks and cemeteries upward (repairs).
6. Over-budgeted garbage by 100K.
7. Found savings on 220K on sewer.
8. Net savings: $297,292.
9. $262,400 net between revenues and expenditures.
My impressions: It seems that the gentleman who presented the financials did cost projections on actual figures. I’m not sure if whoever did the budget last year didn’t have any concrete numbers to base their figures on or if they were just lazy, but they were obviously way off.
The budget will be presented again in June. It will be updated twice per year.
Manuel Bueno, a citizen of Highland, posed the question of fiscal responsibility because the new mayor and city councilmen ran on this platform. There was no comment on this. Next meeting will have an ordinance to adopt the amendments to the budget.
Ordinance: Considering an ordinance amending the impact fee schedule
Wants to change impact fee schedule (for the towne center multi-family housing development Toscana) to be consistent with multi-family. Contends that the actual impact COSTS for builders (what it costs the city) is much higher. Proposes that we increase fees consistent with actual use. Based on 2.75 people per town home. FYI, impact fees are for items such as water (culinary and irrigation) and sewer. Personally, I agree. Kathryn Schramm asked who would pay for the water that would fill the Toscana pool (which will not be public). Answer: Toscana would hook up to fire hydrant and would be charged by the gallon (water would be metered). Other sites that would be affected: church and commercial.
Motion: For City Staff to schedule a public hearing to discuss amending the impact fee schedule. Seconded.
One of the Highland City citizens who drafted the Utah State impact fee laws commented: said the city was discussing five different issues. Impact fees historically are not high enough. Main point: collect impact fees to fund future obligations. You can charge impact fees based on different use, but it should be based on future infrastructure change/capital facilities plan. They have approximately seven years once they charge the fee to actually use the fee.
Motion retracted, and second retracted.
Motion: For City staff to identify from the capital improvements budget and other city needs through build out what the cost expectations will be for the city and that they return with proposed impact fee changes and bring it to the next meeting if possible. Seconded.
Ordinance: Considering an Ordinance to deal with disposal of real (public) property.
Motion: Council adopt an ordinance repealing section 2.44 and re-enacting 2.44 with changes stated clarifying real public property and equipment and licensed appraiser. Seconded.
Resolution: Considering a Resolution authorizing the Mayor to execute a Provo Reservoir Canal Rights-of-way Greenway Interlocal Agreement for purpose of constructing a multi-use trail. There is a 7% match (Highland city has to match at 7%). The Mayor originally told the City it would be a zero cost project. There were over 100 people at the open house about the project, all in support. Scott Smith presented the issues related to this. He reviewed the state law and the proposed project in detail. He wants to make sure what the city’s entire obligation will be on this trail. Worried that the trail doesn’t follow the easement and will affect property owners. Answer: the trail isn’t clearly marked yet. Another concern: the trail won’t be fully landscaped except with native grasses. Also wondered if maintenance vehicles would be accommodated. Answer: yes.
My impressions:
The new mayor and city council are doing a great job. They are doing their due diligence about Toscana, the budget and the trail. Their attention to detail is impressive.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Feb. 2, 2010 City Council Meeting
Interim Attorney introduced: Kaycee Wright, Hansen & Hayes Law (not sure how to spell his name?)
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5.1 Consent of Planning Commissioners as Appointed - Mayor Ritchie, approved
New Planning Commissioners introduced:
- Tim Irwin (Beacon Hills, has lived here 2 years and plans to stay permanently, retired from travel business, wants to make sure Highland remains a great place to live)
- Jay Roundy (4 years on Tree Commission, created designs for several of the new parks, was on planning commission in another city, chairman of the board of variance, licensed land planner, architect, environmental engineering doctorate, environmental law doctorate, has worked with both federal and state organizations.
- Kelly Sobotka, has been on planning commission for the past 2 years: 1 year as an alternate, 1 year as a planner. Has lived in Highland 35 years, has a young family, coaches baseball, Better Business Bureau board of directors for Utah, Boy Scouts of America Nat’l Parks Council, part owner of a business in Salt Lake, 5 kids
- Steve Rock (not present)
-Abe Day (not present)
-Chris Kemp: has been a resident for 3 years, works in construction and real estate, BYU graduate in business and construction mgt, has served on planning commission for other cities
Tony Pexton, who had been serving on Planning Commission, was recognized for exemplary service.
5.2 Consent of Library Board Members as Appointed - Mayor Ritchie, approved
5.3 Consent to a Resolution appointing Lonnie Crowell as Highland City’s representative on the Utah Valley Dispatch Special Service District - Mayor Ritchie
Kathryn Schramm thinks Lonnie has his hands full and it would be beneficial to have another citizen serve in this capacity. (Lonnie expressed agreement) Motion to post-pone this decision to Feb 16 approved until another citizen can be identified.
5.4 Consider a 6 month extension for the Waterford Estates Final Plat, a 7 lot subdivision located at 5830 West 11750 North - Lonnie Crowell -approved
6. PRESENTATIONS/PUBLIC INPUT/PUBLIC HEARINGS
6.1 Presentation by Consultant Craig Peterson for Engineering and Government Affair issues vital to Highland City
Craig Peterson, Engineering and Gov Affair consultant to City and Highland City resident, report on items:
Background: resident since 1983, engineering degree, career working on infrastructure, VP of architecture and engineering firm, worked for large civil engineering and design firm, retired and became contract lobbyist, worked with UT legislature for 23 years, majority leader in UT Senate, does other representation as well. (For reference, Highland city contract Oct 2007 to June 2008) Craig’s report:
- Has been instrumental in obtaining/maintaining funding for key Highland projects.
- Maintaining form of government, cooperative agreement with Alpine justice of peace and court system
- Maintaining funding for SR-92.
- 9400 N project, East/West Corridor easements (8-10 months) by State Developmental Ctr, difficulty in determining who had the authority to approve and fund. Lisa Michelle Church Family Services owns decision, so he will be working with her.
- Murdock connector right of way. Highland is member of Irma. Under legal action by retirees up to $1.8M.
Council comments:
- Scott Smith questions if we continue to need a lobbyist when building permit volume has decreased. Perhaps staff could do this work.
- Mendenhall says he feels this role in vital because Peterson has connections and the know-how to move these difficult issues forward. Not the strength of City staff.
- Kathryn Schramm says if we do decide to renew contract, he gets paid quarterly, up through Sept 2009. He is not receiving his customary billing rate, but this is his community, so is happy to continue working with city at this rate.
6.2 Public Input for the Provo Reservoir Canal Rights-of-Way Greenway Interlocal Agreement
This is regarding the Murdock Canal piping project, and the trail they want to build. Comments from the public:
-Jess Adamson has been involved in this project since 1995, Highland’s backbone trail, goes along Murdock Canal, connects to Provo trail, connects to Point of the Mountain, up through Parley’s Canyon. We have negotiated in good faith for many years to have this trail and now a government grant will cover the cost of this trail. Now is not the time to back down. We have worked for years planning for this trail.
-Dan Burkman, Alpine resident, disagrees with putting in the trail. Prefers spending on potholes on SR-92. Lives here because of beauty, does not want to look out back window and see marathon runners on a trail. He is a Principal in SLC. He doesn’t want a foot-highway in his backyard.
-Another resident (I didn’t catch his name), doesn’t want trail. Thinks he will need a security fence to keep people out of his backyard.
-Diana Tallmon backyard on Canal – doesn’t want trail. Concerned about cost. Doesn’t like the idea of a connector trail from Provo to SLC, doesn’t want people traveling through the community.
-Another resident. Doesn’t want the city to spend money on a trail. Every city is short on money – no one should be spending money right now. (Mayor clarified that city will not need to cover cost of trail – grant is covering cost)
-Dean Carroll. Trail would be right behind his house. He wants it finished up. This is what Highland is about, our great trail system
-Scott, Canterbury. He is from Boise where he enjoyed a great trail system. Thinks it would solve a problem of giving children and teens something to do in community.
-Pheasant Hollow. During Winter can’t walk on sidewalks in city because sidewalks not cleared. If we put in trail, we need to be able to clear snow and maintain it. We need to be able to police and maintain trail.
-Christy Bally. Murdock Canal is behind her house. She is in favor of trails. It will be a mess at first during construction, but thinks it will turn out very nice.
-Scott Smith concerned that Highland newsletter not clear about trail, most citizens don’t know what Provo Greenway is, would know it by Murdock Canal trail.
-Tom Butler asked Kip Botkin Police Chief his opinion about trail: Doesn’t expect a severe adverse impact on crime. Familiar with Orem and Provo trails, they have not had huge crime impact from trail. Does expect police will need to patrol. Trail will open up community and will actually get more eyes out there. Had an officer assigned for about 7 weeks to existing trails, and during that entire time, only 2-3 citations, most of the time for a dog off a leash; nothing major. It will have an impact on resources, but not a huge impact.
-Steve Caine from Provo River Water Users was present at meeting to answer questions:
-Smith: Likes trails, not opposed to piping project of Canal. Concern, trail is a major change to this environment. Thinks we should present more information to community and enlist more feedback. Need to address what happens when trail comes to SR-92 (safety issue). We are responsible for 65% of maintenance.
-Engineer, PW Richard Neilson addressing questions from Smith: funding from the government will address busy intersections. Trail will go under street for busy roads. As long as you can see through tunnel as you approach it (you can see daylight on the other end), then you generally do not have security and safety issues. Is trail elevated? Grading will be the same or slightly lower than current elevation. Why is it called a greenway when it is an asphalt trail? What responsibility does city have for landscaping? County responsible for paved surface. City opportunity to landscape as desired. (Although can’t have deep rooted items-trees). Will the trail be fenced from adjourning neighborhoods? Same as it is today, fairly open design. Will it meet ADA requirements? Yes. 1:14 slope. What is annual maintenance for city? $8400 is estimated (snow removal, signage, etc.) Any improvements need to go through County and Provo Water Users? Yes, but County is informal process; and Provo River Water Users anticipate a broad usage of trail so should not be a barrier. Do we need to decide tonight or can we post-pone after further citizen discussions? Late Feb/early March would be best to finalize UDOT funding and contract for Provo River Water project done and ready by October; it would be best for the trail decision completed at the same time for economy of scale on funding/resources working on project.
- Mendenhall: Should call this Legacy trail. We should preserve this project for our children. Provo has not had security issues on their trail (he read statistics from police stats). 343 incidents in Provo canyon only 1 a genuine trail incident. Hobble Creek – 89 incidents, 0 in trail. There should be limited concern for security on these trails. There may be some loss of privacy. This is something we need to do. Cost of trail is incidental. We are able at no cost to Highland to put this trail in place. Our long term commitment is for maintenance of trail. We need to be good citizens. There is no negative long-term impact. We are getting a wonderful addition to Highland for a very low cost.
-Butler addressing questions to Neilson/Caine: Is it correct that when the canal is piped, that the roads will be returned to current condition. Yes. One reason to do this is to eliminate sea-pitch. What will happen to Highland irrigation users? Our contribution to the ground-water is pretty negligible, so shouldn’t be impacted. Regarding the money Highland would pay to move/re-establish utilities ($410k) Is this a hard figure, and what if we don’t enter into this agreement? $410k an early estimate; we believe the number will be reduced significantly now that we have more detailed information (he doesn’t know exact number now). Highland has a lot of water crossings which come into contact with utilities. This is a situation that already exists. Provo River Water usage covers 25% of this cost, and rest of cost spread out over time. This is an already existing legal obligation regardless of the Trail decision. Butler: Concern from South Salt Lake PD regarding trail. Has gradually lost public appeal and crime rates have increased. Lewdness, illegal alcohol consumption by minors, graffiti. Constantly works trailway; about 20 hrs/week. 41 arrests 2009. Realizes demographics are significantly different from Highland. Recommends security be discussed up-front. Captain Jack Ruth. This is a want not a need. Concerned about 50-year commitment. Governments are in fiscal trouble because they accepted so many gov grants that had strings attached. This agreement has strings attached. We have to help with maintenance if something goes wrong on trail. We give up our liberty if we agree to this. He doesn’t think being a good citizen is to bite off on every project that comes along.
-Braithwaite: We cannot compare the South SLC trail to the Provo and Utah County trails; they are very different. We have a completely open area. There are no bushes and trees up against this trail. He has run hundreds of miles on the SLC trails, and thousands of miles on the Utah County trails. The SLC trails do have security concerns; the Utah County trails are very different and do not have a security concern. They are open and not surrounded by brush and foliage. This is a great trail and has been part of the plan for decades. It is no different than the other trails we have. He heavily uses our trails and generally sees people in our area using the trails; our friends and neighbors walking, running, biking. This is a wide open area. We will not see criminals traveling to our area to walk on our trails. It will be us using the trails. We receive money from the federal government all the time. Why? Because we pay money to the government all the time. We pay gasoline taxes, and we receive funding back from the government for appropriate projects. We are receiving funding for a great project which we have been planning for, for decades. This trail is in our master plan. We want this trail. We want to see people outside using these trails. I’m not concerned about a long-term commitment to maintain the trail. We have much longer commitments to maintain our roads and buildings. Maintaining the trail is not a concern.
-Schramm: Need to hold a public meeting regarding this. People around here don’t realize this is the “Murdock Trail” project.
-Smith: We have a lot of poorly planned projects already in the city. We have compelling arguments to close the canal, but we need more citizen input regarding the trail.
-Mendenhall: This trail has been discussed for a long-time. Residents have a responsibility to get informed on these decisions. Let’s not delay this decision. The timeline is at risk for getting this through UDOT. There is no reason to delay this.
It was voted to continue this item for another 30-days to get more public input via a public meeting with better language to make it clear this is regarding the Murdock trail.
7. ORDINANCES
7.1 Consider an Ordinance placing a Moratorium on the Town Center Overlay Zone - Lonnie Crowell - (10 min.)
-Jess Adamson, expressed concerns about the city. (I cannot type fast enough to capture all the information Jess provided…) Town Center concerns. He has been involved in government since 1993. Toscana proposal and approval is concerning. Much too high of a density for Highland: less than 7.2 acres, 162 units, 6 people/unit = 22.5 units/acre. No one in North Utah County has this type of density. Number of parking spaces not adequate;, needing to use parking spaces outside of the 7.2 acres. Hate to see the town center become a parking lot. We don’t have floor plans – we don’t know what to expect. Approved in planning commission without being approved through council. Where is the green space? How much asphalt in comparison to grass? What about frontages? Where do families park when someone has a birthday party or barbecue. We’ve allowed up to 10 common walls. What did the police and fire chief say about the development? Will they have fire safety sprinklers? Noise abatement? This will not be senior housing, because they usually do not mix with younger families. No bedrooms on the main. Elevators would add another $50k? Owner vs rentals. These look like apartments. Even if sold as owner occupied, they are really designed like apartments. Might initially start as original owner, but 2nd occupant will usually end up as a rental. May end up being transient housing, because people are not permanently attached to housing. We don’t want transient housing in Highland. Public should always have the opportunity to provide input. The City Council could not ask any questions about this project because it was approved through the Planning Commission. Highland is what it is because we have worked long and hard to create and preserve this unique environment.
-Deanna Holland. Agrees about Toscana. Pleased with moratorium. Shocked the developer cannot put 2 story town houses but can build 4-story apartments. Thinks the code needs to be updated. Feels betrayed that this decision was made without public knowledge.
-Braithwaite: Moratorium would not impact current project (Toscana), would only affect projects moving forward. Doesn’t want Planning Commission to have authority to authorize projects of this size.
-Schramm: Agrees with Braithwaite. Elected officials should have to respond to public comments. Considers Town Center ordinance to be faulty.
-Smith: Agrees we need a moratorium. Need more public input and transparency. We may need a few higher density areas to meet some people’s needs.
-Mendenhall: Don’t need a moratorium. Town Center would bring feet on the ground and bring vitality to the area. We seem to change the ordinance or declare a moratorium every time we don’t like something. Why would investors want to come to Highland. Flex-use defined by height, parking, access. Do we declare moratorium and risk impeding this development? If we need to change the way things are done, change the ordinance don’t declare a moratorium. Market-driven economy. We have done less than a stellar job creating a market where investors would want to involve themselves.
-Schramm: If we do not abide by our own ordinances we need to throw them out. All large projects have always had to come before the City Council. We voted to remove a project that needed to come in 7.8/acre, they voted the height can be 50 feet tall; and yet ordinance says wall 50, roof can add to be total of 70 feet tall. People come to this community for a reason. We need to do a survey to see what the citizens want. Need a 6-month moratorium to survey citizens to see what they want to review ordinance to change.
- Butler: Agrees that Highland is anti-business. Highland leaders need to exhibit better attitude toward welcoming business. We should only have a 30-day moratorium and get this ordinance revised quickly – let’s not drag it out.
-Mendenhall: Believes ordinance drafted correctly that Planning Commission has authority to approve if projects meet certain requirements. The Town Center will sit in its current state for sometime if we don’t do this right.
-Braithwaite: Moratorium important to review if the ordinance is what we want.
Approved.
Other Public Input:
-Jay Bischoff, represents citizens of Beacon Hill. Wants to make sure some campaign issues do not get lost. A huge amount of impact fees were collected in Beacon Hills to build a park. City met with citizens and decided there was an obligation to build the park, and yes indeed, fees had been collected. They decided they needed to spend money by August or return fees to developers. Beacon Hill citizens want the City to set a date to meet with the citizens within the next 30 days and set a target on when that park will be built. 2nd issue: 6000 W 1800 N? (Westfield Rd), East side of the road is a very busy business run out of the home. Jay does not feel it is safe. Kids running out with groceries almost hit by cars numerous times. Only one person in City has to sign approval for a home run business. City responded (Mendenhall) that if a business grows to a size that it endangers neighbors the City can review and can revoke license if needed. He will ask the City to review the situation.
-Dan Baxter, Highland 32 years, right across the street from fire station. Put the burn back on the agenda. He also agrees with Jess Adamson, and would also like to add that he sees in 10 years an increased crime rate.
I left at 10:30pm and did not hear the discussion on the following items. I will follow-up with the City to see if these were approved:
9. ACTION ITEMS
9.1 Consider authorizing the Mayor to negotiate a contract with Consultant Craig Peterson - Mayor Ritchie - (10 min.)
9.2 Consider the Appeal for the Bradshaw Open Space Agreement for improvements in the View Pointe Subdivision at 4065 West Park Circle - Lonnie Crowell - (10 min.)
9.3 Consider approval of the 9600 North Subdivision Final Plat, a 3 lot subdivision located at 6900 West 9600 North - Lonnie Crowell - (10 min.)
9.4 Consider approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an LDS Church Building to be located at approximately 9681 North 6900 West - Lonnie Crowell - (10 min.)
9.5 Consider approval of the Miller Acres B Final Plat, a one lot subdivision located at 4565 North 11150 North - Lonnie Crowell - (10 min.)
5. CONSENT CALENDAR
5.1 Consent of Planning Commissioners as Appointed - Mayor Ritchie, approved
New Planning Commissioners introduced:
- Tim Irwin (Beacon Hills, has lived here 2 years and plans to stay permanently, retired from travel business, wants to make sure Highland remains a great place to live)
- Jay Roundy (4 years on Tree Commission, created designs for several of the new parks, was on planning commission in another city, chairman of the board of variance, licensed land planner, architect, environmental engineering doctorate, environmental law doctorate, has worked with both federal and state organizations.
- Kelly Sobotka, has been on planning commission for the past 2 years: 1 year as an alternate, 1 year as a planner. Has lived in Highland 35 years, has a young family, coaches baseball, Better Business Bureau board of directors for Utah, Boy Scouts of America Nat’l Parks Council, part owner of a business in Salt Lake, 5 kids
- Steve Rock (not present)
-Abe Day (not present)
-Chris Kemp: has been a resident for 3 years, works in construction and real estate, BYU graduate in business and construction mgt, has served on planning commission for other cities
Tony Pexton, who had been serving on Planning Commission, was recognized for exemplary service.
5.2 Consent of Library Board Members as Appointed - Mayor Ritchie, approved
5.3 Consent to a Resolution appointing Lonnie Crowell as Highland City’s representative on the Utah Valley Dispatch Special Service District - Mayor Ritchie
Kathryn Schramm thinks Lonnie has his hands full and it would be beneficial to have another citizen serve in this capacity. (Lonnie expressed agreement) Motion to post-pone this decision to Feb 16 approved until another citizen can be identified.
5.4 Consider a 6 month extension for the Waterford Estates Final Plat, a 7 lot subdivision located at 5830 West 11750 North - Lonnie Crowell -approved
6. PRESENTATIONS/PUBLIC INPUT/PUBLIC HEARINGS
6.1 Presentation by Consultant Craig Peterson for Engineering and Government Affair issues vital to Highland City
Craig Peterson, Engineering and Gov Affair consultant to City and Highland City resident, report on items:
Background: resident since 1983, engineering degree, career working on infrastructure, VP of architecture and engineering firm, worked for large civil engineering and design firm, retired and became contract lobbyist, worked with UT legislature for 23 years, majority leader in UT Senate, does other representation as well. (For reference, Highland city contract Oct 2007 to June 2008) Craig’s report:
- Has been instrumental in obtaining/maintaining funding for key Highland projects.
- Maintaining form of government, cooperative agreement with Alpine justice of peace and court system
- Maintaining funding for SR-92.
- 9400 N project, East/West Corridor easements (8-10 months) by State Developmental Ctr, difficulty in determining who had the authority to approve and fund. Lisa Michelle Church Family Services owns decision, so he will be working with her.
- Murdock connector right of way. Highland is member of Irma. Under legal action by retirees up to $1.8M.
Council comments:
- Scott Smith questions if we continue to need a lobbyist when building permit volume has decreased. Perhaps staff could do this work.
- Mendenhall says he feels this role in vital because Peterson has connections and the know-how to move these difficult issues forward. Not the strength of City staff.
- Kathryn Schramm says if we do decide to renew contract, he gets paid quarterly, up through Sept 2009. He is not receiving his customary billing rate, but this is his community, so is happy to continue working with city at this rate.
6.2 Public Input for the Provo Reservoir Canal Rights-of-Way Greenway Interlocal Agreement
This is regarding the Murdock Canal piping project, and the trail they want to build. Comments from the public:
-Jess Adamson has been involved in this project since 1995, Highland’s backbone trail, goes along Murdock Canal, connects to Provo trail, connects to Point of the Mountain, up through Parley’s Canyon. We have negotiated in good faith for many years to have this trail and now a government grant will cover the cost of this trail. Now is not the time to back down. We have worked for years planning for this trail.
-Dan Burkman, Alpine resident, disagrees with putting in the trail. Prefers spending on potholes on SR-92. Lives here because of beauty, does not want to look out back window and see marathon runners on a trail. He is a Principal in SLC. He doesn’t want a foot-highway in his backyard.
-Another resident (I didn’t catch his name), doesn’t want trail. Thinks he will need a security fence to keep people out of his backyard.
-Diana Tallmon backyard on Canal – doesn’t want trail. Concerned about cost. Doesn’t like the idea of a connector trail from Provo to SLC, doesn’t want people traveling through the community.
-Another resident. Doesn’t want the city to spend money on a trail. Every city is short on money – no one should be spending money right now. (Mayor clarified that city will not need to cover cost of trail – grant is covering cost)
-Dean Carroll. Trail would be right behind his house. He wants it finished up. This is what Highland is about, our great trail system
-Scott, Canterbury. He is from Boise where he enjoyed a great trail system. Thinks it would solve a problem of giving children and teens something to do in community.
-Pheasant Hollow. During Winter can’t walk on sidewalks in city because sidewalks not cleared. If we put in trail, we need to be able to clear snow and maintain it. We need to be able to police and maintain trail.
-Christy Bally. Murdock Canal is behind her house. She is in favor of trails. It will be a mess at first during construction, but thinks it will turn out very nice.
-Scott Smith concerned that Highland newsletter not clear about trail, most citizens don’t know what Provo Greenway is, would know it by Murdock Canal trail.
-Tom Butler asked Kip Botkin Police Chief his opinion about trail: Doesn’t expect a severe adverse impact on crime. Familiar with Orem and Provo trails, they have not had huge crime impact from trail. Does expect police will need to patrol. Trail will open up community and will actually get more eyes out there. Had an officer assigned for about 7 weeks to existing trails, and during that entire time, only 2-3 citations, most of the time for a dog off a leash; nothing major. It will have an impact on resources, but not a huge impact.
-Steve Caine from Provo River Water Users was present at meeting to answer questions:
-Smith: Likes trails, not opposed to piping project of Canal. Concern, trail is a major change to this environment. Thinks we should present more information to community and enlist more feedback. Need to address what happens when trail comes to SR-92 (safety issue). We are responsible for 65% of maintenance.
-Engineer, PW Richard Neilson addressing questions from Smith: funding from the government will address busy intersections. Trail will go under street for busy roads. As long as you can see through tunnel as you approach it (you can see daylight on the other end), then you generally do not have security and safety issues. Is trail elevated? Grading will be the same or slightly lower than current elevation. Why is it called a greenway when it is an asphalt trail? What responsibility does city have for landscaping? County responsible for paved surface. City opportunity to landscape as desired. (Although can’t have deep rooted items-trees). Will the trail be fenced from adjourning neighborhoods? Same as it is today, fairly open design. Will it meet ADA requirements? Yes. 1:14 slope. What is annual maintenance for city? $8400 is estimated (snow removal, signage, etc.) Any improvements need to go through County and Provo Water Users? Yes, but County is informal process; and Provo River Water Users anticipate a broad usage of trail so should not be a barrier. Do we need to decide tonight or can we post-pone after further citizen discussions? Late Feb/early March would be best to finalize UDOT funding and contract for Provo River Water project done and ready by October; it would be best for the trail decision completed at the same time for economy of scale on funding/resources working on project.
- Mendenhall: Should call this Legacy trail. We should preserve this project for our children. Provo has not had security issues on their trail (he read statistics from police stats). 343 incidents in Provo canyon only 1 a genuine trail incident. Hobble Creek – 89 incidents, 0 in trail. There should be limited concern for security on these trails. There may be some loss of privacy. This is something we need to do. Cost of trail is incidental. We are able at no cost to Highland to put this trail in place. Our long term commitment is for maintenance of trail. We need to be good citizens. There is no negative long-term impact. We are getting a wonderful addition to Highland for a very low cost.
-Butler addressing questions to Neilson/Caine: Is it correct that when the canal is piped, that the roads will be returned to current condition. Yes. One reason to do this is to eliminate sea-pitch. What will happen to Highland irrigation users? Our contribution to the ground-water is pretty negligible, so shouldn’t be impacted. Regarding the money Highland would pay to move/re-establish utilities ($410k) Is this a hard figure, and what if we don’t enter into this agreement? $410k an early estimate; we believe the number will be reduced significantly now that we have more detailed information (he doesn’t know exact number now). Highland has a lot of water crossings which come into contact with utilities. This is a situation that already exists. Provo River Water usage covers 25% of this cost, and rest of cost spread out over time. This is an already existing legal obligation regardless of the Trail decision. Butler: Concern from South Salt Lake PD regarding trail. Has gradually lost public appeal and crime rates have increased. Lewdness, illegal alcohol consumption by minors, graffiti. Constantly works trailway; about 20 hrs/week. 41 arrests 2009. Realizes demographics are significantly different from Highland. Recommends security be discussed up-front. Captain Jack Ruth. This is a want not a need. Concerned about 50-year commitment. Governments are in fiscal trouble because they accepted so many gov grants that had strings attached. This agreement has strings attached. We have to help with maintenance if something goes wrong on trail. We give up our liberty if we agree to this. He doesn’t think being a good citizen is to bite off on every project that comes along.
-Braithwaite: We cannot compare the South SLC trail to the Provo and Utah County trails; they are very different. We have a completely open area. There are no bushes and trees up against this trail. He has run hundreds of miles on the SLC trails, and thousands of miles on the Utah County trails. The SLC trails do have security concerns; the Utah County trails are very different and do not have a security concern. They are open and not surrounded by brush and foliage. This is a great trail and has been part of the plan for decades. It is no different than the other trails we have. He heavily uses our trails and generally sees people in our area using the trails; our friends and neighbors walking, running, biking. This is a wide open area. We will not see criminals traveling to our area to walk on our trails. It will be us using the trails. We receive money from the federal government all the time. Why? Because we pay money to the government all the time. We pay gasoline taxes, and we receive funding back from the government for appropriate projects. We are receiving funding for a great project which we have been planning for, for decades. This trail is in our master plan. We want this trail. We want to see people outside using these trails. I’m not concerned about a long-term commitment to maintain the trail. We have much longer commitments to maintain our roads and buildings. Maintaining the trail is not a concern.
-Schramm: Need to hold a public meeting regarding this. People around here don’t realize this is the “Murdock Trail” project.
-Smith: We have a lot of poorly planned projects already in the city. We have compelling arguments to close the canal, but we need more citizen input regarding the trail.
-Mendenhall: This trail has been discussed for a long-time. Residents have a responsibility to get informed on these decisions. Let’s not delay this decision. The timeline is at risk for getting this through UDOT. There is no reason to delay this.
It was voted to continue this item for another 30-days to get more public input via a public meeting with better language to make it clear this is regarding the Murdock trail.
7. ORDINANCES
7.1 Consider an Ordinance placing a Moratorium on the Town Center Overlay Zone - Lonnie Crowell - (10 min.)
-Jess Adamson, expressed concerns about the city. (I cannot type fast enough to capture all the information Jess provided…) Town Center concerns. He has been involved in government since 1993. Toscana proposal and approval is concerning. Much too high of a density for Highland: less than 7.2 acres, 162 units, 6 people/unit = 22.5 units/acre. No one in North Utah County has this type of density. Number of parking spaces not adequate;, needing to use parking spaces outside of the 7.2 acres. Hate to see the town center become a parking lot. We don’t have floor plans – we don’t know what to expect. Approved in planning commission without being approved through council. Where is the green space? How much asphalt in comparison to grass? What about frontages? Where do families park when someone has a birthday party or barbecue. We’ve allowed up to 10 common walls. What did the police and fire chief say about the development? Will they have fire safety sprinklers? Noise abatement? This will not be senior housing, because they usually do not mix with younger families. No bedrooms on the main. Elevators would add another $50k? Owner vs rentals. These look like apartments. Even if sold as owner occupied, they are really designed like apartments. Might initially start as original owner, but 2nd occupant will usually end up as a rental. May end up being transient housing, because people are not permanently attached to housing. We don’t want transient housing in Highland. Public should always have the opportunity to provide input. The City Council could not ask any questions about this project because it was approved through the Planning Commission. Highland is what it is because we have worked long and hard to create and preserve this unique environment.
-Deanna Holland. Agrees about Toscana. Pleased with moratorium. Shocked the developer cannot put 2 story town houses but can build 4-story apartments. Thinks the code needs to be updated. Feels betrayed that this decision was made without public knowledge.
-Braithwaite: Moratorium would not impact current project (Toscana), would only affect projects moving forward. Doesn’t want Planning Commission to have authority to authorize projects of this size.
-Schramm: Agrees with Braithwaite. Elected officials should have to respond to public comments. Considers Town Center ordinance to be faulty.
-Smith: Agrees we need a moratorium. Need more public input and transparency. We may need a few higher density areas to meet some people’s needs.
-Mendenhall: Don’t need a moratorium. Town Center would bring feet on the ground and bring vitality to the area. We seem to change the ordinance or declare a moratorium every time we don’t like something. Why would investors want to come to Highland. Flex-use defined by height, parking, access. Do we declare moratorium and risk impeding this development? If we need to change the way things are done, change the ordinance don’t declare a moratorium. Market-driven economy. We have done less than a stellar job creating a market where investors would want to involve themselves.
-Schramm: If we do not abide by our own ordinances we need to throw them out. All large projects have always had to come before the City Council. We voted to remove a project that needed to come in 7.8/acre, they voted the height can be 50 feet tall; and yet ordinance says wall 50, roof can add to be total of 70 feet tall. People come to this community for a reason. We need to do a survey to see what the citizens want. Need a 6-month moratorium to survey citizens to see what they want to review ordinance to change.
- Butler: Agrees that Highland is anti-business. Highland leaders need to exhibit better attitude toward welcoming business. We should only have a 30-day moratorium and get this ordinance revised quickly – let’s not drag it out.
-Mendenhall: Believes ordinance drafted correctly that Planning Commission has authority to approve if projects meet certain requirements. The Town Center will sit in its current state for sometime if we don’t do this right.
-Braithwaite: Moratorium important to review if the ordinance is what we want.
Approved.
Other Public Input:
-Jay Bischoff, represents citizens of Beacon Hill. Wants to make sure some campaign issues do not get lost. A huge amount of impact fees were collected in Beacon Hills to build a park. City met with citizens and decided there was an obligation to build the park, and yes indeed, fees had been collected. They decided they needed to spend money by August or return fees to developers. Beacon Hill citizens want the City to set a date to meet with the citizens within the next 30 days and set a target on when that park will be built. 2nd issue: 6000 W 1800 N? (Westfield Rd), East side of the road is a very busy business run out of the home. Jay does not feel it is safe. Kids running out with groceries almost hit by cars numerous times. Only one person in City has to sign approval for a home run business. City responded (Mendenhall) that if a business grows to a size that it endangers neighbors the City can review and can revoke license if needed. He will ask the City to review the situation.
-Dan Baxter, Highland 32 years, right across the street from fire station. Put the burn back on the agenda. He also agrees with Jess Adamson, and would also like to add that he sees in 10 years an increased crime rate.
I left at 10:30pm and did not hear the discussion on the following items. I will follow-up with the City to see if these were approved:
9. ACTION ITEMS
9.1 Consider authorizing the Mayor to negotiate a contract with Consultant Craig Peterson - Mayor Ritchie - (10 min.)
9.2 Consider the Appeal for the Bradshaw Open Space Agreement for improvements in the View Pointe Subdivision at 4065 West Park Circle - Lonnie Crowell - (10 min.)
9.3 Consider approval of the 9600 North Subdivision Final Plat, a 3 lot subdivision located at 6900 West 9600 North - Lonnie Crowell - (10 min.)
9.4 Consider approval of a Conditional Use Permit for an LDS Church Building to be located at approximately 9681 North 6900 West - Lonnie Crowell - (10 min.)
9.5 Consider approval of the Miller Acres B Final Plat, a one lot subdivision located at 4565 North 11150 North - Lonnie Crowell - (10 min.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)