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.)
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Monday, January 25, 2010
City Council Jan. 19, 2010
Highland City Council minutes 1/19/2010
Prayer: Tom Butler
Pledge: Larry Mendenhall
Special Presentation to Brian Brunson from Mayor Richie of a Clock and Watch from Highland City in recognition of his service to Highland
Public Appearances:
• Jill Calhoon: Highland needs a workable Residential Facility Ordinance. The current one is detrimental to residents and facilities. She discussed Orem City's ordinance and distributed a copy to the entire council. Reportedly, Steve Earl (associated with Makin Homes) reportedly helped draft it. She also stated that Highland City has had 2 years to put an ordinance in place. She also stated that putting an ordinance in soon would not interfere with addendums being added to it later.
• Frank Cameron: Stated that Substance abuse is a recognized disability and quoted the guideline. He also quoted/stated the following:
• "Not all requests are reasonable"
• 10-9-91-20: City must adopt an ordinance for disabled individuals (according to UT and Federal Fair housing acts)
• It may not be appropriate to place a facility if there is a "fundamental change in the character of the neighborhood".
• He quoted several issues from the recent appeal that was found in favor of HOPE.
• Alpine Treatment Center (ATC): will most likely request an appeal to the District court. Mr. Cameron requested a denial of a Provisional use permit.
• Wendy Hart: Math.....up to 37 Treatment Facilities allowed in Highland under current ordinance, more than 2 per square mile.
• Carin Hadley: quoted/discussed the following:
• R501-19-1: The Office of Licensing shall license residential treatment programs ......
• Lisa-Michele Church: Executive Director of Human Services (and Office of Licensing). This portion of her bio was read.. "She is married to David L Church, Attorney at law..". Mr. Church has been advising Highland City on this issue....which appears to be a direct conflict of interest. Even though he has resigned, he is still advising Highland City in the interim until a new Attorney is found.
• R501-19-3: Residential treatment program means a 24-hour group living environment for 4 or more individuals unrelated to the owner or provider in accordance with Subsection 62A-2-101(15).
• Highland's density if 4.53, which is in line with the definition of this type of facility. ATS states that they can operate financially and from a treatment perspective without 6-8 residents. "It is not incumbent upon the city of highland to make a change for one business and not for all" because they may have issues of profitability.
• These facilities are licensed and are provided oversight by the Office of Licensing under the department of Human Services. Therefore, if a complaint about a resident were called into the police department, they would address it at the time of the complaint. The police department does not answer to the Office of Licensing. Therefore, the Office of Licensing would be unaware of complaints and would not come and investigate. The average number of visits to a treatment facility such as this by the Office of Licensing in a year is one.
Tuscana at Highland:
• Lonnie Cromwell from the Planning Commission shared how the Master plan was developed and in particular the mixed use section. Reportedly public notice was given by mail, city website, and newspaper. Not many residents attended the planning meeting that was discussing this development. The unit is 36 feet high and has ridge spans of 36 feet. Each unit has a 2 car garage with front doors that face the interior landscaping.
• Mayor Richie stated that the purpose for them to appear was for the city council and residents to be educated and learn more about the development.
• The Gifford’s, the developers, gave a description of their plan. Initially there were planning to put in over 200 apartments, but after talking with members of the planning commission and several residents, changed to townhomes. They initially wasted to build 2 story units, but Highland city code requires 3 stories. There will be between 160-162 units with over 400 parking spaces (2 in each garage, 14 on the premises, and the rest being street parking). A swimming pool, club house, etc will also be available for the development only.
• Floor plans include 2.5 bathrooms, 2 car garages, 2-3 bedrooms. Pricing is between $174,000.00 to %205-210,000.00. The development would be built in phases. Each 3 bedroom can have the option of an elevator.
• Target population: Young Families and Retired individuals.
• Questions from City Council members:
• Would retired individuals really purchase a 3 story unit?
• Is there really 400 parking places (later discovered that many were counted as on-street parking....)
• Won't parking on the street infringe upon business parking. The Giffords agreed that it would.
• City Center/Town Center Road is slated for businesses. Your plan states that units can be Retro-fitted to be a business....how? Giffords stated that the 1st floor of the units can be retrofitted with residential living upstairs.
• Where will you put snow after storms? HOA will have to determine
• Where would you put trash cans? Inside of garages
• Does the ordinance require an HOA or not: It requires an HOA because of the common areas
• The CCNR require the HOA to maintain landscaping.
• Traffic on Udot SR92 is highly unlikely to have Traffic light, what does your traffic study show? Giffords engineer gave very specific information about the number of "trips" ad different times of the day. Their calculations state that it would not make an impact on the current flow and will not warrant a light. But, in saying this, the engineer stated that individuals could take an alternative route as well. Mr. Braithwaite stated "People won't take an alternate route...they will take the habitual route.
• Anything located in the flex zone can be either business or residential
• Tom Butler raised a concern that these will turn into rentals or apartments...and after 10-15 years will look like them.: Giffords stated that the HOA will have to manage this.
• Fannie Mae and FHA don't allow for more than 51% owner-occupancy. How are you going to ensure this is complied with: HOA has to handle it. Will try to put this into the CCNR.
• Will there be a Completion Bond so that it does not sit unfinished if running out of funds? Giffords stated that they will pay the Land Seller the total cost and will build the units in phases.
• Question to the Planning commission: Where does the $800,000.00 in extraction feeds go. Lonnie: Paid to the city and distributed to those who have put in the improvement....which includes the city. Tom Butler asked for a specific accounting of this money.
• Tom Butler stated that Mayor Franson signed an Interlocal agreement with the county. Do you have involvement with the county (as it promotes low income housing) with the Community block grant? Giffords: We have had no conversation or connection with the county.
• Will the buildings have rock or just stucco: Giffords: "will be considerable rock and different looks at different elevations".
• How many irrigation shares do they need? Lonnie: 3 Acrefeet/Acre. They can only get them where they record a subdivision.
• What other subdivision have you done: some in UT, MD, Pleasant Grove, Provo, South Jordan, and Eagle Mountain. Suggested that people look at the development on State and 8200 South in Sandy to get an idea of what this development will look like (not the Giffords development).
• Larry Mendenhall stated that it will increase the vitality of Town center and become a walking community for those residents.
• Mayor Richie ended the discussion stating that they were awaiting the outcome of the appeal and may hold a special session of the City Council to address this issue.
Alignment of City boundaries: Gina stated that AF has requested an alignment of Murdock Connector. The Public Hearing was for this night. AF City has a timeline of wanting it done by March 2nd.
• Open Microphone:
• Janet Wadsowrth of Pheasant Hollow: Didn't Highland City (HC) already adopt a resolution? Gina: City Council (CC) adopted an intent to adopt. Wadsowrth: Can you have a hearing without a resolution? Gina: residents are given 60 days for a protest, then a hearing, and then the resolution is adopted. Wadsworth: Murdock connecter needs to be a fixed asset before we adjust the boundaries.
• We are trading 14.7 acres for .7 acres, and no money will be exchanged.
• HC does not own the property in the Golf Course
• Wadsworth recommending waiting for the road to be put in before changing the boundaries.
• Elizabeth McFarlane: The Planning Commission voted against the “pump station” for AF. This alignment allows AF to put in that pump station and only partially bury it.
• Mr. Hansen: AF is looking for a place for filtration. They define “below ground” as building up the ground around it. If this alignment allows for the above ground station, we need to deny the request for the alignment.
• Scott Smith: Murdock Connector is a regional road…why can’t it be built in AF and not Highland. How exactly is this that we are giving the land to them.
• Matt Ship (Engineer): The land is located at the bottom of the hill by the sewer station (near hole 4 or 5 of the golf course) with the irrigation pond to the south.
• Smith: If we wanted to put a stop to the filtration station, wouldn’t we have to appeal to AF to stop this use on the land we currently own if we give it to them.
• Shipp: Yes.
• Smith: The Pump station would be on our land but would be given to AF…why would we do that?
• Shipp: We can get a provisional agreement to not allow it with the land exchange.
• It appears that this road would be turned back to the state after the County MAG builds it.
• Butler: is 15.7 acres in the Golf Course? Shipp “yes”.
• What does Highland get for it. We get to control the “look” of the road.
• A portion of this I guess is school section and is prime land. The question was raised, what if AF decides to sell it, where does the money go. The answer is that it would go back to the state.
• In regard to this area, the current Sewer Station may have to be moved.
• How much would it cost to relocate it (20 feet south or 100 fee north)? Shipp $350,000.00
• Who is going to pay for building the road County MAG.
• Didn’t HC already pay $118,000.00 to design the road? Shipp: Yes.
• What other cities are paying into it? Shipp: Highland and MAG.
• Will we get reimbursement from MAG funding? Schram stated $118,000.00 for the second phase was approved Shipp stated that city council would have to approve phase 3 which would cost an additional $63,000.00.
Changing Development Code for Signs in HC:
• Lonnie: Temporary sign ordinance and its legality. It is being reviewed by the planning commission. Residents may be able to place one temporary sign on their own property. Questions were raised about how big the sign could be, no current restrictions…and has been reviewed by 2 attorneys.
• Commercial: reportedly they can have a sign 30 days at ~365 feet. Hard to see. Reportedly Commercial entities have rejected some suggestions that have been offered. The recommendations was for new council members to come up to speed on the history of this issue. Council to have a work session.
• Religious signage: cannot stop a resident from putting up a sign, despite the size, on their property regarding religion. It is against the 1st amendment.
• Council will have a work session within 60 days.
Miller Acre final Platt Subdivision: located at 456 W 11200 N.
• Essentially this couple wants to subdivide one part of their land into 3 plots of land. The whole issue stems from how much they will have to pay for the “1/2 road” that they will be responsible for. It was apparent that the city council was trying to find a way to assist this elderly couple but still keep within the limits of the regulations. There was a recommendation of a delay agreement, but Mr. Shipp pointed out that these often get lost at the county building. Mr. Butler suggested a lean with a subordinating agreement be developed which reportedly would not put an undue burden on Mr. and Mrs. Miller. The council choose to get a legal opinion before proceeding.
Surplus property: This was a Public Hearing regarding how to dispose of surplus properties (not desks etc, but parcels of land) that Highland City owns. There were differing opinions on how this should be done which ranged from having the Mayor or City Administrator oversee and handle it alone to putting a monetary value limit that could not be handled by the City Administrator. Mendenhall suggested making a Matrix of the properties to sell. In the end, the city staff are to get samples of other cities regulations and try to come up with a suggested ordinance.
Revocations of Business licenses: Need to have a future public hearing on business that no longer have valid licenses that may be still in business.
Ratification of minutes from 12/1/09 and 1/5/10: Recommended changes were suggested by Mayor Richie and Schramn. Voted to ratify and they were.
Planning Commission: 19 people were interviewed to serve on the Planning commission. The Mayor has asked the individuals who will not be serving on the Planning Commission to serve on other committees such as open space, parks, etc.
City Administrator position: Will post ASAP.
Public Service: increase in vehicle burglaries between Thanksgiving and Christmas.
• Fire Department: In July “critical care transports” will end, which is a large source of income for this department. Funding must be addressed ASAP.
Financial Report was moved to next meeting.
Agreement with Washington Lobbyist was terminated: However, a second lobbyist ($10,000.00/year) is retained to help with the Murdock Connector for now. Will invite him to come and explain what he does for the money at a future meeting.
Lake Commission: HC was the only land locked city that was a part of the Commission. It is $2,900.00 per year. The decision has to be made by next week to be a voting member.
Don Bloom will continue in his role (?)
Public Comments: It was noted that besides the beginning of the meetings, no public comments were ever called for. Council will ask an Attorney if there is any issue about having public comments throughout the meeting.
Vacation policy: A recommendation to start a “Use it or lose it” policy for vacation for city employees was recommended.
Moratorium: It was recommended that a moratorium be placed on the “flex use” property to stop it from just being townhouses, condo’s and apartment. Re-define to only have a percentage for that purpose, a percentage for business etc.
Renovation of old City Hall: Will review at a future meeting.
Burned house on 6800 West: family was supposed to dispose of it before now. City may get bids to demolish as it is a safety hazard.
Prayer: Tom Butler
Pledge: Larry Mendenhall
Special Presentation to Brian Brunson from Mayor Richie of a Clock and Watch from Highland City in recognition of his service to Highland
Public Appearances:
• Jill Calhoon: Highland needs a workable Residential Facility Ordinance. The current one is detrimental to residents and facilities. She discussed Orem City's ordinance and distributed a copy to the entire council. Reportedly, Steve Earl (associated with Makin Homes) reportedly helped draft it. She also stated that Highland City has had 2 years to put an ordinance in place. She also stated that putting an ordinance in soon would not interfere with addendums being added to it later.
• Frank Cameron: Stated that Substance abuse is a recognized disability and quoted the guideline. He also quoted/stated the following:
• "Not all requests are reasonable"
• 10-9-91-20: City must adopt an ordinance for disabled individuals (according to UT and Federal Fair housing acts)
• It may not be appropriate to place a facility if there is a "fundamental change in the character of the neighborhood".
• He quoted several issues from the recent appeal that was found in favor of HOPE.
• Alpine Treatment Center (ATC): will most likely request an appeal to the District court. Mr. Cameron requested a denial of a Provisional use permit.
• Wendy Hart: Math.....up to 37 Treatment Facilities allowed in Highland under current ordinance, more than 2 per square mile.
• Carin Hadley: quoted/discussed the following:
• R501-19-1: The Office of Licensing shall license residential treatment programs ......
• Lisa-Michele Church: Executive Director of Human Services (and Office of Licensing). This portion of her bio was read.. "She is married to David L Church, Attorney at law..". Mr. Church has been advising Highland City on this issue....which appears to be a direct conflict of interest. Even though he has resigned, he is still advising Highland City in the interim until a new Attorney is found.
• R501-19-3: Residential treatment program means a 24-hour group living environment for 4 or more individuals unrelated to the owner or provider in accordance with Subsection 62A-2-101(15).
• Highland's density if 4.53, which is in line with the definition of this type of facility. ATS states that they can operate financially and from a treatment perspective without 6-8 residents. "It is not incumbent upon the city of highland to make a change for one business and not for all" because they may have issues of profitability.
• These facilities are licensed and are provided oversight by the Office of Licensing under the department of Human Services. Therefore, if a complaint about a resident were called into the police department, they would address it at the time of the complaint. The police department does not answer to the Office of Licensing. Therefore, the Office of Licensing would be unaware of complaints and would not come and investigate. The average number of visits to a treatment facility such as this by the Office of Licensing in a year is one.
Tuscana at Highland:
• Lonnie Cromwell from the Planning Commission shared how the Master plan was developed and in particular the mixed use section. Reportedly public notice was given by mail, city website, and newspaper. Not many residents attended the planning meeting that was discussing this development. The unit is 36 feet high and has ridge spans of 36 feet. Each unit has a 2 car garage with front doors that face the interior landscaping.
• Mayor Richie stated that the purpose for them to appear was for the city council and residents to be educated and learn more about the development.
• The Gifford’s, the developers, gave a description of their plan. Initially there were planning to put in over 200 apartments, but after talking with members of the planning commission and several residents, changed to townhomes. They initially wasted to build 2 story units, but Highland city code requires 3 stories. There will be between 160-162 units with over 400 parking spaces (2 in each garage, 14 on the premises, and the rest being street parking). A swimming pool, club house, etc will also be available for the development only.
• Floor plans include 2.5 bathrooms, 2 car garages, 2-3 bedrooms. Pricing is between $174,000.00 to %205-210,000.00. The development would be built in phases. Each 3 bedroom can have the option of an elevator.
• Target population: Young Families and Retired individuals.
• Questions from City Council members:
• Would retired individuals really purchase a 3 story unit?
• Is there really 400 parking places (later discovered that many were counted as on-street parking....)
• Won't parking on the street infringe upon business parking. The Giffords agreed that it would.
• City Center/Town Center Road is slated for businesses. Your plan states that units can be Retro-fitted to be a business....how? Giffords stated that the 1st floor of the units can be retrofitted with residential living upstairs.
• Where will you put snow after storms? HOA will have to determine
• Where would you put trash cans? Inside of garages
• Does the ordinance require an HOA or not: It requires an HOA because of the common areas
• The CCNR require the HOA to maintain landscaping.
• Traffic on Udot SR92 is highly unlikely to have Traffic light, what does your traffic study show? Giffords engineer gave very specific information about the number of "trips" ad different times of the day. Their calculations state that it would not make an impact on the current flow and will not warrant a light. But, in saying this, the engineer stated that individuals could take an alternative route as well. Mr. Braithwaite stated "People won't take an alternate route...they will take the habitual route.
• Anything located in the flex zone can be either business or residential
• Tom Butler raised a concern that these will turn into rentals or apartments...and after 10-15 years will look like them.: Giffords stated that the HOA will have to manage this.
• Fannie Mae and FHA don't allow for more than 51% owner-occupancy. How are you going to ensure this is complied with: HOA has to handle it. Will try to put this into the CCNR.
• Will there be a Completion Bond so that it does not sit unfinished if running out of funds? Giffords stated that they will pay the Land Seller the total cost and will build the units in phases.
• Question to the Planning commission: Where does the $800,000.00 in extraction feeds go. Lonnie: Paid to the city and distributed to those who have put in the improvement....which includes the city. Tom Butler asked for a specific accounting of this money.
• Tom Butler stated that Mayor Franson signed an Interlocal agreement with the county. Do you have involvement with the county (as it promotes low income housing) with the Community block grant? Giffords: We have had no conversation or connection with the county.
• Will the buildings have rock or just stucco: Giffords: "will be considerable rock and different looks at different elevations".
• How many irrigation shares do they need? Lonnie: 3 Acrefeet/Acre. They can only get them where they record a subdivision.
• What other subdivision have you done: some in UT, MD, Pleasant Grove, Provo, South Jordan, and Eagle Mountain. Suggested that people look at the development on State and 8200 South in Sandy to get an idea of what this development will look like (not the Giffords development).
• Larry Mendenhall stated that it will increase the vitality of Town center and become a walking community for those residents.
• Mayor Richie ended the discussion stating that they were awaiting the outcome of the appeal and may hold a special session of the City Council to address this issue.
Alignment of City boundaries: Gina stated that AF has requested an alignment of Murdock Connector. The Public Hearing was for this night. AF City has a timeline of wanting it done by March 2nd.
• Open Microphone:
• Janet Wadsowrth of Pheasant Hollow: Didn't Highland City (HC) already adopt a resolution? Gina: City Council (CC) adopted an intent to adopt. Wadsowrth: Can you have a hearing without a resolution? Gina: residents are given 60 days for a protest, then a hearing, and then the resolution is adopted. Wadsworth: Murdock connecter needs to be a fixed asset before we adjust the boundaries.
• We are trading 14.7 acres for .7 acres, and no money will be exchanged.
• HC does not own the property in the Golf Course
• Wadsworth recommending waiting for the road to be put in before changing the boundaries.
• Elizabeth McFarlane: The Planning Commission voted against the “pump station” for AF. This alignment allows AF to put in that pump station and only partially bury it.
• Mr. Hansen: AF is looking for a place for filtration. They define “below ground” as building up the ground around it. If this alignment allows for the above ground station, we need to deny the request for the alignment.
• Scott Smith: Murdock Connector is a regional road…why can’t it be built in AF and not Highland. How exactly is this that we are giving the land to them.
• Matt Ship (Engineer): The land is located at the bottom of the hill by the sewer station (near hole 4 or 5 of the golf course) with the irrigation pond to the south.
• Smith: If we wanted to put a stop to the filtration station, wouldn’t we have to appeal to AF to stop this use on the land we currently own if we give it to them.
• Shipp: Yes.
• Smith: The Pump station would be on our land but would be given to AF…why would we do that?
• Shipp: We can get a provisional agreement to not allow it with the land exchange.
• It appears that this road would be turned back to the state after the County MAG builds it.
• Butler: is 15.7 acres in the Golf Course? Shipp “yes”.
• What does Highland get for it. We get to control the “look” of the road.
• A portion of this I guess is school section and is prime land. The question was raised, what if AF decides to sell it, where does the money go. The answer is that it would go back to the state.
• In regard to this area, the current Sewer Station may have to be moved.
• How much would it cost to relocate it (20 feet south or 100 fee north)? Shipp $350,000.00
• Who is going to pay for building the road County MAG.
• Didn’t HC already pay $118,000.00 to design the road? Shipp: Yes.
• What other cities are paying into it? Shipp: Highland and MAG.
• Will we get reimbursement from MAG funding? Schram stated $118,000.00 for the second phase was approved Shipp stated that city council would have to approve phase 3 which would cost an additional $63,000.00.
Changing Development Code for Signs in HC:
• Lonnie: Temporary sign ordinance and its legality. It is being reviewed by the planning commission. Residents may be able to place one temporary sign on their own property. Questions were raised about how big the sign could be, no current restrictions…and has been reviewed by 2 attorneys.
• Commercial: reportedly they can have a sign 30 days at ~365 feet. Hard to see. Reportedly Commercial entities have rejected some suggestions that have been offered. The recommendations was for new council members to come up to speed on the history of this issue. Council to have a work session.
• Religious signage: cannot stop a resident from putting up a sign, despite the size, on their property regarding religion. It is against the 1st amendment.
• Council will have a work session within 60 days.
Miller Acre final Platt Subdivision: located at 456 W 11200 N.
• Essentially this couple wants to subdivide one part of their land into 3 plots of land. The whole issue stems from how much they will have to pay for the “1/2 road” that they will be responsible for. It was apparent that the city council was trying to find a way to assist this elderly couple but still keep within the limits of the regulations. There was a recommendation of a delay agreement, but Mr. Shipp pointed out that these often get lost at the county building. Mr. Butler suggested a lean with a subordinating agreement be developed which reportedly would not put an undue burden on Mr. and Mrs. Miller. The council choose to get a legal opinion before proceeding.
Surplus property: This was a Public Hearing regarding how to dispose of surplus properties (not desks etc, but parcels of land) that Highland City owns. There were differing opinions on how this should be done which ranged from having the Mayor or City Administrator oversee and handle it alone to putting a monetary value limit that could not be handled by the City Administrator. Mendenhall suggested making a Matrix of the properties to sell. In the end, the city staff are to get samples of other cities regulations and try to come up with a suggested ordinance.
Revocations of Business licenses: Need to have a future public hearing on business that no longer have valid licenses that may be still in business.
Ratification of minutes from 12/1/09 and 1/5/10: Recommended changes were suggested by Mayor Richie and Schramn. Voted to ratify and they were.
Planning Commission: 19 people were interviewed to serve on the Planning commission. The Mayor has asked the individuals who will not be serving on the Planning Commission to serve on other committees such as open space, parks, etc.
City Administrator position: Will post ASAP.
Public Service: increase in vehicle burglaries between Thanksgiving and Christmas.
• Fire Department: In July “critical care transports” will end, which is a large source of income for this department. Funding must be addressed ASAP.
Financial Report was moved to next meeting.
Agreement with Washington Lobbyist was terminated: However, a second lobbyist ($10,000.00/year) is retained to help with the Murdock Connector for now. Will invite him to come and explain what he does for the money at a future meeting.
Lake Commission: HC was the only land locked city that was a part of the Commission. It is $2,900.00 per year. The decision has to be made by next week to be a voting member.
Don Bloom will continue in his role (?)
Public Comments: It was noted that besides the beginning of the meetings, no public comments were ever called for. Council will ask an Attorney if there is any issue about having public comments throughout the meeting.
Vacation policy: A recommendation to start a “Use it or lose it” policy for vacation for city employees was recommended.
Moratorium: It was recommended that a moratorium be placed on the “flex use” property to stop it from just being townhouses, condo’s and apartment. Re-define to only have a percentage for that purpose, a percentage for business etc.
Renovation of old City Hall: Will review at a future meeting.
Burned house on 6800 West: family was supposed to dispose of it before now. City may get bids to demolish as it is a safety hazard.
Wednesday, January 20, 2010
City Council Meeting Jan. 5
I attended tonight's council meeting. I've heard that the most interested portion is usually the last 5 minutes. So, I stayed the entire time! In the last five minutes, Mayor Ritchie mentioned that City Attorney, David Church emailed him his resignation today. Attorney Church was not at the meeting tonight. The email said that he (Attorney Church) would "help with the transition"...but council members questioned whether they would be without legal council in their meetings(since he wasn't there tonight...no one seemed to have an answer to that).
Other agenda items:
* Swearing in of new officers
* Pledge and Prayer
* No one stood for any public appearances
* Mayor Richie mentioned a few changes to procedure. One I thought was significant was that future minutes will record council members names along with their comments.
* The city will appoint a new City Administrator by July 1st
* Next month there will be an appreciation presentation to former council members/mayor
* Change of scheduled City Council meetings for the year. Change the July 6th meeting to Wednesday July 7th; Change November 2nd meeting to Wednesday November 3rd
* Voted on resolution for City Treasurer and City Recorder to be a 2year term
* Council voted on Larry Mendenhall to be Mayor Pro-Tempore
* Council approved amendments to the Residential code dealing with accessory buildings per the planning commissions recommendations
* Council made final approval of Town Center Plat 2
* Instead of approving contract of Brian Brunson as the City's Real Estate consultant, the council moved to have the Mayor meet with staff and possibly Brian Brunson, Barry Edwards etc and bring to the next meeting a plan which would define the scope of what the city's real estate needs are. Specifically a plan to sell the two properties on 4800 West since 'time is of the essence".
* Council moved to terminate lobbyist Bill Simmons' contract as soon as legally possible since monies have been approved and set aside for the Timp Cave visitors center. (He was getting 60k year). If the project is further 'stalled' the council will look into securing his services once again.
* Discussion was made pointing out the city needed a Surplus property ordinance. Gina Peterson mentioned that David Church advised them to "go ahead"...but she feels that's not sufficient. Council members agreed, but no motion was given to make that an action item.
* Council members approved December 1st and December 15th City Council Meeting minutes.
* The Tuscana development is being appealed. That appeal meeting is Jan 14th; handled by the Appeal Authority. There is a neighborhood meeting this Saturday. Scott Smith mentioned he'd like to be there, so he could know of the residences' concerns etc. However, he's aware that since Brian Braithwaite and Katherine Schramm will be there, he is not suppose to go (since if there are more than two council members at the meeting, minutes will have to be taken etc). So, he asked that Braithwaite and Schramm email the rest of the council notes from the meeting. They both said they would.
* Meeting was adjourned about approx 9:35pm.
Other agenda items:
* Swearing in of new officers
* Pledge and Prayer
* No one stood for any public appearances
* Mayor Richie mentioned a few changes to procedure. One I thought was significant was that future minutes will record council members names along with their comments.
* The city will appoint a new City Administrator by July 1st
* Next month there will be an appreciation presentation to former council members/mayor
* Change of scheduled City Council meetings for the year. Change the July 6th meeting to Wednesday July 7th; Change November 2nd meeting to Wednesday November 3rd
* Voted on resolution for City Treasurer and City Recorder to be a 2year term
* Council voted on Larry Mendenhall to be Mayor Pro-Tempore
* Council approved amendments to the Residential code dealing with accessory buildings per the planning commissions recommendations
* Council made final approval of Town Center Plat 2
* Instead of approving contract of Brian Brunson as the City's Real Estate consultant, the council moved to have the Mayor meet with staff and possibly Brian Brunson, Barry Edwards etc and bring to the next meeting a plan which would define the scope of what the city's real estate needs are. Specifically a plan to sell the two properties on 4800 West since 'time is of the essence".
* Council moved to terminate lobbyist Bill Simmons' contract as soon as legally possible since monies have been approved and set aside for the Timp Cave visitors center. (He was getting 60k year). If the project is further 'stalled' the council will look into securing his services once again.
* Discussion was made pointing out the city needed a Surplus property ordinance. Gina Peterson mentioned that David Church advised them to "go ahead"...but she feels that's not sufficient. Council members agreed, but no motion was given to make that an action item.
* Council members approved December 1st and December 15th City Council Meeting minutes.
* The Tuscana development is being appealed. That appeal meeting is Jan 14th; handled by the Appeal Authority. There is a neighborhood meeting this Saturday. Scott Smith mentioned he'd like to be there, so he could know of the residences' concerns etc. However, he's aware that since Brian Braithwaite and Katherine Schramm will be there, he is not suppose to go (since if there are more than two council members at the meeting, minutes will have to be taken etc). So, he asked that Braithwaite and Schramm email the rest of the council notes from the meeting. They both said they would.
* Meeting was adjourned about approx 9:35pm.
City Council Meeting Dec. 1
They considered different ways to help with the "light pollution" that the Baxter home has been dealing with as they are located across the street from the fire station. They approved $11,000 for the Baxters to relandscape their front, adding a burm to block out the lights.
They talked about and approved the removal of the fire damaged home located at 10031 N 6800 W.
They carried the motion (5-1) for the mayor to join the NCUAA (North Utah County Aquifer Assoc.) and talked about capping the Murdock Canal.
They talked about the 3rd phase (getting a Professional Service Agreement) for the design of the Murdock Connector Road and they authorized the Mayor to sign the agreement.
They passed an ordinance to amend certain portions of the RP Zone for the purpose of allowing schools. Then they talked about issuing a Conditional Use Permit for the" Pointe Performing Arts Academy" to operate a school in the RP Zone. (I think this is going to be located in the old City building---Jim isn't really clear in his notes).
They carried a motion to cancel Barry Edwards contract as City Administrator. His last day will be January 4, 2010 and they will give him a 4 months severance pay with benefits. Several of the City Council members were surprised at this motion as they were not expecting it to be on the Agenda. But it was passed 5-0 with the mayor voting yes as well.
Nothing was brought up about the Makin Home.
They talked about and approved the removal of the fire damaged home located at 10031 N 6800 W.
They carried the motion (5-1) for the mayor to join the NCUAA (North Utah County Aquifer Assoc.) and talked about capping the Murdock Canal.
They talked about the 3rd phase (getting a Professional Service Agreement) for the design of the Murdock Connector Road and they authorized the Mayor to sign the agreement.
They passed an ordinance to amend certain portions of the RP Zone for the purpose of allowing schools. Then they talked about issuing a Conditional Use Permit for the" Pointe Performing Arts Academy" to operate a school in the RP Zone. (I think this is going to be located in the old City building---Jim isn't really clear in his notes).
They carried a motion to cancel Barry Edwards contract as City Administrator. His last day will be January 4, 2010 and they will give him a 4 months severance pay with benefits. Several of the City Council members were surprised at this motion as they were not expecting it to be on the Agenda. But it was passed 5-0 with the mayor voting yes as well.
Nothing was brought up about the Makin Home.
Friday, December 18, 2009
City Council Meeting Nov. 17
S.H. attended the City Council meeting on Nov. 17. A considerable block of time was spent discussing a proposed commercial art "academy". Discussion was given as how to define a "school" and whether a definition was needed for the city to proceed. The proposed school is not accredited by the state and will be a commercial operation. The owners had modified parking and architectual plans in an attempt to meet the concerns of Highland City and residents. Further discussion was put off to the next City Council meeting.
The final city election results were given and the mayor offered his congratulations to the winners.
Residential property in the possession of Highland City was discussed. Having some kind of real estate consultant/agent to sell off these properties was discussed. Councilman Brunson was being considered as a highly qualified candidate for the position. Councilman Brunson recused himself during discussion of his possible future involvement in this roll.
The city received a plaque from the city fountain/plaza design group in appreciation for the project.
The landscaping surrounding the proposed reservoir (at the current debris basin area at the mouth of AF canyon) was discussed. It seemed the city personal were comfortable with the agreement with American Fork. Highland City will pay for a part of the landscaping surrounding the reservoir. American Fork will pay the bulk of the cost and Cedar Hills will also share in the costs.
A brief mention was given to the need for the city to reform its methodology of releasing city council minutes. Also it was suggested that the city needed to discuss "the situation" with the Makin house in a future council meeting.
The final city election results were given and the mayor offered his congratulations to the winners.
Residential property in the possession of Highland City was discussed. Having some kind of real estate consultant/agent to sell off these properties was discussed. Councilman Brunson was being considered as a highly qualified candidate for the position. Councilman Brunson recused himself during discussion of his possible future involvement in this roll.
The city received a plaque from the city fountain/plaza design group in appreciation for the project.
The landscaping surrounding the proposed reservoir (at the current debris basin area at the mouth of AF canyon) was discussed. It seemed the city personal were comfortable with the agreement with American Fork. Highland City will pay for a part of the landscaping surrounding the reservoir. American Fork will pay the bulk of the cost and Cedar Hills will also share in the costs.
A brief mention was given to the need for the city to reform its methodology of releasing city council minutes. Also it was suggested that the city needed to discuss "the situation" with the Makin house in a future council meeting.
Monday, October 22, 2007
Questions for Meet the Candidates: Thurs, Oct. 25
Please select the comments portion associated with this post to submit questions for the "Meet the Candidates" Night, being held at Mountain Ridge Jr. High, at 7:00pm on Thursday, Oct. 25, 2007. You may post anonymously.
Why I am running: Larry Mendenhall
I believe in the same principles as did our Founding Fathers as they conceived and crafted the Constitution of The United States. The constitution was written to provide a framework to…… “promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity” ….. (Preamble to the Constitution of The United States).
Over the years, the many who have served the City of Highland have done so with dedication and integrity. The product of their efforts is evident throughout the City. There have been and will continually be growing pains. Viewscapes will change. The old will come down and be replaced with new. Highland is a vibrant City. Highland is not just “bedroom communitiy”. The responsibility of those who serve the City of Highland, be it staff, appointed, or elected officials, is to be ever vigilant and to “promote the general welfare”, by doing all they can do to meet the needs of the residents of Highland.
I feel that my significant background and experience in business and my involvement, as Chairman of the Planning Commission, in the ongoing growth challenges facing Highland City has helped me develop and hone a skillset that uniquely qualifies me to speak and act effectively for the Citizens of Highland whether it be zoning and development, fiscal responsibility, or City management.
I have the qualifications and the desire to serve. I will be…”a voice of reason”.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)