Public Hearing and City Council Meeting

Tuesday, April 19, 2005 7:00 p.m.

Public Safety Building

3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah

This meeting was held electronically via telephone to permit one or more of the

Council Members to participate.

Present:           Mayor Mike McGee, Presiding

                        Council Members: Darin Lowder, Jim Perry, James Parker (via telephone)

Excused: Melissa Willie

Absent: Rob Fotheringham

                        Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager

                        Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber

Others: Karissa Neely-New Utah, Jessica Roberts, Ken Cromar, Brent Uibel, David Kirkpatrick, Elizabeth Nardi, Suzanne Hackett, Brittany Hackett, Zonda Perry, Laree Savage



1.         This Public Hearing of the City Council of the City of Cedar Hills, having been posted throughout the City and the press notified, was called to order by Mayor McGee at 7:08 p.m.


2.         Proposed Amendment to the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year Budget (7:08 p.m.)


No comments


3.         This Public Hearing was adjourned at 7:09 p.m. by Mayor McGee.



1.         This meeting of the City Council of the City of Cedar Hills, having been posted throughout the City and the press notified, was called to order by Mayor McGee at 7:09 p.m.


Invocation by C. Perry


Pledge of Allegiance


2.         Public Issues for Future Agendas (7:11 p.m.)


          Jessica Roberts: Ms. Roberts wanted to know what can be done immediately to help with the speed situation in Canyon Heights. Her son was recently hit by a car. Residents are not allowed to put up their own signs, but City staff can put cones or signs. City staff is working on a speed table proposal for that area. C. Perry suggested that Ms. Roberts call the police department and talk with them about times of the day when patrol might be needed.

          Ken Cromar: Mr. Cromar gave an update on the Coalition’s to Preserve Cedar Hills initiative petition. They started collecting signatures on Saturday and had more than 100 signatures of residents in favor of an alcohol ban and Sunday closure. The Supreme Court backs the legality of a day-of-rest closing. Utah law allows cities to prohibit alcohol sales. Mr. Cromar said the public forum lacks civility. He felt that anonymous postings are dangerous and should not be allowed. Mr. Cromar also questioned whether the public forum legally exposes the City. C. Perry clarified that the forum is privately owned and maintained.

          Brent Uibel: Mr. Uibel thanked the Council for their quick response to his request for changes to the noise ordinance. He asked whether the City had put in a request for the State to enlarge the sign in reference to the noise ordinance. Konrad Hildebrandt said the sign for the engine brakes has been ordered. Mr. Uibel is also concerned about speeds on Ironwood Drive. Residents feel that speed bumps would be the best solution. Mr. Uibel would like the City to include Ironwood in a speed study.

          David Kirkpatrick: Mr. Kirkpatrick was involved in Cedar Hills from its inception until 1980. When the first cable system was installed, there was controversy because residents did not want pay-per- view channels that showed R-rated movies. That, along with other controversies at the time, hurt property values and residents’ ability to sell homes. Mr. Kirkpatrick said that today there is a perception among many that moving ahead with the commercial zone would be detrimental to the City. He said that perceptions have an effect on the entire community. He felt the standard of the community is high and nothing that is being considered will affect those standards.

          Zonda Perry: Mrs. Perry pointed out that only four people have publicly admitted to being members of the Coalition to Preserve Cedar Hills. There is no contact information for members of the Coalition on their flyers; however, her home phone number was listed. Their home number was forwarded to her cell phone because they were moving. All of the calls she answered expressed a misunderstanding about the role of the City Council as to the process of commercial development, a misunderstanding of the status of the Smart family property, and a misunderstanding of her husband’s, C. Perry, position. The responses she received were about three to one opposed to the view of the Coalition. Mrs. Perry asked the Coalition to name themselves. She would like to see this issue come to a vote because the issues are divisive and are hurting the community. She said that her family knew that having her husband on the Council would be a sacrifice. They made the decision to run because they were frustrated by of a lack of open, honest communication, which included many anonymous flyers with false and slanderous information. The other concern was that they lived in a new area of the City that was poorly represented. During the campaign, other candidates used C. Perry’s name without permission. Now, they claim that he has changed campaign promises that were their promises, not his.


3.         Approval of the Minutes from the April 5, 2005, Regular City Council Meeting and the April 12, 2005 Special City Council Meeting (7:47 p.m.)

MOTION: C. Lowder - To approve the minutes from the April 5, 2005, Regular City Council Meeting, as amended. Seconded by C. Perry.


Aye-C. Lowder

C. Parker

                                                                                    C. Perry                                  Motion passes.

MOTION: C. Perry - To approve the minutes from the April 12, 2005, Special City Council Meeting, as amended. Seconded by C. Lowder.


Aye-C. Lowder

C. Parker

                                                                                    C. Perry                                  Motion passes.


C. Perry restated his position on the ordinances dealing with an alcohol ban and Sunday closure. He said that he feels it is not appropriate for the Council to legislate on these issues. He recognizes the Council has the power to legislate on these issues if it is the desire of the residents. C. Perry would like to have a City Council discussion about putting the issues to a vote in June on the agenda. He sees no benefit on spending the next six months with petitions if the residents want to vote on the issue. The consensus is to have this on the next agenda


4.         Review/Action on Implementation of a Golf Fee (7:59 p.m.)


See handouts. The City Attorney, Eric Johnson, researched this issue and said that the City can assess a fee. It will require a creation of a Special Service District (SSD) that cannot be retroactive. It has to be noticed for four consecutive weeks and there must be a public hearing. There has to be a value associated with a fee, which is why a Special Service District is required. C. Perry pointed out that the public wants a chance to vote before taxes are raised. The public also voted to own the golf course, which is running a shortfall. He feels that the Council is forced to assess this fee. The only other option is to take the money from the unrestricted General Fund. Originally, the Council planned to assess a fee in the short term until residents could vote on whether to increase taxes. C. Parker feels that the SSD is a loophole to get around having a vote to increase taxes. He would like to let the residents vote between paying a fee to an SSD or taking the money from the General Fund. Konrad Hildebrandt suggested that the Council decision be based on the long-term goals for the golf course. C. Lowder pointed out that creation of an SSD requires a public hearing where the Council will hear what residents want. To put this issue on a June ballot, the decision would need to be made by late May. The Council will move forward with putting the issue on the June ballot. It will be on the next agenda. Council members need to submit proposed ballot language to Konrad Hildebrandt for the next meeting.


5.         Review/Action on Amendments to the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year Budget (8:20 p.m.)


See handouts. There are two proposed amendments to the budget.

          The first is transferring money from Golf Payroll Maintenance (75-41-100) to Golf Course Repairs/Maintenance (75-60-100). This is for the underground power line installation when the golf maintenance building was moved. The superintendent feels there is money that can be pulled from payroll and put it into repairs and maintenance.

          The other amendment is to transfer $750,000 from PTIF Park Land (40-14-120) to Hayes Park Purchase (40-80-808). The Council previously approved in the October 5, 2004, City Council meeting an agreement to purchase 14 acres from Savage for a City park. The $750,000 was in the agreement in the October 5 meeting. The original negotiated price from 2-3 years ago did not change. There is available money in the PTIF to make this purchase.

          The library fund is almost overspent. $15,000 was budgeted and there is about $800 left. There is available money in the Community Services Department budget. An amendment to the library fund will be addressed in the future.

MOTION: C. Perry - To amend the FY2005 budget, as written. Seconded by C. Lowder.


Aye-C. Lowder

C. Parker

                                                                                    C. Perry                                  Motion passes.


6.         Review/Action on Repealing Ordinance 11-17-2003A Regarding the Certified Tax Rate (8:28 p.m.)


See handouts. C. Perry would like to amend the ordinance because when this ordinance was passed, opponents pointed out some legal problems with the language. For example, it calls for a vote from the residents, as opposed to the registered voters. He is not in favor of changing the intent, but would support cleaning up the language. The intent was that in order to raise taxes, a vote is required. C. Lowder said that the .0017 rate was unfounded. Many residents did not understand why that particular rate was unfounded. The certified tax rate is set by the County and takes into account fluctuation in property values. Mayor McGee feels that this ordinance was intended to be a shackle on the Council. C. Parker said that he feels that it has not been difficult for the Council to do its job with the ordinance in place and has not been a shackle. Mayor McGee believed that the Coalition would be at the meeting to support this agenda item because they have repeatedly stated that they would be willing to pay higher taxes. C. Perry said that technically, the Council could repeal the ordinance and raise taxes, but the Council respects the intent of the residents.

MOTION: C. Parker - To deny any changes to Ordinance No. 11-17-2003A and request that staff provide cleaned-up language regarding citizens versus residents. Seconded by C. Lowder


Aye-C. Lowder

C. Parker

                                                                                    C. Perry                                  Motion passes.


7.         City Manager Report and Discussion (8:35 p.m.)


          The Monthly Management Reports did not go out because Konrad Hildebrandt was at the City Managers Conference.

          The City Council received the 2005 General Legislative Session Update and the quarterly financials. C. Perry requested that Rich Knapp put notes in the quarterly financials to alert the Council to those items that are not in line with the projected budget.

          The City Recorder and Deputy are at a City Recorders conference.


8.         Board and Committee Reports (8:45 p.m.)


          C. Perry - Stated that he spoke at a UVSC public finance class.

          C. Lowder - Indicated that there is a meeting tomorrow at the Lehi library at 10:00 a.m. to discuss the possibility of a Northern Utah County library card. C. Lowder cannot attend, but asked that a staff member attend.


9.         Motion to go into Executive Session Pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-5


10.       Motion to Adjourn Executive Session and Reconvene City Council Meeting

            No Executive Session.


C. Parker and C. Fotheringham submitted written requests for an item to be on the agenda. The Mayor said it was not on the agenda because there was no description of what would be discussed. C. Parker said that was not a requirement according to the new Council procedures approved on March 15, 2005. C. Perry said that the intent was that if the Council is unprepared to address the issue, it should not be discussed.


11.       This meeting was adjourned at 8:52 p.m. on a motion by C. Lowder, seconded by C. Perry and unanimously approved.


/s/ Kim E. Holindrake

Approved by Council:                                                Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder

   May 5, 2005