Tuesday, June 7, 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: Rob Fotheringham, Darin Lowder, Melissa Willie, Jim Perry, James Parker (via telephone)

                        Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager

                        Kim Holindrake, City Recorder

                        David Bunker, City Engineer

                        Rich Knapp, Finance Director
                        David Taylor, City Intern

                        Rodney Despain, City Planner (9:29)

                        Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber

Others: Eric Johnson, Jeremy Twitchell-Deseret Morning News, Russ Smart, Gloria Smart, Greg Gordon, Gretchen Gordon, Cecil Read, Carlos Gurr, Chris Tillack, Lana Nelson, Brent Uibell, Shelly Pitts, Zonda Perry, Paul Warner, Nark Nelson, Andrew Bowman, John Ostrom, Stan Harvey, Jay Grant Moody, Dixie Harvey, Jodi Whittaker, Carol Whittaker, Charelle Bowman, Tom Gleason, Jon Woozley, Paula Yates, Brook Richardson, Angie Ivey, Maren Smith, Andrea Farrell, Don Parker, Shirlene Jensen, Howard Bingham, Brent Keil, Mike Wisland, Heidi Markworth, Tony Gunderson, Janet Gunderson, Robyn Wootton, Christopher Jenkins, Todd Campango, Lennard Bakker, Risa Bakker, Randy Benson, Eric Richardson, Sara Jensen, Jennifer Omen, Kesha Williams, Jole Jensen, Jeff Jensen, Greg Pesci, Karissa Neely-New Utah, Joann Brown-Daily Herald, Caleb Warnock, Paula Osborne, Steve Lee, Matthew Whittaker, Keith Gwilliam, A.J. Michaels, Gina Fratto, Dennis Thayne, Brad Creer, Shawn Richins



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 7:19 p.m.


2.         Petition for Disconnection for the Property Located at Approximately 4210 West Harvey Boulevard, East of Deerfield Elementary (7:19 p.m.)


Jay Grant Moody: Does the Council have a copy of the request for disconnection? I have copies, not enough for everyone here, but I’ve got some. Mayor McGee and members of the City Council and other public who are in attendance this evening, I thank you for this opportunity to meet with you regarding the hearing for disconnection with the Harveys. My name is Jay Grant Moody. I’m with the law firm of Duvall, Haws, Moody, and Frei in American Fork. My partner, Gordon Duvall, has been actively involved with this case for a number of years. He could not be here this evening. He is in Zurich and couldn’t catch a quick flight back. He actually is staying in a nice hotel there. He is having a good time. So I am coming here before you. The property in question, I have some maps just so everyone can see that. The property in question lies just south of Harvey Blvd. and east of Deerfield school. I believe most people would recognize where that is. The other map I have is a plat map that shows the property in a smaller portion. Just a little background information. During the time the Harveys were serving religiously on a mission, the property that the Harveys owned was annexed into Cedar Hills. The property in question at that time was designated as a future park. After the Harveys returned, they subsequently, they did not know at the time that it had been designated as a public park and they tried to sell it and they found out it was a public park. They applied to have the public park designation changed to residential so that they could go ahead and subdivide the property. They have been unable to reach a resolution and the park property has remained a public use facility. They Harveys subsequently filed a request for disconnection with the Council on August 7, 2001, which was almost four years ago. Shortly thereafter, they filed a petition for disconnection with the Fourth District Court to also have the court in Provo hear the issue. Shortly thereafter, Cedar Hills, in a resolution by the City, made a resolution to condemn the Harvey property and filed a claim with the Fourth District Court and they said that it was going to be used for the benefit of the public interest of Cedar Hills. The property was essentially planned to be a City park and it was going to be used for athletic fields. The Alpine School District had previously condemned approximately 12 acres and that’s the Deerfield Elementary School. Approximately five acres of Deerfield Elementary has athletic fields. I think most of you are familiar with that. It is my understanding it is used for various ball leagues. When the City filed a motion to condemn the property, they also filed a motion for immediate occupancy, which was heard by the Fourth District Court so that they could take immediate possession of the property. And that was heard by the District Court in December of 2001. Judge Hansen issued a ruling dated January of 2002, which granted the Harveys the right to proceed with their disconnection action and essentially stayed the condemnation action. That action is still pending before the court, pending the resolution or whatever we get resolved here by the Council or by either getting the disconnection granted or reach another resolution. It is my understanding that since the City filed the condemnation action that it purchased approximately nine acres of Mr. Harvey’s brother’s property, J.H. Harvey, by Lone Peak High School that is designated for public building and use as a park. There is also another five-acre park that has been purchased up by the City golf course. The Harveys have previously donated 24 acres of their land to be used for Harvey Blvd. One of the things the court would look at in the statute, I would assume the City Council is aware of the statute for disconnection. Just to briefly review what we would be looking at, the burden of proof is on the petitioners, that would be the Harveys, who must prove by the preponderance of the evidence, first of all the viability of the disconnection. And it is really a hearing that the territory or the property in question be disconnected from the municipality, that the proposed disconnection will not leave the municipality with an area within its boundaries for which the cost requirements or other burdens regarding municipal services would materially increase over the years, make it economically or practically unfeasible for the municipality to continue as a functioning municipality. I think this is where the park comes in. Is it necessary, really, for the park at this time? Number 2 is, does it justify the expenditure of the special funds to be able to do that? Does it leave or create one or more islands or peninsulas of unincorporated territories? Now the Harveys own the green areas just below the orange area. It is divided by the Murdock Canal. The green area is within the boundary of Pleasant Grove. What the Harveys are requesting is that the property again be reunited with the property in Pleasant Grove through the disconnection effort. The property to the east of the orange property is in Pleasant Grove. The property to the south is owned by the Harveys and that is in Pleasant Grove as well. So, by disconnecting, it would not cause a burden or utilities or other services upon the City of Cedar Hills. And again, that the County in which the area proposed for disconnection is located is capable in a cost-effective manner without materially changing the County’s ability of providing municipal services. It is my understanding again that Cedar Hills has agreements with Pleasant Grove, American Fork and others to provide services. By bringing the property back out of Cedar Hills, the Harveys are able to proceed with the use of the property that they desire to do. The Harvey property is not necessary to the City as set forth at the end of this statute that I just quoted. The City has more than sufficient existing property to be used for public facilities for ball fields and for other property that they have already purchased and we would request that the Harveys be able to utilize their rights in their property to use it for the best use to reconnect it to the property they have. In the event that the City decides to disallow the disconnection, then we are back before the courts. We really don’t want to go there. This decision does not have to be made for 45 days. They would like an opportunity to meet with the Council and the Mayor to see if we can reach a resolution in the next 45 days to try to minimize the litigation that may pursue. I think everyone is aware that legal proceedings are very expensive, time consuming and very draining. It is always best if the parties can reach a resolution without having a judge make that decision for them. It really becomes a win-win situation. We would hope that the City will take that into consideration. I think it is time to see if we can really resolve this situation without going to court. Thank you. We appreciate your time.

Eric Johnson: For those who have not been introduced to me, I am Eric Johnson, counsel to the City. As such, I have prepared a binder that I have provided to the City Council that has the statute for disconnection in it. It summarizes that statute in the law as well as case law contributing to disconnection in the State of Utah. And then it provides the factual background to the extent that my office had it relative to this disconnection. My function here tonight is not one of advocacy, but my function is merely to inform as counsel to the City Council because it is their decision to make a determination. It is not my place to sway them one way or another. That said, it is my place to present the facts to that end in matters that would give interest in helping them make a decision as members of the public and likewise would have an opportunity to participate in the public hearing. As was mentioned, there are a couple of lawsuits related to this petition for disconnection. The first lawsuit that was filed—and mind you back in 2001 when it was filed that was the procedure to get a disconnection was to file a lawsuit in court. That procedure has since been changed by the Utah Legislature. Now the first step is to have a public hearing in the court of the City Council. By agreement between the parties, it was determined that they would go under the procedures of the new laws and have this hearing and a determination by the City Council. Subsequent to the filing of the lawsuit for disconnection, there was a lawsuit filed by the City for imminent domain. A third lawsuit was filed—the third one by the Harveys again for what is called inverse condemnation, which is where they are saying that you’ve already taken the value of their property. Those three lawsuits were filed and have been combined and are now one single lawsuit before a single judge. The posture is that the other two lawsuits are just stayed pending a decision on the disconnection. That is procedurally where we are on the disconnection. The facts related to the disconnection are linked very tightly with the annexation of the Harvey properties. Right under tab 4 is a map that shows the Harvey properties. In 1997, David and Dixie Harvey, James D. Harvey and James H. Harvey, typically referred to simply as J.H. Harvey, petitioned Cedar Hills for annexation. Perhaps on a map right here, I can point out roughly where these were. The David and Dixie Harvey property was right in this area here. The James D. Harvey property was up in here. Then there was the James H. property over here. There were two separate petitions for annexation made back in 1997, and then they were combined. As I mentioned, they all have the last name Harvey. They are all related somehow. All three of those petitions moved forward together back in 1997. As part of those annexations, there were plans submitted to the City as to what would happen to the property once it was annexed. This is important because there were conditions made for the annexation. Without those conditions the annexation was not going to be allowed. Under tab 18—this is where the official ordinance and resolution outlining the annexation was to occur. If you will look at the resolution, which is several pages in, on page, I’m sorry not everyone has this, but I am directing these comments to the City Council. On page 4, heading C in bold, town and close conditions and requirements, I read from the resolution under which the annexation occurred. “An annexation concept plan for the James and David Harvey parcels is attached hereto as Exhibit B.” And just to review for you briefly what that was to show, it was to show that there would be development in this area on the James D. Harvey property, that there would be high density development onto the David Harvey property, that there would be approximately 25 undeveloped acres in here, and that this would not be developed at that time. The J.H. Harvey property was not going to be developed at that time. This area would be zoned as PF for public facility, such as a park. There is a parcel, a park right up in here, that also would get that same zoning designation. We will talk about that a little bit more. “Said plan shows the general character of the anticipated development of the area, including approximate locations of streets, size of lots and other conditions. In summary the plan anticipates the development of 207 dwelling units in a combination of development styles and provides for the establishment of a major park area, a small enlargement of an existing park and a cemetery. The J.H. Harvey parcel is proposed to remain in agricultural use for the foreseeable future.” I now turn forward. The bottom of page 4 says, “following a summary of the development by ownership.” Turning over to page 5, it sets forth the amount of property to be developed and the amount to remain open. Under David Harvey, it says 10.9 acres to be developed in multi-family 104 units. It was anticipated at that time that 14.1 would remain open for park, that 9.5 would be cemetery, 3.1 would be turned into streets for a total of 37.6 acres from David Harvey. I will go back and note under James Harvey there would be large lots - 17.7 acres for 17 units, standard lots - 31.4 acres for 86 units, park - 1.9 acres, major streets - 1.9 acres for a total of 52.9 because that will also impact some of the stuff we are going to read here in a minute. If you will now turn to Page 7 of that resolution. It begins at the beginning of the page under the heading, Park and Recreation Requirements. Mind you this was a requirement for the annexation. “Level of service standards adopted as part of the Town’s impact fees study provided the residential areas should have 5.5 acres of parkland for each 1,000 persons.” There are some categorizations there. I skip down to the beginning of the next sentence. “Based on the adopted level of service standards the parkland requirements for each of the major participants and the amount of area proposed to transfer to the Town as shown on the concept plan is as follows.” It shows that James Harvey was required to dedicate 2.04 acres, that he would be able to provide 1.4 acres. He was going to be short in parklands in the amount of .56 acres. This is for what is called the three-corners park, which I believe is right in this area. The City has records that that land was dedicated as well as a route, correct me if I get this wrong, that follows the stream and then it breaks down toward Harvey Blvd. This was all dedicated by James D. Harvey. It says for David Harvey, it says the requirement would be 2.47 acres to be dedicated to the City. What that is, this area that was in high density four-plexes, for the number of people that were going to move in there, David and Dixie Harvey would be required to dedicate 2.47 acres to the City. It says in the concept plan, it shows that actually 14.01 acres were going to be developed into park area, which would mean he would actually have an excess of 11.62. That means that the City would purchase 11.62 acres after 2.47 acres were dedicated to the City. It also talks about J.H. Harvey. It says, “the specific location of those areas within the annexation be designated and conveyed for park and trail purposes are shown on Attachment D. What Attachment D would show is that the three-corners park area, it would show the trail coming down and it would show this area here be developed as park. “Based on the above table, the David Harvey and the three-corners portion of the James Harvey parcel would meet the parkland requirements through conveyance of property. The parkland requirement for the David Harvey parcel is to be met through conveyance of a 2.47 acre portion of land within the territory identified on the concept plan as park. Said land to be conveyed at the time of final plat approval for the 104-unit condominium project.” My understanding is that the initial plat approval for the condominium project has been given, although I’m not sure final plat approval has been. But, I’m also informed that the 2.47 has never been dedicated to Cedar Hills. It continues, “the terms and conditions for acquisition of the additional 11.62 acres for the Town will be in accordance with the terms of a separated purchase and use agreement by and between David Harvey and the Town.” And then it goes on and discusses other matters. I raise those because it was a condition of annexation of the property into Cedar Hills that some of this property be dedicated and that it was anticipated that the rest would be purchased by Cedar Hills for a larger park. If you will turn, City Council, to tab 13. Tab 13 contains a real estate purchase contract between Landco Development Inc. and David and Dixie Harvey. It is primarily for this portion here. Basically Landco was the developer that purchased that property of David and Dixie Harvey. There is an addendum to that. It is just kind of a standard real estate purchase contract and then at the end there is an addendum. And it says under Paragraph 2 in the addendum, “This contract is subject to the following terms and conditions. The City annex the described property and accept the annexation concept plan provided to the City of Cedar Hills as part of the annexation process.” The next paragraph talks about providing adequate water. That concept plan is found within the information I have given you in a number of places largely the same every time. It would show high density development on this portion of the David and Dixie Harvey property. That this area would not be developed at that time, and that this area be zoned PF allowing a park in that area. And so the contract they signed with the developer agreed that, as a condition of the developer purchasing the property, the developer had to get the high density development approved in this area. What that was doing was, that was transferring the development rights from this area onto this property so that it could be developed at a higher density. That is why this area is zoned for park because the development rights had been transferred over to here and the Harveys, in theory, were compensated for that higher density development. In theory were compensated for that higher density development under the real estate purchase agreement, which refers to the concept plan. There will be others who have the opportunity to speak to these things. That is reviewing how the annexation occurred. Let me talk about some factors that I believe the City Council needs to consider in its determination. Under the law the City Council has up to 45 days to make a determination. It does not have to make a determination tonight. The attorneys already have a hearing in court on June 24, which is about 17 days away. If the Council is able to make a determination before that time, I would ask that it make that determination so that that can be reported to the court at that time. That would in no way impair meeting with the Harveys and attempting to reconcile things. What it would do is it would prevent more delay. As you were informed, disconnection was given the priority back in December 2001, along time ago. We need to move off the dime to resolve other matters. And so, I would ask that if the Council is ready, the sooner that they be able to do that. Under tab A, for the City Council, I have prepared a summary for you. You will see at the bottom under letters A through H. Tab A, right up at the front, on page iv, there are a number of factors that should be considered for petition for disconnection. These are the factors that courts consider. I would submit that they are also the factors that should be considered by the City Council in making its determination. The first is whether the proposed disconnection, its effect on the municipality or community as a whole. I would just note that if the City Council were to allow disconnection at this point it would be forfeiting its right to the 2.47 acres that are to be dedicated for the additional density over here, which could cause the City problems in other areas because then residents could say where are the 2.47 acres and we deserve that. I think that the impact on the community as a whole has that potential impact. It talks about the impact on adjoining property owners. There was anticipated to be a park area up here with a trail running down to a park area down here. The park at the other end would not be there if disconnection was allowed. I think that would have a significant impact on all the property owners adjoining and around this property. I would submit it would have an impact on the property owners that aren’t even in the City. You are to consider the existing or projected streets or public ways. There were improvements made to streets when these developments went in and those have been talked about. It then talks about water and sewer services. There are water and sewer services provided to a portion of David and Dixie Harvey property, not to the portion that they are seeking disconnection. Law enforcement, yes, the City does provide law enforcement in those areas. Zoning, the impact on that is that this was zoned for a park and really what the Harveys are asking is that we want out of your City, that it not be a park so that we can develop homes. That is the crux of the inverse condemnation action. If they don’t want homes there, there is largely no inverse condemnation claim. That is what has happened there. And then finally, other municipal services. Those are the factors that you are to consider. Those are the things as I see them. Are there any questions from the Council?

            Mayor McGee: Have you heard all this, James?

            C. Parker: Yes, I have, thank you.

            Mayor McGee: Do you have any questions?

            C. Parker: I had a question for Mr. Moody.

            C. Perry: He is still here.

            Mayor McGee: Go ahead.

C. Parker: Mr. Moody, what do you believe the intention or desire of the Harveys was to the original annexation into Cedar Hills?

Mayor McGee: He said, what do you believe the intentions or desires of the Harveys were when they performed the original annexation into Cedar Hills?

Mr. Moody: They were not aware that there was a high density plan in place. They did not see the map. Mr. Briggs did not provide that to them. They were not aware that number one, that they had a PF Zone on those acreages and they were not aware of the high density.

Mayor McGee: That doesn’t really answer the question. What was their intention for this piece of property? Why did they annex into the City?

C. Perry: Why did they petition for annexation?

Mr. Moody: Well, they were gone and the builder did it with some other family members. They wanted to develop the properties within Cedar Hills.

C. Willie: Why Cedar Hills, why not PG?

Mayor McGee: They were already within the boundaries of the City.

Kim Holindrake: The County.

Mayor McGee: The County.

C. Willie: They didn’t want to be annexed into PG.

Mr. Moody: I believe that their intent was that this document would retain it for family and they would still like to have family build on that property. Their intent right now is that they would like to see if they could utilize part of the property with the City and maintain part of it for residential for their family.

C. Lowder: Is what you’re saying then is that when they signed this addendum and this contract with the developer, which referred to the annexation and the plan, you’re saying that they went ahead and signed that without knowing.

C. Willie: And their family members did not inform them of what was going on.

Mr. Moody: They did not. They were not aware of it until several years later. It is unfortunate that happened.

Eric Johnson: In the break, there was one other thing I did want to mention. I think that the City Council understands this, but I want to make it clear. The original petition for disconnection, the scope has change, because as we mentioned earlier, because this portion here, roughly this portion here, is now an elementary school and so it does not apply where the elementary school is. It only applies to the open area of land, which is a little bit different from the original petition back in 2001. I just wanted to make that clear.

C. Perry: I have a question for you, Eric.

Eric Johnson: Yes.

C. Perry: So, part of this original petition for annexation with David C. Harvey and J.H. Harvey and the other Harveys, the other two did provide the land and/or cash in lieu of land to meet their requirements for parkland?

Eric Johnson: The J.H. Harvey property was not developed at time of annexation. I haven’t followed through on exactly what happened on that parcel. But the James C. Harvey parcel was developed at time of annexation and they did dedicate land right up in here for a park as well as a trail that runs down to what is supposed to be another park, which is the parcel that is petitioned to disconnect.

C. Perry: As you mentioned, we have this policy of so many acres per thousand residents and do you think the City would have liability in terms of other developers, including the other Mr. Harvey, coming after us and saying . . . If we granted disconnection and therefore forfeited that required property 2.47 acres to be dedicated, are we then exposing ourselves to liability where they are going to come back and say, “Wait a minute. Why did you make me give you this land or money or whatever as well as all the other developers in the City and then these Harveys didn’t have to?”

Eric Johnson: The City could require a payment in lieu of dedication of land. I don’t believe that was ever the intention of the City. But once it allows disconnection it would no longer have any leverage to get that payment in lieu of dedication. I think it would be very imprudent to depend on a payment in lieu. If the City didn’t require a payment or a dedication, then yes, the City could be called on the carpet for not doing that for the David and Dixie Harvey property when it applies for everybody else. Is the Council ready to hear comments from the general public?

Mayor McGee: Are we ready? Any further questions James?

C. Parker: No, sir.

Mayor McGee: Thank you, Eric. We will proceed with the public section. Now, just to keep in mind, you’ve heard from representatives from the City and representatives from the Harveys. We have given them a little latitude on the time restrictions. We will now go back to our traditional three minute time restriction because there are nine million people here and we all have lives. I’d also like to remind you that this is strictly in regards to the disconnection process. So if you get off on a tangent, we will cut you short and call the next person up. So please restrict your comments to the disconnection process. The next individual on the sign-up sheet is Eric Richardson. As you come up, state your name and address.


Eric Richardson: I am a member of the City’s Planning Commission so I am a little bit familiar with this issue and very familiar with our City’s zoning laws and so I’d like to comment on this. I appreciate you taking the comments. In America, we value property rights greatly and as the basis of much of what we do life, liberty and property are not to be deprived without due process. So I understand the strong emotions are present tonight. U.S. property rights are based on the English common law where land and gentry was granted use of land in exchange for protection. The nobles paid taxes in exchange for granting these rights. It is not a coincidence when we talk about property rights that it is plural. Property rights. There are various property rights. There are mineral rights, water rights, in some places animal rights. In this case, developmental rights. Rights, like a bundle of sticks, they can be separated. They do not always fall together. Our City’s forefathers had insight and gave it smart community planning. There were a variety of zones in our City, various lot sizes. This reduces the subsidies of large lot zoning, reduces urban sprawl and provides the right house for the right person at the right time in their life. The Harveys were able to transfer development rights to increase density. This was a win for the City. It provided parkland and open space and a variety of home sizes. This was a win for the Harveys. They received density to be developed in a different area at Bridgestone. The City of Cedar Hills allowed the transfer of development rights and they must be made whole by the development rights being replaced with the lands to be developed. Four quick points: Prior transactions were brought up. Those are irrelevant. But if they were, I’m sure that Mr. Harvey was an astute enough investor as a real estate agent that he would know what he was doing. Still, even if he weren’t astute enough that still doesn’t matter. Prior transactions are in fact that—prior transactions. Number two. Open space is a necessity. Because the transfer of development rights, it is not a taking. They are not deprived of their developmental rights. We do not have any areas in the City where we would allow 10 dwelling units per acre without developmental rights being transferred and open space being dedicated. Parkland is for the benefit of residents and they would be deprived of that parkland. Third, Pleasant Grove is not able to service the property effectively. The canal is a natural barrier and requires Cedar Hills to provide services and subsidize those services. And fourth, disconnection would go against the long-term boundary alignment of Pleasant Grove and Cedar Hills. That is an existing plan and would go contrary to that. Finally, reneging on this is not right. Citizens would be deprived of fairness in zoning planning. Please deny the request. Harveys, let your name be known for good. You have given a lot to this community. Let’s don’t quarrel with this any longer. There is not a need for mercy. It is time for justice to be served. Thank you.


Shelly Pitts: Mayor McGee and City Council members. As your Parks and Trails chairperson, I am standing before you today to plead that you do not give up this property. Our general plan states that we have 6.1 acres of park space to every 1,000 residents. To date, we have completed 20.9 acres of park space. We should with the 7,810 residents, we should have 47.64 acres. We are deficient by 26.74 acres. With the parks listed on your paper that we would hope to consider in the near future, they would total 40.6 acres. Added to our 20.9 acres and with the build-out in three to five years being 12,432 residents, we will still be deficient by 14.34 acres of park space for our residents. The land is dwindling. If you give up this property, I don’t know where you would find the acreage to meet these goals that we have as a Parks & Trails Committee as a City. Please do not give up this valuable 12.4 acres of park space on this Harvey land. Name it after them. It would be a wonderful facility. On the back of your paper you will see the drawings of the parcel and see how vital that is, especially as Cedar Hills is being no longer allowed into American Fork recreation. We need to be independent and be on our own and have our own facilities and run our own recreational programs. This park would be vital to that. I just ask for that for the people that live here and reside here and recreate here in Cedar Hills. Thank you.


Jon Woozley: I’m also a member of the Parks and Trails Committee with Shelly. I again want to exhort you that it is vital that we hold on to, or at least fight for this portion of land. We are obviously a very landlocked area and geographically challenged. There really is not a lot of area left. Whether we want to endure a recreation program on our own or combine with other communities, we don’t have a lot to bring to the table at this point. The parks we have now are not as functional. We do not have a lot of soccer fields and baseball fields; places like that. We have really cool parks, but they are not the traditional kinds of parks that the kids need for soccer tournaments and things like that. That has been planned for the Harvey Park. To summarize what is planned now, and obviously this is up for planning when the time comes hopefully. We are talking about a large, pony-sized baseball diamond, two Little League softball fields, four tennis courts, three sand volleyball courts, two basketball courts, passive recreation, picnic tables, pavilions, large playgrounds, storage, and jogging loops. All these things are what we had currently planned for that parcel. Ever since this annexation, this has kind of been our key park. This is what is going to bring our recreation to another level is to have these types of facilities in our community. Losing it would be a tremendous blow to our parks and recreation committee and our capital park plan, which a lot of us moved here because we thought there was going to be a great park plan in place. As our committee has met, we have struggled constantly trying to figure out a way to make this all work. This is all according to the feasibility study that was done to inquire of the residents what they wanted. Did they want basketball courts? Did they want softball fields? Yes, those were the high priorities. Very high priorities in the feasibility study. It shows that the residents do want this type of facility. And I think we should do everything we can to fight for them. I am in agreement with Shelly. I think that obviously the Harveys have done a lot here and it would be nice to create it as a tribute to them or find some reasonable approach to utilizing the area where it will benefit. To say that we don’t need it is not appropriate. We are way short. We are projected to be even shorter. We do need it. We absolutely need it. Thank you.


Laurie Anderson: I don’t know all the legal jargon. I’ve been kind of confused back there. I really do want the City to do what they and the Harveys have all decided in the past. Having said that, there was concern when we heard that the City of Cedar Hills might even consider giving up some of our designated parkland for more houses, let alone give up land altogether through a disconnection. Please don’t forget the high cost of this land originally was in the high density housing just west of Deerfield Elementary. It seems like a very simple answer if you were asked the question, would you rather have more parks in the neighborhood or more houses. I believe more residents would answer more parks. Even a large landowner near Deerfield Elementary, when asked if he would support a plan for more residential development said, “Why would I give up my open space and nice views for more roof lines.” We believe the real value of the City, community and neighborhood lies in its church, schools, open spaces and parks. We look forward to a lighted tennis court, softball fields, more walking trails and maybe even a City pool someday. We hope you consider this as they move forward on the master plan for Cedar Hills.


Paula Osborne: I am not a lawyer though I married one. I understood about half of what was said and great. Lawyers are paid to do their job. I, however, am just a citizen of Cedar Hills and a very concerned citizen. I oppose a park. In fact, I want to ask you City Council people, what kind of park are you planning? I do not know. I would like to know.

C. Lowder. I think that is what the Parks and Trails Committee is bringing before us.

Paula Osborne: It is a concept. So it is not set in stone. So you could change your mind if the Harveys decide to concede this land and stop proceedings here and now. You could change that tomorrow and say, “oh we are going to turn it into a softball complex.” You could do that, conceivably.

Jon Woozley: Our concept in our Parks and Trails Committee is that we inquire of the neighborhood. Because we plan that the predominant users of the park are those that are closest to it.

Paula Osborne: Good. That is why I am here. I live right around the corner from that. My biggest concern is noise level. Nobody has even considered that it seems. The noise level of a park with a softball complex, soccer, whatever, is going to impede on the privacy, the peacefulness of the area around us. I live right next to the school. I get tons of noise all year round from that school. I don’t mind it. My kids benefit from that beautiful school. That was a great, wonderful addition to our City. However, a park I oppose. I am for the Harveys disconnection proceeding. I hope they find success in that. I don’t want another park unless you can promise me there are no lights and there is no softball at night. I don’t want the noise. The crown jewel of our dear City is, in our opinion, the higher level homes—Orchard Place. To put a park right by that, in my mind is very foolish. It would take away their privacy when they have gates. A park would add to delinquents, in my opinion. I appreciate you hearing me and again, I support the Harveys in their decision for disconnection, in the lawyer jargon.


Jeff Jensen: Let me just correct a couple fallacies I’ve heard up here. J.H. is not James H.; it is Jonathan H. Harvey. Please call him by his correct name. Second would be this. The City has no vested interest in the roads or improvements that went into Harvey Blvd. We paid for those. The developers put all of them in. At the time of that 2.4 or so acres you guys are concerned about, Ken Briggs paid a fee instead of donating that land. That has been taken care of. We were in the meeting where that was done. So the City is out nothing there. They chose to take the money and run away from the land. I would like to correct that one also. The other issues are, there are a couple issues that I have been listening to. The Harveys never requested or wanted to be annexed into the City. It was part of a well contract. In order for Cedar Hills to buy the well, they requested that these lands be annexed into Cedar Hills. That is where the annexation procedures took place the very first time. If you go back through the history of that contract, Cedar Hills dealt in bad faith. They did not pay the fees they said they would for the water or at the time they said they would. That has created a lot, I think, of the hard feelings of Cedar Hills trying to enforce a contract where they have dealt in bad faith during a portion of the proceedings. All that put aside, I believe that landowners still have a right and should have a position to do what they want with their land. I think if you were sitting on the opposite side of the table as the landowners, you would feel completely different than you do today. I don’t believe for ten seconds that you would hold your hard positions. I believe that there should be room for negotiation. I get involved with the legal profession doing litigations at court. We always say as long as we are talking, there is the room for all parties to get what they want. The second we stop talking is when we have our problems. So, to make a unilateral decision and feel that you don’t need to listen to other people’s opinions or meet with the Harveys, I think would be a very foolish thing. And lastly, I’ll be honest, I am tired of seeing my tax dollars get wasted on attorneys. Not that the attorney profession is not an honorable profession. We use them ourselves. However, I think that with the problems we have fiscally, as an accountant in this City, there are much better uses for this money than to constantly want to litigate. I think that to sit there and hold a hard position and say let the lawyers deal with it is financially foolish when we have so many other issues that are making the papers and making our City look poor. That is what I would like to say. Thank you.

C. Perry: A couple of points for clarification. Do you have documentation for any, you said you were trying to correct some false information? Now our attorneys and our City staff have provided documentation for all of the goings on in this big binder and the things you are talking about are not in there. I would love to see the documentation.

Jeff Jensen: I don’t know what documentation we saved. But, this is not hearsay. This is us sitting in meetings listening.

Mayor McGee: Which us?

Jeff Jensen: Myself and my wife. This is not hearsay. I would think that also the well contract from the payment on the well and the initial agreement should be in your public record.

C. Perry: So we can look at those well contracts. You also said that the Harveys didn’t originally petition for annexation?

Jeff Jensen: No, the initial negotiation with the City was the City asking for annexation. That was part of the well agreement

Sarah Jensen: The only way they would buy our well was if we agreed to annex. And then they did not buy the well for the amount agreed nor at the time agreed. A developer ended up buying the well and donating it to the City. But the City in fact broke faith first with that contract.

Jeff Jensen: It is not quite cut and dried as you would like it to be.

C. Perry: I’m all for getting to the bottom of that. Please understand that none of us were involved at that time and so we are trying, based on the documentation and the facts that we have, we are trying to put together what happened and what didn’t happen. For example, I have the petition for annexation signed by the Harveys asking to be annexed.

Jeff Jensen: That was part of the required paperwork.

C. Perry: That may be, but I don’t have any of that documentation. I guess I am really asking you . . .

Sarah Jensen: The City would have the contract they agreed to. That would be in the City building somewhere.

C. Fotheringham: Well you guys raised something specific that is of interest and that is the dollars in lieu of the 2.47 acres. Do you have any specifics on that?

Sarah Jensen: That was required by the City Council. If the City didn’t collect that then it should go to Ken Briggs.

C. Fotheringham: Right, if there is any information or documentation that you can provide to help back up your assertion.

C. Perry: I don’t want to derail the public hearing. I would like to get Konrad, if you would look to see if cash in lieu of land was ever actually paid and also the well documentation.

Jeff Jensen: I think you keep referring to the master plan. If you go back to the master plan, there was a large cemetery planned there and a park and the high density housing. Well now the school resides on part of the high density housing, which means that they didn’t get all the high density housing on that property.

Mayor McGee: That is not correct. The school resides on the cemetery. The high density housing all happened.

C. Willie: Is still happening.

C. Perry: It is actually on the cemetery and part of what was to be parkland.

Jeff Jensen: That I’m not, you can correct me because I am just not as familiar with that.

Mayor McGee: Yes, they took part of what was to be parkland with the school.

Jeff Jensen: I just want to be sure I’m correct. Like I said, it is not quite as cut and dried an issue as everybody thinks.

Mayor McGee: I think it would be important for the Harveys to provide documentation that they paid Briggs on the one hand but on the other hand . . .

            Sarah Jensen: We didn’t pay Briggs. We are not saying we paid Briggs. The City Council required him to pay.

Jeff Jensen: It was Ken Briggs’ responsibility.

Mayor McGee: No, I want to see where you paid him. You just claimed that you paid him.

Jeff Jensen: He bought the land and was doing that development. In the meetings, Ken Briggs opted for the money.

C. Parker: One quick comment. I appreciate any information that helps us. I think there was an assumption in some previous comments that were just made. We are attempting to gather all relevant information regarding this issue. The reason we are having this public hearing is to gather information. It is not a foregone conclusion in my mind.

Eric Johnson: Mayor, may I? Since I made the assertion that the 2.47 acres were not dedicated nor a fee paid in lieu, I did not make that assertion without previously inquiring of City staff as to whether they could find any record of that. I was informed that they could not. However, I believe that in lieu of these assertions, it should be double checked.

Mayor McGee: We will make every effort to do that. There is no reason not to. Any further questions from the Council? James are you good?

C. Parker: Yes.

Dixie Harvey: The annexation was never sent to us.

C. Lowder: How did they sign it?

C. Fotheringham: They didn’t sign it. They signed a notice that they knew about the hearing.

Mayor McGee: Who were your representatives here?

Dixie Harvey: We signed that the meeting was held. I had to go and dig through files. It was never sent to us.

C. Perry: Just so I’m clear. This is the notice of the hearing. It specifies that there is a hearing, the time and the date, we’ll receive public comment concerning the draft impact polity declaration. That is the document that Eric was reading from that adopted the annexation requirements for the Harvey 3 and Harvey 4 annexations. Copies of the draft policy declaration are available for public inspection at the town hall during normal business hours. David signed under “I received notice,” etc. So you are saying that he knew of the document and the hearing but he never got the document or read it.


3.         Amendments to the Budget for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 (July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005) (8:25 p.m.)

            No comments.

4.         Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2005-2006 (July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2006) (8:25 p.m.)


Eric Richardson: I don’t think anyone commented last year, something’s telling me to do it this year. Mayor, Council, citizens of Cedar Hills have asked for services to support the family friendly community that exists. We all moved here creating this community around those goals. Decisions 2004 showed that citizens are willing to pay for services. What has become of the legacy left? Library? Rec. program? Youth City Council? I’m glad I took my son to the first annual Easter egg hunt in 2004 because that was the only annual Easter egg hunt. What happened to our Community Services Director let alone the future plans like the pool, park development and investments in our future. The 24th of July celebration is all we have left. How long can we continue to cannibalize ourselves? How long do we make the same decisions expecting different results? We need two things to happen to stop the self-destructive behavior. First, we need commercial development. Now is not too late. Citizens should vote this month to encourage economic development. Second, we should rid ourselves of the cancer of subsidization. This is that last year that one-time growth revenue will subsidize ongoing expenses. We need to repeal the tax cap. I quote from the Daily Herald. Tera Duncan, who helped write the tax initiative that was passed in 2003, is now one of the founding members of the Coalition to Preserve Cedar Hills, said that “the initiative was necessary so that residents could ask how their tax dollars could be spent. The issue came up after the City decided to build the Cedar Hills golf club, which is now running in the red. We were just getting sick and tired of being bounded and taxed right and left without being considered. We didn’t want them to buy the golf course but they did and now it is sucking up the money.” She blames the golf course for the City’s financial loss. Certainly the golf course had issues. But it appears here, that the tax cap initiative had more to do with the golf course and losing the golf course bond election than about the proper role of government. It is time now to get over that. We need to go forward. We need to listen to residents. We need to move on. Thank you.


Jon Woozley: Again representing the Parks and Trails committee of Cedar Hills. We are wanting your help in passing the proposed budget. We feel like we have worked hard as a committee getting these things together, proposing new park development. As we discussed before, I think that is one of the reasons a lot of us moved here, not for the high density housing, but for the parks and recreation. So, we have proposed, as you’ll find on your budget sheets, the amount that we are proposing to develop some parks in our City. I think that this would be an important thing for the City. Something positive for the City to look at is some development of some parks. We just encourage you to pass the proposed budget pertaining to the parks and recreation. When I moved here I was astounded at the impact fees and now I think myself and a lot of other residents are ready to see some of the results of those impact fees. Thank you.

C. Perry: Mayor, I’d just like to make a comment for the benefit of the public, I guess. Just to be clear, parks are paid for out of impact fees that are paid for by developers. As we grow, as developers develop land, they pay these impact fees and we use that money to purchase parks. As Jon is talking about the money for the parks, that is use it or lose it money. We either have to buy parks with that money or we have to refund it to developers. You hear about the golf course is losing money and we are cutting certain City services. And then you hear, “oh we want to buy parks.” Those monies cannot cross. That is park money. We charge developers. We have to use it on parks or we have to refund it. It has nothing to do with whether the golf course is losing money or whether we have a community services director or anything like that.

Mayor McGee: That necessity he described is mandated by law.


Mark Nelson: I am just a citizen of Cedar Hills. I have attended some budget meetings. They don’t look very good, generally speaking. I would just like to encourage the City Council as they are cannibalizing different areas of the budget, to remember that the citizens do want services. We want a vibrant community. Most of us have moved from cities that had all of these services and now are without. We took them for granted, possibly before. But, in your decision making processes, realize that we don’t want a City that is just minimal, that’s nothing, that just provides sewer and water, if we can even afford that. But, we want some services. I would encourage the City Council members who are possibly hampering any commercial development through the proposed initiatives, to maybe rethink those things so that we can encourage in any way possible growth and revenue that would possibly provide some of these services that we want as citizens. Thanks.

5.         Adjourn

            This public hearing was adjourned by Mayor McGee at 8:32 p.m.



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 8:32 p.m.


            Invocation given by C. Perry

            Pledge of Allegiance


2.         Public Issues for Future Agendas (8:34 p.m.)


Gretchen Gordon: She considered some of the negative pressure on Cedar Hills when deciding where their next home would be and chose to stay here. In an effort to provide a more secure future for Cedar Hills, she and her husband will vote no on the initiatives. She said she is hopeful a balance between moderation and a thriving commercial would be restored. She also hopes that Cedar Hills will be able to provide services in the future.

Lana Nelson: She said that when she moved here, she thought the City would have standard services. She would like the City to maximize the area to have commercial growth and services. She is voting no on the initiatives and hopes residents will consider what is necessary for a well-balanced community.

Brent Uibell: He asked about the City’s progress on street speed control. This year’s budget includes money for a speed trailer that will be able to do a speed audit. He passed out an editorial from the Daily Herald entitled “Answering the Coalition” from Sunday, May 22, saying he agreed with the feelings in the editorial. He will vote no on the initiatives.

C. Fotheringham excused to attend the Highland City meeting. (8:40 p.m.)


Eric Richardson: He said that government makes many laws based on morals. Because we can legislate, doesn’t mean we should. He encouraged residents of Cedar Hills to come to Heritage Park tomorrow at 7:30 for a town meeting.

Charelle Bowman: She stressed that the upcoming vote is a good chance to do something good for the community. Cedar Hills needs money. Blaming others is not a solution. She said that the City needs a commercial zone now. Cedar Hills needs a strong anchor store and should encourage them to come. She asked residents to vote no on the initiatives. She said they will not affect public safety nor erode values. She feels they will show respect for individual agency and provide revenue and convenience. She also said it is not right for the City to default on the golf course loan and is voting yes to the bond because she feels it is in the City’s best interest and the right thing to do.

John Ostrom: He is strongly opposed to the initiatives. He moved here without an understanding of the golf course but did understand that there would be a commercial area that would alleviate the property tax burden. He is disheartened to see the initiatives that have taken a commercial zone to a religious and moral issue and feels the initiatives take liberties away.

Zonda Perry: When she first thought about the initiatives she thought, sure, why not? However, she now realizes the implications are greater. There are people that the initiatives will affect. It might affect how welcome they feel in the community. She said she does not like how it feels to be on the outside and feels that is reason enough to vote no on the initiatives.

Jon Woozley: He is the webmaster for the CCCH website and learns a lot about both sides of the issues. There is a perception from those not of the predominant religion that these initiatives seek to get rid of them in the community. He has talked to some independent grocers. One said the financial package to finance a store depended on being open on Sunday and selling alcohol.

Mike Wisland: He said that money has to come from somewhere. He would rather have the money come from elsewhere. He would like to see who can come for the commercial zone. He is voting no on the initiatives. He also requested that there be an ordinance over the lighting issues in the commercial zone.

Mark Nelson: He is frustrated that some Council members are for the initiatives and does not see any benefit to the initiatives. If there is not benefit to the City, don’t vote for it. He feels that many residents do not come to meetings and are not well informed about the issues. The City Council is the best informed. He encouraged the residents of Cedar Hills to become educated and realize it is not a religious issue.

Chris Tillack: He said that religion should be left out of City meetings and cannot think of one issue the Council addresses where someone’s religious affiliation has any bearing. He feels the City is creating an exclusionary environment. He would like to see good voter turnout and thinks that the vast majority will vote no on the initiatives. The initiatives will further paralyze the City. He feels that the City should not have to vote on the bond but it should be a standing policy that the City pays its bills. The City does not have a perfect commercial zone. We need commercial. He encouraged residents to talk to neighbors about the issues.


3.         Approval of the Minutes from the May 17, 2005, Public Hearing and Regular City Council Meeting, the May 10, 2005, Special City Council Meeting and the May 24, 2005, Special City Council Meeting. (9:06 p.m.)

Lost phone connection with C. Parker (9:11 p.m.)

MOTION: C. Perry - To approve the minutes from the May 17, 2005, Public Hearing and Regular City Council Meeting, the May 10, 2005, Special City Council Meeting and the May 24, 2005, Special City Council Meeting, as amended. Seconded by C. Lowder.


Aye-C. Lowder

C. Perry

                                                                        C. Willie                                 Motion passes.

Regained phone connection with C. Parker (9:13 p.m.)

4.         Review/Action on Proposed Eagle Scout Project (9:13 p.m.)

See handouts. Jake Heart proposed an Eagle Scout project that will be entirely funded by private donations. The project involves installing a flag pole at the Cedar Hills baseball field (Heiselt’s Hollow Park). The flag pole is 35 feet tall with lights and landscaping. Jake is open to placement. Staff said they could not think of any reason to deny the project. C. Perry asked who would raise and lower the flag. Once it is lit, the flag can stay up but needs to be replaced annually. Raising and lowering the flag is not an issue. The Council directed staff to work with Jake Heart for placement. Colonial Flag will be installing the flag pole. The Council feels that, depending on location, 35 feet might be too tall. Staff will work with Jake on the height issue.

MOTION: C. Willie - To approve the Eagle scout project by Jake Heart to install a flagpole at Heiselt’s Hollow Park, subject to approval and help from the City Engineer and City staff. Seconded by C. Lowder


C. Parker thanked Jake and said that the last time the City approved a scout project it failed to meet the expectations and the specifications provided. He wanted to ensure that it is installed per plan.


Aye-C. Lowder

C. Parker

C. Perry

                                                                        C. Willie                                 Motion passes.


5.         Review/Action on Petition for Disconnection for the Property Located at Approximately 4210 West Harvey Boulevard, East of Deerfield Elementary (9:22 p.m.)


See handouts. C. Lowder said that he feels that staff needs to gather more information. All relevant information will be forwarded on to the City Council. Mr. Moody was also asked to provide any information he has by Friday. This item will be on next Tuesday’s agenda.

MOTION: C. Perry - To continue this item until our next meeting. Seconded by C. Lowder.


Aye-C. Lowder

C. Parker

C. Perry

                                                                        C. Willie                                 Motion passes.


Eric Johnson stated that he knows of one person on City staff that recalls that there was a fee in lieu payment for the 2.47 acres. He will investigate.


6.         Review/Action on Resolution of Intent Establishing Parameters for the General Obligation Bond (9:27 p.m.)


See handouts. Eric Johnson prepared a draft resolution establishing parameters for the general obligation bond. The resolution states that the only purpose of the bond is to refinance the bond on the golf course and the cost of issuance. This resolution also reflects the fact that the City has a debt reserve and if that is used, the City would not need to issue more then $6.2 million. Eric Johnson felt that the cost of bond issuance would likely be between $100,000 and $150,000. Mark Edminster put together some scenarios. His scenarios are based on conservative, high-end estimates. C. Parker stated that one of the reasons to issue the bond is to alleviate cash flow issues in order to justify to residents the trade off to having a GO bond over a revenue bond. C. Perry and C. Lowder felt that most residents would be willing to pay for the assurance that even in the worst case scenario, the City is covered. C. Perry said he would be unwilling to support anything that might be a gamble. Konrad Hildebrandt asked the Council to look at payments that would have to be made on the current track versus the cost of issuance for a GO bond where the first payment can be pushed off for 6-12 months followed by a lower payment. Between now and 2007, staying the current course would be less expensive than refinancing. C. Parker said that since the intent is to sell the course before 2007, it might be better to stay the course. He does not want to be more tightly tied to the course by structuring a 30-year bond. C. Perry said that he still favors covering the worst case scenario. The resolution, as currently crafted, allows the City to issue a bond at a later date. C. Parker wanted some of C. Fotheringham’s suggestions in the resolution stating that there is a high degree of probability the City will be able to dispose of the course before the balloon payment in 2007. Issuing the bond would be to save cash flow at that time as well as to avoid default in 2007. C. Perry said that he is uncomfortable telling the public that there is a high degree of probability that the course can be sold. for enough to retire the existing debt.

MOTION: C. Perry - To approve Resolution No. 6-07-2005A, A resolution of the City Council of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah County, Utah, setting forth its guidelines and intentions with respect to a bond election called for June 28, 2005, and related matters, subject to the amendments as discussed. Seconded by C. Willie.


Eric Johnson will e-mail the revised resolution tomorrow. If there are objections, the Council has two days to respond. Roll Call Vote Taken.


Aye-C. Lowder

C. Parker

C. Perry

                                                                        C. Willie                                 Motion passes.


The Council will hold a town meeting on Tuesday, June 21 from 6-7 p.m. to discuss the bond election. C. Perry would like a separate flyer for the bond election. Eric Johnson said that all voter information needs to go out together. Notice of the bond election can go out separately. Mark suggested that the town meeting be announced at the CCCH meeting.


A resident asked whether the sale of the golf course would preserve a golf course or if it would turn it into development. The Council said that the City will put out a request for proposals and see what comes in. The preference is to preserve the golf course in some form.


7.         Review/Action on Impact Fees and Water Rights Regarding the Units Affected by the Landslide (10:15 p.m.)


See handouts. David Bunker stated that the landslide rendered one four-plex uninhabitable. The affected four-plex will be removed and will not be rebuilt. There were water rights and impact fees paid for those four units to hook onto the City infrastructure. Those units will no longer affect the infrastructure. Staff recommends that impact fees and water rights be credited and transferred to future units. C. Perry said that the area will still need to be watered. David Bunker explained that there are two components to water rights, indoor and outdoor. The larger portion is the indoor rights. If the area is turned into a park, the difference is the footprint of the building, which is negligible.

MOTION: C. Perry - To approve a water right and impact fee credit for town home units affected by the 2005 landslide. The credit will be applied to future units within the development and will be effective when the existing units are removed and remedied. Seconded by C. Lowder.


Aye-C. Lowder

C. Parker

C. Perry

                                                                        C. Willie                                 Motion passes.

8.         Review/Action on Proposed 2005-2006 Fiscal Year Budget (10:20 p.m.)


See handouts. In the preliminary budget there was approximately $19,600 that was growth funded. The Council directed staff to take out $20,000 so that there was no funding of non-growth related items with growth income. Staff recommended taking $800 from maps, $4,500 from contingencies, $500 from public works office equipment, $5,000 from snow removal, $9,912 from Family Festival and $4,038 from spring cleanup and Christmas decorations. The Council also requested a look at the business license software as well. Staff left the business license software in the budget. It helps the City become more effective and efficient with a quicker response. C. Perry said that during the last meeting the Council questioned the validity of business licenses. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that he doesn’t know of any City that doesn’t have business licenses. The City does yearly inspections with some businesses. With the software, labor hours would decrease from .68 hours per business license to .42. The new system would also save about $ 0.90 per license in printing costs. There will be a bigger savings as business licenses increase. The $3,500 is a one time fee. Upgrades are included with Caselle. There is also an existing technical support. The Council also requested an analysis of a public works facility. A public works facility would save an estimated total of $110,000/year. It would take about 11 years to break even given the cost of acquiring land, cost of building and cost of equipment. If equipment needs to be replaced every 7-8 years, the public works facility might not break even but the level of service would increase. C. Parker would like to see additional analysis on personnel costs and when it would be the best time to move forward. C. Perry added that there are some issues the City is dealing with now that the City won’t be dealing with next year and future funding might be more appropriate.


C. Fotheringham returned (11:05 p.m.) and reported on the Highland meeting. He attended the Highland City Public Hearing to object to the rezoning of city-owned property that is in Highland City. Highland City continued the item. They did not object to a maintenance building for the golf course on the land but did not want a public works facility.


C. Parker said he would support passing a budget tonight with $19,600 cut. C. Perry said that while it is laudable to balance the budget, it is illusory because the City won’t be able to do it in the future as growth slows down, taxes don’t increase and expenditures increase. The Council agreed to cut: $4,500 from Council training and travel, $3,500 for the business licensing software, $5,000 from contingencies, $2,120 across the board (10%) from materials and supplies, $800 from maps, $5,000 from snow removal and $500 from public works office equipment.

MOTION: C. Fotheringham - To adopt Resolution 6-07-2005B, a resolution adopting the 2005-2006 fiscal year budget for the City of Cedar Hills, Utah. Seconded by C. Willie. Roll Call Vote Taken.


Aye-C. Fotheringham

C. Lowder

C. Parker

C. Perry

                                                                        C. Willie                                 Motion passes.

9.         Presentation on Culinary Water Audit (12:24 a.m.)

C. Parker excused. He is in Germany. (12:25 a.m.)


See handouts. Horrocks Engineering performed a culinary water audit. They compared usage costs versus delivery costs. The City is subsidizing water rates at about $0.25 per 1,000 gallons. The proposed 2006 rates are, $7.50 for 8,000 gallons. Previously, the City charged $7.50 for 10,000 gallons. The average house uses 8,000 gallons. New proposed rates are, $7.50 for 8,000 gallons, from 8,001 to 10,000 the charge is $1.00 per 1,000 gallons, from 10,001 to 13,000 the charge is $2.00 per 1,000 gallons and above 13,001 the charge is $3.00 per 1,000 gallons.

10.       City Manager Report and Discussion (12:41 a.m.)


          The Family Festival is moving forward.

          Cedar Hills Drive will be closed for 3-4 days next week for the speed table. There will be detours.

          Dick Thorman came to visit regarding the golf course with Will Gustafson. Will Gustafson is an interested golf course buyer from California.

          The Canyon Road beautification project is going out to bid.

11.       Board and Committee Reports

            No reports.

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

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

            No Executive Session.

14.       Adjourn


This meeting was adjourned at 12:45 a.m. on a motion by C. Fotheringham, seconded by C. Lowder and unanimously approved.


/s/ Kim E. Holindrake

Approved by Council:                                                Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder

   June 21, 2005