PUBLIC HEARING AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, August 15, 2006 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Mayor Mike McGee, Presiding
Council Members: Eric Richardson, Jim Perry, Charelle Bowman
Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager
Kim Holindrake, City Recorder
Rodney Despain, City Planner
Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber
Others: Brent Uibel, Steve Kroes, Virginia Rosenthal
PUBLIC HEARING
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 at 7:07 p.m. by Mayor McGee.
2. Certified Tax Rate for Fiscal Year 2007 (7:07 p.m.)
• Steve Kroes - Mr. Kroes stated that he supports the tax rate as long as the Council can communicate how the new rate will change the lives of the residents of Cedar Hills. He wants the Council to articulate how the services that will be restored will improve the life of residents in Cedar Hills.
3. Ordinance Revoking and Recinding the Total Maximum Property Tax Rate (7:08 p.m.)
No comment.
4. Canyon Heights at Cedar Hills, Plat J (Resubdivision of Canyon Heights at Cedar Hills, Plat G, Lots 5 & 6) (7:08 p.m.)
No comment.
5. Landscaping Ordinance (7:09 p.m.)
No comment.
6. Amendments to Title 10, Chapter 5, Section 18, Fences (7:09 p.m.)
• Virginia Rosenthal - Mrs. Rosenthal’s property backs up to the Mesquite soccer fields. She publicly thanked C. Bowman and the Parks and Trails Committee for listening to the residents who want more choices in fencing and the Planning Commission for doing their due diligence. She asked the City Council to approve the amendments to the Fencing Ordinance.
7. Amendments to Title 11, Chapter 7, Subdivisions (7:10 p.m.)
No comment.
8. This Public Hearing was adjourned at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor McGee.
COUNCIL MEETING
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 at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor McGee.
Invocation given by C. Richardson
Pledge of Allegiance
2. Public Comment (7:12 p.m.)
• Brent Uibel - Mr. Uibel complimented the Council for their great composure at the town meetings regarding the golf course reconfiguration. He has noticed that the dirt pile at the Public Works building site is being removed. He would like City staff to continue to monitor the work on the dirt pile so that it is removed on time.
CONSENT AGENDA
3. Minutes from the August 1, 2006, Regular City Council Meeting (7:14 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve the Consent Agenda. Seconded by C. Bowman.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Perry
C. Richardson Motion passes.
SCHEDULED ITEMS
C. Richardson said that because he lives in the Juniper Heights subdivision he has a conflict of interest on Item #7. He stated that he will not vote on that item.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To table Item #7 until the next meeting. Seconded by C. Perry.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Perry
C. Richardson Motion passes.
C. Perry said that he is unable to vote on Item #6 because of a conflict of interest.
MOTION: C. Perry - To table Item #6. Seconded by C. Bowman.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Perry
C. Richardson Motion passes.
4. Review/Action on Ordinance Revoking and Recinding the Total Maximum Property Tax Rate (7:17 p.m.)
Staff Report:
See handouts. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that the City’s attorney wrote and reviewed this ordinance. It revokes and recinds Ordinance 11-17-2003A, which capped property taxes.
Council Discussion:
• C. Perry stated that he feels that the original ordinance is not good legislation. The wording is inappropriate and ambiguous. It refers to the certified tax rate, when it likely means the calculated tax rate. As written it is meaningless because the certified tax rate is the rate that the Council sets. It also calls for a vote of the residents, not registered voters. He stated that he respects the intent of the initiative as a reflection of public dissatisfaction with poor communication surrounding the previous tax increase. Residents felt that the information regarding the need for a tax increase was deficient. Since that time there has been another campaign cycle with candidates who discussed the need to revoke this ordinance. Those candidates were overwhelmingly elected. The Decisions survey also showed that residents favor community services and are willing to pay for them. The initiative has prohibited the Council from offering the services that residents want. He stated that he believes that elected officials have a responsibility to justify why tax increases are needed and a responsibility to listen to residents’ wants and needs. Those things can be achieved without this initiative. He said he favors revoking and recinding the ordinance.
• C. Richardson stated that the initiative was a great lesson in accountability. Through the initiative, residents held officials accountable for the prior tax increase. It is also a lesson in communication and resident involvement to shape policy. Since this ordinance came into effect, residents have been upset by the services that have been cut. The things that have been reinstated in this year’s budget are only a portion of what citizens’ want. Based on discussions with residents, he feels the initiative is outdated and is no longer needed. He stated that he supports revoking the ordinance.
• C. Bowman stated that she appreciates the 2003 ordinance because it is what got her involved but does not appreciate the ordinance because of what it did. Because of the initiative, services that she wanted for her family were cut. With the ordinance in place, there is no way to bring back services that she campaigned for restoring, let alone add more community services, which she also supported while campaigning. She stated that she has yet to hear residents express that the initiative has brought them any benefit. She feels that there is no need for the tax cap. It has set the City back and she wants to move forward. She stated that she still supports revoking the ordinance like she said she would do while campaigning.
• C. Perry read the following statement from C. Wright: I apologize for missing the Council meeting tonight. It is the first Council meeting I have missed in my six months on the Council. If I were present, I would vote in favor of abolishing the tax cap, and also in favor of the property tax increase. Regarding the tax cap, I appreciate and understand the circumstances that led the voters of our City to put the tax cap on the ballot, and also vote in favor of it. I also believe the risk and costs associated with the golf course are unacceptable, but I think the residents of this City hired the City Council to carefully review our City’s needs, and then decide what is the appropriate amount of revenue. Right now, I think the City’s needs substantially outweigh the City’s revenue, which is why I favor abolishing the tax cap, and increasing property taxes.
Regarding the property tax increase, I am only voting to raise property taxes by approximately 20% tonight. The other 80% increase experienced by most residents comes from the general obligation bond the City voted on last year to refinance the golf course debt. I think this revenue is essential due to the general increase in the price of nearly everything (such as emergency services and construction materials), our failure to collect enough impact fees to finish our parks and the ongoing failure to have a commercial tax base. Finally, the costs associated with the golf course debt are at the heart of both problems here. While no one on the Council is responsible for the golf course mess, I believe we will be responsible for it if we have not largely resolved the situation before your property tax bill is sent out next year. I plan to make it our number one priority until it is resolved, and I favor reconfiguration, or selling off select portions of the golf course, until we have fully eliminated the roughly $6 million of debt associated with our golf course. I also appreciate the active involvement of our many residents in this process, and hope they will continue to speak to us at City Council Meetings, email us, and post their comments on the forum. Thank You, Council Member Wright
• Mayor McGee stated that the initiative has limited the City to using the same rate for a City that increased in population significantly. The premise behind the citizens’ initiative was faulty. The City loses ground every year it is in place. Last year, there was nothing but basic services. Citizens want more from the City and that is why those that campaigned on this issue prevailed.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To adopt Ordinance 8-15-2006A, An Ordinance Revoking and Recinding the Total Maximum Property Tax Rate Assessed upon Real and Personal Property for General Government Purposes for Any Tax Year for the City of Cedar Hills, Utah as Previously Adopted as Ordinance No. 11-17-2003A. Seconded by C. Bowman. Vote taken by roll call.
Aye-C. Bowman
Aye - C. Perry
Aye - C. Richardson Motion passes.
5. Review/Action on Certified Tax Rate for Fiscal Year 2007 (July 1, 2006 to June 30, 2007) (7:36 p.m.)
Staff Report:
• See handouts. Konrad Hildebrandt stated that the Utah County calculated tax rate is .001397. The City Council has previously expressed a desire to participate in the Truth in Taxation process. They propose to maintain the current year tax rate of .00169. The difference is approximately $96,897. Items such as community services, library, an additional officer, and other items have been added to the budget.
MOTION: C. Perry - To approve Resolution No. 8-15-2006A, A Resolution Setting the Total Property Tax Levy Assessed upon Real and Personal Property for General Governmental Purposes for the Year 2006–2007 Tax Year for the City of Cedar Hills, Utah, with the note that the budget is sound and is the level of service we need without being extravagant and that we are maintaining the current Certified Tax Rate. Seconded by C. Richardson. Vote taken by roll call.
Council Discussion:
• C. Richardson stated that the things that have been added to the budget are those that the residents want. The Council has worked hard to only make investments that are important.
Aye-C. Bowman
Aye - C. Perry
Aye - C. Richardson Motion passes.
6. Review/Action on Final for Canyon Heights at Cedar Hills, Plat J (Resubdivision of Canyon Heights at Cedar Hills, Plat G, Lots 5 & 6)
See handouts. Item tabled.
7. Review/Action to Grant an Adjustment to the Side Setback on Juniper Heights, Plat C, Lot 9
See handouts. Item tabled.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To move Item #9 in front of Item #8. Seconded by C. Bowman.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Perry
C. Richardson Motion passes.
9. Review/Action on Amendments to Title 10, Chapter 5, Section 18 Regarding Fences (7:42 p.m.)
Staff Report:
• See handouts. Rodney Despain stated that the City has received a number of requests to be more liberal in its fencing regulations, particularly along trails, parks and major roads. The Planning Commission debated the balance between uniformity and flexibility to property owners. The Planning Commission felt that some flexibility, particularly in terms of color, would be appropriate. This allows groups of people to come in and present to the Council their desire for any variance from the white, tan or gray vinyl.
Council Discussion:
• C. Perry stated that the ordinance provides for a group of adjacent property owners to approach the Council for certain fencing types, but the ordinance does not define a group. Rodney Despain said the Planning Commission intentionally left the definition of a group open to allow for different circumstances, for example if only one or two property owners abut the trail. The Council has the discretion to approve or deny the groups fencing proposal. C. Perry also noted that the ordinance does not make a distinction between property line fences and other fences in the yard, such as those around a pool or garden. Kim Holindrake read a portion of the building code that defines fences around pools as enclosures, rather than fences. C. Perry stated that another exception that should be considered is for lots that require a retaining wall because of a steep drop off. A property owner in such a case may want a fence at the top of the drop off rather than at the property line at the bottom. He also noted that 7b states that obscuring vegetative material is not considered a fence. It does not preclude property owners from planting obscuring vegetative material. He suggested that 7b be removed from the ordinance and sent to the Planning Commission to consider at a later date.
The City Council suggested the following changes to the fencing ordinance:
• 10-5-18, 3c: include a statement that states “Exceptions may be granted by the City Manager or designee for topographical issues.” The same exception should apply to 4d and 5d.
• 7b, regarding vegetative material be removed.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve Ordinance No. 8-15-2006B, An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the City Code of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah, Amending the Requirements for Fences Adjacent to Public Parks, Trails and Certain Major Streets. Seconded by C. Perry. Vote taken by roll call.
Aye-C. Bowman
Aye - C. Perry
Aye - C. Richardson Motion passes.
8. Review/Action on Landscaping Ordinance (8:16 p.m.)
Staff Report:
• See handouts. Rodney Despain stated that he was initially instructed to address the issue of landscaping in new construction. Later, the Planning Commission also wanted to address landscaping on existing lots that have no landscaping. New construction landscaping can be addressed and enforced through the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. This Ordinance proposes that the Certificate of Occupancy not be issued until landscaping is complete. Enforcing the issue on existing homes is more problematic. This proposes making it a violation of the Zoning Code. Under Section E, Enforcement, the Chief Building Official is charged with the enforcement. He will issue a Voluntary Correction Notice to any residents who are not in compliance, giving them 90 days to comply. An appeal process is also included in the Ordinance. The ultimate penalty is a Class C Misdemeanor.
Council Discussion:
• C. Perry stated that he feels there is a need for the ordinance, but feels that the penalty of a Class C Misdemeanor is heavy. He would prefer seeing a fine. He noted that you can meet the demands of the ordinance without spending much money. He stated that he would prefer to give new home owners the right to landscape their own yard rather than forcing them to hire a landscaper to get it done before the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy.
• C. Richardson stated that he would like to change the section on landscaping in new construction to provide for landscaping to be installed within one year of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and a cash bond submitted prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. There are problems with requiring landscaping before issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy. It may lead to poor landscaping done by the builder. Some builders do not allow residents to come in and make any changes until after issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy and closing on the home.
• Kim Holindrake reminded the Council that the intent of the landscaping ordinance is to beautify the City and take care of the dirt that runs into the storm drain system. A year might be too long. She also pointed out the builder posts the bond at the time the permit is pulled and then it would need to be transferred over to the resident if the resident is allowed six months to landscape.
• C. Bowman stated that she would like to see back yards included as part of the ordinance. She would also like a better definition of xeriscaping with a percentage of green vegetation.
• Steve Kroes, a member of the Planning Commission, stated that it was the intent of the Planning Commission to force new homeowners to figure landscaping into their home price and for existing homeowners to know that from this point forward, landscaping needs to be installed within a certain period of time.
The City Council made the following changes:
• Part I, Section 1, C to read “The term Landscaping shall mean and include the installation of any combination of turf (including either sod or seeded area), planter beds, gardens, trees and shrubs, statuary, boulders, rock areas or other customary landscape features . . .”
• Part I, Section 1, D to read “In the instance of lots upon which a building is being constructed, the landscape features required by this Section shall be installed within 9 months of issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for the dwelling. Prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, owner shall deliver a general landscaping plan showing the improvements to be constructed. Prior to issuance of a building permit, a cash bond in the form of a cash escrow account, payable to the City and attached to the parcel or other adequate security, sufficient in amount to cover the cost of landscaping improvements, together with a landscaping completion agreement signed by the owner of the property shall be provided.”
• Part I, Section 1, E. All references to 90 days be changed to 9 months.
• Part II, E. Add violation clause.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve Ordinance 8-15-2006C, An Ordinance Amending Title 10 of the City Code of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah, Adding Requirements to the Installation of Landscape Features on Lots, as amended and instruct the City Manager to add an agenda item to the fee schedule of the City of Cedar Hills regarding violation of the Landscaping Ordinance. Seconded by C. Perry. Vote taken by roll call
Further Discussion:
• C. Bowman asked for C. Richardson to read the amendments. C. Richardson read the amendments as written above.
Aye-C. Bowman
Aye - C. Perry
Aye - C. Richardson Motion passes.
10. Review/Action on Amendments to Title 11, Chapter 7, Subdivisions (9:16 p.m.)
Staff Report:
• See handouts. Rodney Despain stated that this amendment involves new subdivisions that are adjacent to trails and parks. It requires developers or subdividers to install the fence along the park or trail of a new subdivision.
Council Discussion:
• C. Richardson stated that he would like the ordinance to apply to parks, trails and major street corridors. 11-7-13 should read “FENCES ADJACENT TO PARKS, TRAILS AND MAJOR STREET CORRIDORS: “Where a subdivision borders upon an existing or proposed city park, trail or major street corridor, a fence conforming with the standards of Section 10-5-18 F shall be constructed along the common boundary between the lots and park, trail, or major street corridor.”
MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve Ordinance No. 8-15-2006D, An Ordinance Amending Title 11 of the City Code of the City of Cedar Hills, Utah, adding requirements for fences adjacent to public parks, trails and major street corridors. Seconded by C. Perry. Vote taken by roll call.
Aye-C. Bowman
Aye - C. Perry
Aye - C. Richardson Motion passes.
11. Engineering Report and Discussion
No report.
12. City Manager Report and Discussion (9:30 p.m.)
• Council signatures are needed for the citizen’s budget booklet.
• The Utah League of Cities and Towns conference is September 13-15. Council members are invited to attend.
• The City received a $195,000 grant for a portion of the Bonneville Shoreline trail. It is for phase II, which goes from where the Bonneville trail ends at the LDS Church on Bayhill Drive to the park on Timpanogos Cove. The City was encouraged to resubmit the request for more funding next year.
• The City has met with EDA and Game Time about the feasibility study for a recreation center. It is moving forward.
• American Fork has invited Cedar Hills to participate in their recreation program for $24,700. The City paid $15,000 in the past. This does not include the fitness center. Right now programs are 50% more for a nonresident.
• Pavers are scheduled to come back next week. The trees that were cut will be shaped.
• The Decisions 2006 survey will begin in the next few months. Questions about the golf course will be added.
• C. Bowman spoke with a resident that complained about the weeds on the easement behind their property up in Canyon Heights. Konrad Hildebrandt said that land is native vegetation and the City has no plans to landscape it.
MAYOR’S REPORT/ITEMS REFERRED BY CITY COUNCIL
13. Board and Committee Reports (9:48 p.m.)
• C. Bowman - Steve Kroes and Carl Volden from the Planning Commission are taking turns attending the Parks and Trails Committee. The Committee will look at an Eagle Scout proposal for a Frisbee golf course.
• C. Perry - There has been progress on the boundary issue with Pleasant Grove. C. Perry is working with David Atwood. David Bunker and the Pleasant Grove City engineer will be meeting to work out a service-related boundary. UTOPIA got a $66,000 low interest loan for small cities to develop the infrastructure. It reduces the overall cost of the project and speeds up the process.
• C. Richardson - The Planning Commission needs training especially on the commercial approval process.
EXECUTIVE SESSION
14. Motion to go into Executive Session, Pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-5 (9:55 p.m.)
Utah State Code 52-4-5 designates specific parameters for which a Closed Meeting/Executive Session may be held. This Executive Session was held to discuss the following: Strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To go into Executive Session, Pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-5. Seconded by C. Perry.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Perry
C. Richardson Motion passes.
* * * EXECUTIVE SESSION * * *
15. Motion to Adjourn Executive Session and Reconvene City Council Meeting (10:47 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Richardson - To adjourn Executive Session and reconvene City Council Meeting. Seconded by C. Bowman.
Aye-C. Bowman
C. Perry
C. Richardson Motion passes.
ADJOURNMENT
16. This meeting was adjourned at 10:50 p.m. on a motion by C. Richardson, seconded by C. Perry and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
Approved by Council:
September 6, 2006