CITY COUNCIL MEETING
Tuesday, February 5, 2008 7:00 p.m.
Public Safety Building
3925 W Cedar Hills Drive, Cedar Hills, Utah
Present: Mayor Mike McGee, Presiding
Council Members: Marisa Wright, Ken Kirk, Charelle Bowman, Jim Perry, Eric Richardson
Konrad Hildebrandt, City Manager
Kim Holindrake, City Recorder
Rachel Brown, Finance Director
Courtney Hammond, City Meeting Transcriber
David Bunker, City Engineer
Eric Johnson, City Counsel
Other: Bob Seegmiller, Brady Pitcher, John Hart, Rolland Brown, Don Steele, Nancy Steele, Darin Lowder, Craig Clement, Scott Jackman, Caleb Warnock, Brent Uibel, H.R. Brown, Zonda Perry
1. Call to Order, Invocation and Pledge (7:10 p.m.)
This meeting of the City Council of the City of Cedar Hills, having been posted at the City offices and the press notified, was called to order at 7:10 p.m. by Mayor McGee.
Invocation given by C. Bowman
Pledge of Allegiance led by C. Perry
2. Public Comment (7:12 p.m.)
• John Hart: Mr. Hart said that he thinks the reconfiguration of the golf course is a responsible way to alleviate debt and bring amenities to the City. The City has a motivated buyer, but the sale is contingent on rezoning to allow a 6,000-foot reception center. Some people prefer to wait and try to find a buyer for residential lots. Mr. Hart works for the Bank of American Fork. He said that in the current environment there are not a lot of buyers, and banks are only willing to finance if the builder is willing to put his own money on the line. He has heard arguments against a commercial zone from people who don’t want commercial activity in that area. The golf course is in that area and it is commercial. The reception center is only 6,000 sq. ft, smaller than many homes in Cedar Hills. It will be beautiful, resembling a residential unit with beautiful landscaping. He has heard an argument that lots next to the reception center may never sell. The City will sell all the lots to the developer. At that point the lots are the concern of the developer, and not the City. He has also heard arguments that the reception center may compete with a future clubhouse. Mr. Hart said that is a poor argument. The building will draw from a different clientele. Making a decision based on whether a given business will compete or not with a city-owned business is not a good way to make a decision.
• Darin Lowder: Mr. Lowder congratulated the City on the golf course reconfiguration. He said he knows that the golf course has been a priority for the City Council for a long time, and he could not second guess that decision. He applauds the decision is great and will support the Council. He also thanked the City’s public works department for good snow removal.
• C. Perry: C. Perry asked for clarification on the reception center design. He has not seen plans and did not know it would be less than 6,000 square feet. Mayor McGee said that the intent is for a 6,000 square-foot building with a full basement, bringing the total to 12,000 square feet.
• Bobby Seegmiller: Mr. Seegmiller is a real estate agent and developer that has developed in Highland and Pleasant Grove. He was not at the Planning Commission meeting. He has seen some renderings and a plat. He supports some type of development in the area. He would like the City to be a debt-free community. He feels that utilizing City land to pay off debt is wise. Mr. Seegmiller was asked by Mayor McGee to offer an unbiased opinion on the proposed development. Given the current economic environment, he advised the City to move forward with the plan as presented if the price is fair. He also suggested getting a contract quickly. He offered his services for free if the City would like to use his expertise.
• Mayor McGee: Mayor McGee has also asked advice of John Harr at Mountainland Realty and Dave Kemp, another developer and agent. Dave Kemp suggested an appraisal be done on the land. C. Perry said that he would prefer to hear from professionals in a presentation rather than in public comment. C. Wright said that she wants to meet the developer and have more information on the plans.
3. Minutes from the January 22, 2008, Public Hearing and Regular City Council Meeting (7:28 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Kirk - To accept the consent agenda for the minutes of January 22, 2008, Public Hearing and Regular City Council Meeting. Seconded by C. Bowman.
Aye- C. Bowman
C. Wright Motion passes.
4. Review/Action on Golf Course Reconfiguration (7:30 p.m.)
• Konrad Hildebrandt stated that the Lone Peak Links agreement has been signed, completed, and finalized by all parties. The reconfiguration of the golf course is being paid for through the development of Cottonwood Hills Estates. Proceeds from St. Andrews Estates have to be used to pay down the golf course debt. Mayor McGee said that the potential buyer of St. Andrews Estates was invited to the meeting tonight but was out of town. They are willing to sign a letter of credit after receiving preliminary subdivision approval.
• C. Perry said that among the things the City Council should consider are whether it wants to take the risk of giving preliminary approval for a specific proposal without a letter of credit or any real information about the developer. He does not want to make the same mistake that the City made with the golf course. He pointed out that the developers have not come to any meetings. In this particular case the City is the property owner and has the right and obligation to investigate the potential buyers. He would like the City Council to consider a fall back plan, and specifically include a right of first refusal or other terms in the development agreement in case the business fails. He wants to continue moving forward cautiously.
• C. Wright stated that she would like to see the potential buyer’s business plan.
• C. Kirk said that the City is selling a property, not a business. He would feel comfortable going to a preliminary site approval. He does not feel like the City is risking making the same mistake as it did with the golf course. The City will still own the property if the land sale falls through. He agrees that the City needs to know that the developer has the financial backing for the project.
• C. Richardson said that the City Council wears different hats. The business plan and business itself are appropriate for the community development agency to consider. It is not appropriate for the City Council to consider. He asked that the City work with the potential buyer to update the letter of intent. He doesn’t have a problem moving toward subdivision approval.
• C. Bowman said that while the staff and Mayor McGee have met with the buyers, the Council is the one that votes on it, and its members need to feel comfortable.
• The Council’s consensus is that they would like to see a letter of credit and letter of intent from the potential buyer. They would also like to meet with him as the Community Development Agency.
• Konrad Hildebrandt handed out a summary of the advertising proposals to promote the Cedar Hills Golf Club. Staff recommended using The Summit Group as the main firm, and encouraging Summit to use Chase Media as a subcontractor. He said that Jim Madsen has suggested adding golf simulators to the course. The simulators that would add value cost $70-80,000. Jim Madsen now suggests waiting on the simulators.
• C. Richardson said he would like staff to analyze the pros and cons of the top 2-3 proposals, and come back with an advertising proposal up to $25,000 and remove golf course simulators from the golf course reconfiguration project.
• C. Perry said he has hired ad agencies in his professional career. Having the agencies pitch their proposals is very beneficial.
• Staff will have the top ranked agencies pitch their proposals.
5. Review/Action on Preliminary Subdivision Plat for St. Andrew Estates, PRD, Located Between 10950 North and 10570 North along the East Side of Canyon Road (Golf Course Hole 15) (8:12 p.m.)
• Greg Robinson stated that the Planning Commission met on January 31 and had questions about some issues that prevented them from moving forward on the subdivision. This subdivision has been changed in the manner the Planning Commission had indicated in their prior meeting but has not received preliminary approval. Staff recommended tabling the item until the Planning Commission has acted on it. The potential buyer has received the changes but has not responded. The changes include adding an access so that the residential access is completely separate from the business access, making the residential area a double-bulb cul-de-sac, and decreasing the number of residential lots by two at the request of the developer in order to create larger lots.
• C. Wright favored the old plat that had one entrance with a gate for the residential area. It meets zoning and codes and will bring in more money for the City.
• C. Kirk pointed out that a gate does not solve the traffic problems for the residents. There is a balance that needs to be achieved. For every separate entrance, a lot is lost. The original plan saves $200,000. On the other hand, you can’t put a dollar amount on a human life if another access improves safety.
• C. Perry pointed out that the Wal-Mart development also met code, but the City Council required more. The cul-de-sac in the original plan is at the maximum length of an allowed cul-de-sac with a commercial zone at the opposite end. For him, the commercial zone plus the maximum length may make it necessary to require more. He reiterated that the two lots are not lost because of an extra entrance, but because the developer asked for two less lots in order to create larger lots.
• C. Bowman said that by adding the commercial zone, she would like to ensure that the residential area is as safe as possible with a separate entrance.
MOTION: C. Kirk - To propose sending both plans to the Planning Commission for their consideration and recommendation with the recommendation that they hold a special meeting as soon as possible. No second. Motion dies.
• C. Perry stated that he attended the last Planning Commission meeting and the commissioners were very specific about what information they wanted. He said he agrees with C. Kirk’s proposal, but it does not address the Planning Commission’s needs.
• C. Richardson stated that he also attended the last Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission felt that they could not act on the subdivision until their questions were answered regarding who was on the Commission. The commissioners were confused about who could or could not vote. There were questions about how terms are determined and reappointed. They looked in several places in the code that did not reconcile with information that was relayed to them. They did not feel comfortable moving forward. As a member of the Community Development Agency, C. Richardson would not want the Commission acting if there could be a legal challenge. Regardless of the legal interpretation, the City needs to have a good working relationship with the Planning Commission. If the code puts the City at a standstill, the code needs to be changed.
• Mayor McGee said that there only needs to be three Planning Commission members to vote. There were five commissioners in attendance. There would be no question if it was legal. He invited Eric Johnson, City Attorney, to address the concerns regarding appointment to the Planning Commission.
C. Bowman excused 8:41 p.m.
• Eric Johnson, City Attorney, explained his legal interpretation of the code. See handouts. The City Council consists of six members: the mayor and five other members. Regular and alternate members of the Planning Commission are appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council. The code says that at the expiration of terms of regular members of the Planning Commission, the City Council may choose to reappoint the member. If they do not reappoint the regular member, the first alternate fills the vacancy. He interprets that section as the City Council consisting of six members with the Mayor making the appointment or reappointment with the advice and consent of the City Council. The term for a Planning Commissioner is three years or until their successor is appointed. The term for an alternate member is up to one year and until their successor is appointed. Eric Johnson said that regular members remain on the Planning Commission until they are informed whether they are going to be reappointed or not. If informed they are going to be reappointed, they continue. If informed they will not be reappointed, the automatic replacement of the first alternate becomes their replacement. There are two ways that a Planning Commission member will not be reappointed. Either the Mayor does not select the member for reappointment or the City Council does not consent and approve. Eric Johnson said that the City’s procedures comply with state code.
• C. Perry said that the code can be read in many ways with alternate interpretations. He would like to have Title 9, Chapter 1, on an agenda for review. It needs to be clear because there has been a lot of confusion. One week a Planning Commission member conducted the meeting, and the next week the Planning Commission was told that their chair was no longer a member. No explanation was given. He has heard accusations that the Planning Commission was ill intentioned when they tabled the agenda at their last meeting. He feels that the failure lies with the City Council in not acting early with appointments and not providing the Planning Commission with proper support and direction.
• Mayor McGee said that based on Eric Johnson’s reading of this, if the Mayor chooses not to reappoint a member, it will be immediately filled by the first alternate. He said Title 9 can be updated but cannot supercede state law. He further stated that he has talked to Steve Kroes and reasons were given for not reappointing.
• C. Richardson agreed that Title 9 needs to be updated. He said that he will rely on Eric Johnson’s advice. The Planning Commission also needs to be comfortable with the explanation. He said that there is a real problem if this has led to hard feelings between the Mayor and the Planning Commission. Their chair has served diligently and been admired by the Planning Commission and was removed with little explanation. He encouraged the Mayor to dialogue with the Planning Commission. He stated that it has been requested that the Planning Commission call a special meeting and questioned whether that was possible because there is currently no chair. Eric Johnson said that the vice chair, in the absence of a chair, can call a special meeting.
• C. Kirk said that there was a letter sent to C. Kroes indicating that he would not be reappointed. There was a definite decision made to not reappoint.
C. Bowman returned (9:15 p.m.)
• Kim Holindrake said she wanted to clarify for the record who is sitting on the Planning Commission. If Eric Johnson’s reading is followed, Cliff Chandler is acting as chair until a new chair is elected and Scott Jackman is filling the vacancy. Because of hearing notifications, Title 9 cannot be addressed until March 4.
• Mayor McGee asked each Council member if they would accept Eric Johnson’s advice.
• C. Wright and C. Kirk said that they will accept counsel’s advice and feel the code needs to be clarified.
• C. Bowman stated that she is disappointed that this issue has delayed St. Andrews Estates and is upset that it got to the point that the attorney had to get involved. She is also disappointed that a qualified, willing resident was lost. She feels the situation could have been avoided if a few individuals could have swallowed their pride. Feelings have been hurt and friendships lost. She said she was absent for most of Eric Johnson’s advice, but trusts his legal interpretation. She would like to make sure that the code is clear.
• C. Perry said that there were dozens of ways this could have been handled more appropriately. The Planning Commission appeared at two separate City Council meetings and spoke in unanimous support of Steve Kroes. He thinks not reappointing him is a loss to the community and a mistake. He is willing to follow legal counsel’s interpretation.
• C. Richardson agreed. He stated that he hopes the Mayor would share with the Planning Commission why he chose not to reappoint Steve Kroes.
• Konrad Hildebrandt encouraged both the City Council and the Planning Commission to come to staff with their questions.
• H.R. Brown, Planning Commissioner, said the agenda was tabled because they were not sure they had a legal quorum. Because the City is acting as both the seller and acting on land use, they did not want to make a decision that could be challenged based on an illegal quorum. He is confused as to why Steve Kroes was not reappointed. It doesn’t make sense because he is qualified and honest. It seems odd that one person has the power to not reappoint someone who has five years experience and the rest of the Commission supports. He hopes that after listening to the Planning Commission, the Mayor reconsiders reappointing Steve Kroes.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To take a five-minute break. Seconded by C. Perry. (9:44 p.m.)
Aye- C. Bowman
C. Wright Motion passes.
Reconvened at 9:56 p.m.
• C. Richardson said that City standards are minimums. He supports moving the new plan on to the Planning Commission. He feels the design is superior.
• Mayor McGee said he had a conversation with the Planning Commission during the break and they are having a special meeting Thursday. There will be a Special Council Meeting scheduled for Tuesday, February 12, at 7:00 p.m. Mayor McGee will invite Bob Wood to the meeting.
6. Review/Action to Award the Bid for the Golf Course Reconfiguration Project (10:04 p.m.)
David Bunker stated that the bids include reconfiguration on holes 9, 15, and 18. There were five bidders. The low bidder is Broderick Construction at $333,261.21. They don’t have experience constructing golf course holes. They did a park in Lindon in the $500,000 range. Cities that have used Broderick Construction were happy with them for park installation. There are some technical aspects to building tee boxes. RBI is the only bidder who has a staff member with experience shaping golf course holes. McKell Excavation did the Cedar Hills golf course. Their shaper has since left the company. This project has more to do with redoing irrigation systems and tee box construction. Golf course constructors are very particular. Broderick Construction may take more supervision. Forsgren may have to supervise them. Initially the City gave 30 days for the job. Response from bidders was that it was near impossible and would triple the cost to get it done in 30 days. The City added an addendum giving the start date of February 29 with 30 working days for completion. That pushes completion to at least April 11, plus 10 clean up days.
• Mayor McGee said he feels that for the minimal amount of work that is being done, he is comfortable with Broderick Construction.
• C. Wright said that golfers are very particular about their sport. She hesitates to send it out to anyone that hasn’t done a golf course before.
• C. Kirk pointed out that while tee boxes need to be built, no greens need to be built.
• C. Richardson is concerned with outliers. S&L overbid their irrigation systems. David Bunker said that S&L called to get a subcontract bid on irrigation that included parts and padded it $100,000 for parts.
MOTION: C. Richardson - To approve Chad Broderick Construction Inc., as the apparent low bid, for the amount of approximately $333,261.21 for golf course reconstruction. Seconded by C. Perry.
Aye- C. Bowman
Nay - C. Wright Motion passes.
7. Review/Action on City Council Procedures (10:25 p.m.)
Kim Holindrake stated that, as requested, criteria was added to limit the time of the City Council meetings.
MOTION: C. Perry - To table this item until the next regularly scheduled City Council meeting so that the Council can prepare more adequately for all its needs to be addressed at one time. Seconded by C. Richardson.
• C. Perry said that over the last four years, he has notice several things in the procedures that are not entirely clear. He would like to add/change a few things in addition to the meeting time limitation.
• C. Kirk stated that the City Council just reviewed these procedures last October and he wanted to move forward and take action.
Aye- C. Bowman
C. Wright Motion passes.
8. Review/Recognition/Action on Boards/Committees (10:27 p.m.)
• Recognize the Two Remaining Members of the Golf Course Committee
Mayor McGee recognized John Hart and Paul Wright for their service on the Golf Course Advisory Committee. Mr. Hart left before this item but Mayor McGee gave him the City logo blanket as recognition.
C. Perry requested that recognitions be placed at the top of the agenda.
• Appointments to the Parks and Trails Committee and the Board of Adjustment
Mayor McGee has not been in contact with Cliff Craig for the Parks & Trails Committee appointment. He recommended reappointing Priscilla Leek to the Board of Adjustment. There were no other applicants. She has been involved in Board of Adjustment meetings and interested in continuing her service.
MOTION: C. Kirk - To affirm Mayor McGee’s reappointment of Priscilla Leek to the Board of Adjustment. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye- C. Bowman
C. Wright Motion passes.
9. Review/Action on City Council Assignments – Board of Adjustment (10:31 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Richardson - To confirm Mayor McGee’s recommendation assigning Council member Marisa Wright to the Board of Adjustment. Seconded by C. Perry.
C. Wright stated that she would like some training on her assignment.
Aye- C. Bowman
C. Wright Motion passes.
10. City Manager Report and Discussion (10:33 p.m.)
David Bunker stated that the City’s portion on the pond 10 pump issue is going to be $35,000. The pipes were sized too small. The water comes out of the wet well into a 6-inch pipe. This proposal takes it to a 12-inch pipe. In the wet well there is an issue on the check valves, and the bowls are not trimmed correctly. This proposal takes the check valves out and puts them in the piping. The City has not gotten the proposal back from Delco Western. Staff will give Delco Western another week, and will then the City will have to go with another pump company to get it done by April 15. The six-inch pipe was recommended by the engineering company.
12. Motion to go into Executive Session, Pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-5 (10:43 p.m.)
MOTION: C. Perry - To go into Executive Session, Pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-5 to discuss pending litigation and/or competence or character of staff. Seconded by C. Richardson.
Aye- C. Bowman
C. Wright Motion passes.
* * * EXECUTIVE SESSION * * *
13. Motion to Adjourn Executive Session and Reconvene City Council Meeting
MOTION: C. Richardson - To Adjourn Executive Session and Reconvene City Council Meeting. Seconded by C. Bowman.
Aye- C. Bowman
C. Wright Motion passes.
10. City Manager Report and Discussion - Continued (10:33 p.m.)
• C. Wright stated that her streets on the benches are always clean, and she appreciates the snow removal service.
• Staff has investigated different dates for the Family Festival and proposes June 21 through 28. Pleasant Grove’s Strawberry Days begins on the 21st. There have been issues with funding the festival over two fiscal years. C. Richardson doesn’t like the idea of changing the date. It is a tradition to have it around July 24. Mayor McGee stated that many families have the same tradition. C. Perry stated that some people don’t attend because of the heat. C. Richardson stated that if it is moved it needs to be kept on that date. The biggest concern is with American Fork because the City shares police services. C. Perry would like to meet the new community services director.
• C. Wright stated that there is a Council meeting during spring break in April and asked about the possibility of changing that meeting. Several other council members noted that they do not travel during spring break.
MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS
11. Board and Committee Reports
• C. Kirk: There is an open house at UDOT on the Vineyard corridor on February 13, from 5–7:30 p.m.
• C. Richardson: UTOPIA wants to present in a couple of months. They have new marketing and installation.
This meeting was adjourned at 11:31 p.m. on a motion by C. Bowman, seconded by C. Kirk, and unanimously approved.
/s/ Kim E. Holindrake
Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder
Approved by Council:
February 19, 2008