PUBLIC HEARING AND CITY COUNCIL MEETING

Council Members: Ken Kirk, Marisa Wright, Charelle Bowman, Eric Richardson, Jim Perry (10:30 p.m.)

Others: Peter Karp, Cliff Chandler, Shawn Richins, Vic Hansen, Corey Bryant, Ethan Thomas, Peter Despain, Carson Buckner, Jared Smart, John Hewett, Zac Hewett, Brenda Shuman, Haley Shuman, Mark Clark, James Daris, Caleb Van Dyke, Jordan Larson, Hayden Witt, Karissa Neeley, Brent Uibel, Craig Clement, Ashley Vogelsberg, Diane Kirk, Audrey McGee

1. This meeting of the City Council of the City of Cedar Hills, having been posted throughout the City and the press notified, was called to order at 7:12 p.m. by Mayor McGee.

• Peter Karp: He is a board member of the HOA for the Cottages at Canyon Heights. He requested a fence along the west boundary of the Pine Hollow pocket park. There has been damage to private fences, sod, and sprinklers and there are trespass and safety implications. Efforts by the HOA to reduce damage through signs and personal contacts have been ineffective. He supports the pocket park, but is requesting that the City be a good neighbor and install a fence along the western edge to prevent further damage and trespass. C. Richardson requested that staff report on this issue. Mayor McGee instructed staff to do so.

• Brent Uibel: He read an article written in the Daily Herald. He has spoken to many residents throughout the City about the golf course reconfiguration and reduction of debt. In his unscientific survey, he found that most residents would rather have most of the debt paid down and increased taxes for 2-3 years to pay off the rest of the debt than wait to sell the property until land values rebound.

3. Amendments to the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget (July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008) (7:22 p.m.)

4. Amendments to the City Code Title 9, Chapter 1, Article A, City Council and Title 9, Chapter 1, Article C, Board of Adjustment (7:22 p.m.)

Konrad Hildebrandt stated that during the discussion on St. Andrews Estates, two developers will give their opinions on the pros and cons of marketing the lots wholesale and retail. The reconfiguration project is underway and should be substantially completed by April 11. Sod was laid on holes 9 and 15. The cart path on hole 15 is in. The tee box on hole 18 helps beautify the roundabout. Chase Media Group provided a report on the advertising plan and what has been completed. The well is cleaned up and will be entirely completed by July or August. So far, the City has spent about $600,000 on the well. Jim Madsen is still deciding on his ideal candidate for Assistant Golf Director. Jim Madsen will report on the golf course at a future meeting.

7. Report on Fiscal Year 2008 Budget (July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009) (7:38 p.m.)

Rachel Brown presented the Fiscal Year 2009 expenditures. The line item for Building and Zoning contract labor is for scanning and reviewing the curb, gutter, sidewalk bonds. The City Community Service Director is proposing a Daddy-Daughter Dance. C. Bowman would like to see adult sports added. The budget reflects plans to pay off the B & C Bond in the coming fiscal year. Many parks that the City would like to develop, such as a pocket park in the Cottages, a pumphouse park, Sage Vista Park, are not in the capital facilities plan and cannot be funded by impact fees. The Council will need to direct staff on how to plan for those parks. C. Richardson said that there were some items that still need to be revised on the latest impact fee study, specifically some park land calculations. Konrad Hildebrandt will look into the impact fee study.

8. Review/Action on Amendments to the Fiscal Year 2008 Budget (July 1, 2007 to June 30, 2008) (8:39 p.m.)

Rachel Brown presented budget amendments. One is for the well bond. The City did not anticipate an interest payment this year. It will be paid for from impact fees. The other is for a light pole that was hit. The City has already received the insurance payment.

MOTION: C. Kirk - To approve Resolution No. 4-1-2008A, a resolution adopting amendments to the 2007-2008 Fiscal Year Budget for the City of Cedar Hills, Utah. Seconded by C. Richardson. Vote taken by roll call.

9. Review/Action on Final Subdivision Plat for St. Andrews Estates, PRD, Located Between 10950 North and 10570 North along the East Side of Canyon Road (Golf Course Hole 15) (8:41 p.m.)

Greg Robinson stated that developers Gary Maxwell and Bobby Seegmiller are present to give feedback on the pros and cons of selling the land wholesale or retail. For the subdivision plat, a geotech report and completion of offsite improvements are still needed. They will be required of the developer.

David Bunker stated that there were a few changes made to the plat per Planning Commission recommendations. For marketing purposes, lot sizes were increased to create more standard and desirable sizes. For example some lots were .59 acres and were pushed back to .75 acres without increasing the building envelopes. Some of the notes on the plat were changed. Foundation piers were initially required but may not be the best solution for each lot. Rather, engineered foundations and inspections are required. Some setbacks were adjusted. Access from lot 5 was limited to St. Andrews Drive.

Gary Maxwell said there are three places where developers make money. (1) Entitlement. This first step of development carries the least amount of risk. There is substantial value in giving a potential buyer paper lots with a clear understanding of what a city has approved. Without paper lots, a buyer would include a contingency factor, which would lower the price. Typically in order to record, a developer posts a bond of 120% for the improvements. It would be possible for the City to approve a final plat and not record the plat. (2) Developing the lots and selling them individually. If the City were to sell it at the paper lot stage, a buyer is going to buy it with the intent to make a profit, which means there is money left on the table. In today’s market, there will be an even larger buffer by the developer to ensure he makes money. Gary Maxwell said that he would develop the lots by putting in improvements. It does increase the risk. But developing is not difficult, and the City will capture the most money. The City should not give up any potential profit to another developer. The biggest challenge in a market that has cooled is the fear factor. Fewer people are looking to buy. From paper to retail, developers are looking for 100% return on investment. For example, if a development costs $1 million for land and improvements, and the bank loans 80%, the developer has invested $200,000 and is looking to make an additional $200,000. In today’s environment the bank is willing to loan around 65%. Banking requirements are more stringent for paper lots. Add to that the buffer that developers work into the equation, and paper lots are taking a hit. At one time, these lots would sell for $350,000 for a finished lot. Lots are not selling for that price. He estimated that the City would lose at least $50,000, and closer to $75,000 per lot if it decides not to take it to retail. After running some numbers, he estimated that paper lots may go for $150,000, for a total of $3.3 million, and finished lot prices may average $260,000 for a total of $4.62 million after development costs. When you factor in interest payments on the bond, the City would lose $150,000 per year by not selling paper lots now. That gives the City eight years to sell all the lots to break even with what the City could make by selling paper lots now. (3) Building the houses. He would never recommend that the City build houses. He recommends deciding on a price that the City is willing to take for paper lots and a deadline for offers, perhaps three months. If an acceptable offer is not received, the City should move forward on developing the lots.

Bobby Seegmiller has worked in real estate for 7-8 years. He said that there are many different possible goals with the sale of the land: making the most money; having the lowest risk; creating a nice, upscale development; and selling quickly. Depending on the City’s goals there are three options: (1) Get the property on the market. He doesn’t know if it will sell. Raw ground is the least valuable. If someone is interested, the City would put together a purchase contract and earnest money would be put down. (2) Entitle the ground and advertise paper lots. This configuration may not be what a developer wants. (3) Take it to retail. He is concerned that the lots won’t sell given the current market and geotechnical concerns. He said that he estimates developed lots would average $260,000 and wholesale lots would average $165,000, totaling $3.63 million wholesale, and $5.72 million retail. However, he estimated that improvements would cost $1.7 million. In the end the difference is $300,000–$400,000 total. He doesn’t feel like it is worth the risk. He recommended trying to sell it wholesale first. If that doesn’t work, go to retail.

• C. Wright suggested having property owners sign a waiver if they choose not to install piers to protect the City from lawsuits. C. Richardson and David Bunker explained that having the foundation engineered, inspected, and stamped by an engineer goes further than a waiver in limiting liability.

• Mayor McGee and the Council would like to see the sidewalk continue to the south side of Pebble Beach Lane.

• C. Bowman stated that all the fears and risks of the St. Andrews Estates development are also with Cottonwood Hills Estates. David Bunker stated that one difference is that the streets and improvements are in at Cottonwood Drive.

• C. Richardson stated that the City builds and maintains roads, sewer, sidewalks, etc. There is nothing that goes into the development that the City doesn’t do already, though the City won’t get a better rate than a developer. The question comes down to what the City wants most.

• Mayor McGee suggested putting it to bid at a certain price and seeing what happens. If the target price is not met, then go to retail.

• C. Kirk referred to Brent Uibel’s comments. C. Kirk got similar responses with residents that he talked to. He wants to move on it now; six months down the road the number may be lower.

MOTION: C. Kirk - To approve the St. Andrews Estates development subject to the addition of a sidewalk going down the west side of the lots to Pebble Beach Lane. Seconded by C. Wright.

• C. Richardson stated that there are some things that need to be updated and cleaned up on the plat. Notes need to be updated. The gate issue needs to be discussed, and it needs to follow City policy. He would like to see a 20-foot side setback on lots 1 and 19. Add a note that all retaining walls over three feet have to be engineered and inspected, and no retaining walls over 15 feet are allowed.

AMEND MOTION: C. Richardson - To include the following, if not already resolved. (1) That the general notes 3 and 6 do not make reference to Cottonwood. (2) Final plat sheets 1 and 2 both include the note amended on page 2 of 2 based on the Planning Commission’s recommendation. (3) The final plat sheet 2, a typical corner lot show a side-setback of 20 feet on each side. (4) Note that lots 1 and 19 shall not have access to 10750 North (St. Andrews Drive) for the first rear 20 feet of the lot (5) A finding that the flat lot #22 is in compliance with the regulations established in section 10-5-12 (6) The gating sheet and references be removed unless amended including a future policy regarding gated or quasi-gated public streets (7) plat sheets be updated to indicate the correct number of lots specifically sheet 1 of 2 (8) plat note on sheet 1 of 2 indicating that no retaining wall can be built over 15 feet and that all walls over 3 feet must be engineered and inspected by the City. (9) The sidewalk be extended along the western boundary until it reaches Pebble Beach Lane. Accepted by C. Kirk and C. Wright. Seconded by C. Bowman.

10. Review/Action on Amendments to the City Code Title 9, Chapter 1, Article A, City Council and Title 9, Chapter 1, Article C, Board of Adjustment (10:10 p.m.)

Kim Holindrake: Mayor and Council, these amendments to Title 9 have been proposed by C. Richardson except for section 9-1C-2 – that was just kind of a clean up that I found. Those items are in the Open and Public Meetings Law in the State code and we don’t need to revisit them there.

C. Kirk: It seems like in the meeting on the fourth of March, we made a motion and amended, I believe, Title 9, Chapter 1, B1 to read something similar to this. But this reads, actually different from that. I think if we are going to amend and make the appointment and reappointment committees, I think we ought to do it uniformly throughout the code. And this differs from what we did on the fourth of March.

C. Kirk: On the fourth of March we indicated that – well let me look real quick.

C. Kirk: One of them is that if the mayor had decided not to reappoint to a member of the board, or commission, or committee, that he would notify him in writing within 30 days of the expiration. We didn’t vote on it as the entire council. The appointment and not to appoint was the mayor’s decision on that.

C. Richardson: I remembered it differently from you. Kim, do you have what we passed last time?

C. Kirk: I have it right here. It says, reappointment prior term, “If the mayor” – city council was lined out – “chooses not to reappoint by written notification to the member, the position is declared vacant at the expiration of the term.”

C. Richardson: Now, they should say the same thing. That was the whole purpose of this, to make them the same.

Mayor McGee: So, I also had concern about that. Just to make you aware because I thought it was inconsistent the way it was worded. And I’ll explain why here. Let me just read through this here. “Within 30 days prior to the term of expiration of regular or alternate member, the mayor shall make a recommendation to the entire council on whether to appoint the member to another term or not.” I’m okay with that. But it is the next sentence that is not consistent. “The entire city council will then vote on whether to appoint the member or not.” So that really should say, “if the recommendation is to reappoint.” Because if you leave it the way you’re saying it then, it doesn’t matter whether the mayor makes a recommendation to appoint or reappoint, the council still gets to vote to appoint or reappoint.

Mayor McGee: And I don’t think that is consistent with what is going on. It is certainly not consistent with what we did the last time.

Mayor McGee: Because what you’re really saying there is you don’t give a rat’s rear what the mayor recommends.

C. Bowman: You know what, my whole point, though, going back to my whole reason for wanting a little more checks and balances, saying there is power in numbers, is that I did want that to come before the city council.

Mayor McGee: Well, I’m not saying don’t bring it to the city council, I’m just saying what you’re saying there is that you don’t care what the mayor recommends, you’re going to make your own decision. That’s what that says right now.

C. Bowman: Yeah, but it is kind of like how I was saying—and I used Konrad as the example, but I know there is an ordinance to protect him if a future mayor—any mayor—suddenly didn’t like Konrad, or got a bee in his bonnet with Konrad, and decided to fire him, as a council and as a resident of the City, I would want to have more than one person. I mean, when we appoint council members or another member of the council, it is the council that is doing that. And the Planning Commission, I mean. Parks and Trails, we’re not going to go that far with them. But the Planning Commission, that’s a vital body also, that I think we should all have a say in, just as we do for appointing one of us.

Mayor McGee: You have a say. You absolutely already have a say in it already. Marisa.

C. Wright: I take the opposite side because when I was reading through all these, I wrote on the sidelines, it says, “all mayor power is slowly being stripped away.” I mean we have a weak mayoral system as it is. He puts in twice as much time as any of us.

Mayor McGee: And when you talk about checks and balances, you’re actually stripping checks and balances.

Mayor McGee: You absolutely are because you’re giving all the power to the legislative branch. That’s exactly what you’re doing by doing what it says right here.

C. Bowman: When we appoint a council member, it is not based on the mayor’s recommendation, and the mayor to say, “Sorry, we’re not even going to look at this person anymore. Council, you can choose from this.”

Mayor McGee: Well, if you want to change that, that’s a whole other issue because the mayor doesn’t even get to vote in that case.

C. Kirk: I agree with Marisa on this, and I wrote the same thing down here, says, “removes the mayor’s authority to not reappoint.” That was the discussion that happened here and a big argument that took place. I think it was handled a little bit incorrectly in that I think notice should have been given some way, and that’s why we wrote on the fourth of March that within 30 days of the expiration of the term, if the mayor has decided not to reappoint a member of the commission, then he needs to notify him within 30 days of the expiration and then it is declared as a vacancy and he needs to nominate someone to vote before the council to replace that vacancy if there isn’t a set procedure involved in alternates, like there is in the commission.

C. Bowman: Okay, and so going to the mayor power that you’re referring to—which I agree, the mayor does need to have his power for whatever—but that’s why I’m taking it into Konrad. I’m trying not to pull in somebody that could every be iffy. Because we all love Konrad, and if a future mayor decided to just fire him on the spot or not appoint somebody on the spot, you don’t think that maybe there should be more than one opinion involved in that?

C. Bowman: My whole thing is that it is better to have everyone’s opinion and to have a checks and balance in it. Sorry, and maybe it’s because I’m more of a team player, I like having many opinions, like what we are doing right now. We’ve all got different opinions. So why should the buck stop completely with you on something that I think is very important and that is our Planning Commission, and here our Board of Adjustment, you know I just think there is value in having a lot of opinions on things. You know and not all the power in one person.

Mayor McGee: No, it’s not about power. It is not about power. But let me just say . . .

Mayor McGee: There is a dramatic fallacy in what you’ve just said. Because what this does is take the mayor completely out of the loop. One hundred percent.

C. Bowman: You can still recommend or not. You’ve made recommendations before that we’ve said no.

Mayor McGee: But what this says is, “we don’t care if you recommend against, because if we disagree with you, your recommendation makes no difference.”

C. Bowman: But you know what? We do that to any recommendation you make. You’ve made recommendations before and we’ve said no.

Mayor McGee: Let me draw and example. No, it’s absolutely inconsistent. And I’ll tell you why. And it’s the balance of powers and the checks and balances that you referred to. So I’m going to help you understand what you apparently don’t, and that is. . .

Mayor McGee: And that is at a presidential level, his cabinet, who he has to work with on a regular basis is recommended by the president and then ratified by the legislative branch. On a governor—who is also a chief executive—the cabinet that he has to work with is a recommendation by the governor, who he picks, and then the legislative branch ratifies that, or not. The mayor of the city is the chief executive, just like a governor or a president, only on a much smaller scale, and they work well, or don’t work well with those people who they have looked at and determined that that is someone they can work with. For you to tell the mayor—whoever that mayor is—and in two years it’s very possible it won’t be me.

C. Bowman: I know. That’s why I’m not saying, Mike, I’m saying, the mayor.

Mayor McGee: That’s right. To say whoever the mayor is—I mean, you can look at these eight mayors, of these ten mayors right here, whichever one of those mayors were, to have told them that the mayor at the very beginning when he was getting this City off the ground as a town in those days, or Mayor Sears or any of those other mayors, or myself, to tell them that you are going to work with, whether you like it or not, this person, is ludicrous because people do not sometimes get along, and to tell somebody you’ve got to get along.

C. Bowman: But that’s government. Look, you may not like me or any of the council and you have to work with us.

C. Richardson: I’m going to vote you off. There are three problems. Number one, it is not your Planning Commission. It’s the city’s Planning Commission.

C. Richardson: Number two, the reference to the distinction of branches holds true whenever there is a distinction, but David Church says this every six months at his update that unless you have a strong mayoral form of government, which only exists in cities of the first class, that the duties are vested in the entire six member council, and that’s what Eric Johnson was telling us when he was here, that it’s the six member council. The five members here all have administrative and legislative and judicial duties. And you have duties in those areas. They are not the same, but we all have duties. So it is not an executive versus legislative branch like your gubernatorial and presidential examples. The third thing is that if it were this way, it would be the way that it already is with the city manager. And so even if those other arguments were false, I think the person you work with the most is the city manager, and you cannot fire the city manager without council approval, and you cannot hire a new one without the council’s approval. You can make any recommendation you want, but you cannot do either.

Mayor McGee: Well I think you are incorrect on the firing aspect of it. But you are correct on the rest of it.

C. Richardson: Well in the state code it doesn’t require it. On our council procedures it absolutely requires it, and in our city code it absolutely requires it.

C. Bowman: And we have a council liaison – well it is Marisa right now for the Board of Adjustments, and it’s Eric right now for the Planning Commission – so there is already a council member that is working with the chairs of these things. For it to be somebody that is working directly with the mayor. . .

Mayor McGee: Okay, so to interpret what Eric just said . . . Do you think that the chairman of the Planning Commission shouldn’t work well directly with the mayor?

C. Bowman: No, I think everybody should. For sure. Even if they have differing opinions.

C. Bowman: No. What happened brought that up. I won’t deny what happened is what brought this up because all I thought of was what if something happened to Konrad. And I had to check and see that, okay, wait, Konrad would be covered.

Mayor McGee: That’s what this is about. So let me ask you another then. When you say the entire city council, when you bring that to that issue, the entire city council will then vote, then I interpret that to say that at that point you are then giving the mayor the power to vote.

Kim Holindrake: State law says he only votes when there’s a tie. And I don’t know why you would change that.

C. Richardson: See I just took this from 1-6A-1, talking about city manager removal, “the mayor with the advice and consent of council may remove.” You can’t remove him without the advice and consent. If that applies to city manager. . .

David Bunker: I think there are two issues. One is removal. The other one is a term ends.

David Bunker: Let’s say Konrad’s term ended and the mayor thought, “Goll, you know I’m going to suggest a different city manager.” It’s not a removal. It’s a term ending.

David Bunker: If that were such a thing. But is there a distinction there? I don’t know if there is.

David Bunker: You know, these other heads, they have a term, and their term may end. And then there is either a reappointment or there is . . .

C. Bowman: So that’s my thing. One person decides that? We as a council always function together. It’s not me saying, the buck stops with me.

C. Wright: I know. But he’s the mayor. And he only has a few things that he . . .

Mayor McGee: Hold on. Let me help you understand one other inconsistency that I noted in this. And that is if you take this power away from the mayor, who is the chief executive, then who are you giving that power to recommend to?

C. Bowman: It comes before the council all the time. But everything else comes before the council. Everything else comes before the council.

C. Wright: I know, but there are separate duties. And that is one of his duties.

C. Bowman: Things change. We change ordinances, we change everything. We can change duties just as easy as not. We can change staff duties.

Mayor McGee: No it’s referencing the Planning Commission right and left in there.

Mayor McGee: You’re changing in this item what you already did the previous time because it specifically references the Planning Commission here.

C. Bowman: Yeah, so we did the Planning Commission. That’s why Eric said that the Board of Adjustments needed to be done too.

C. Bowman: Right, right, right. But I’m saying what we pass tonight is only for the Board of Adjustments.

Kim Holindrake: Except for section 1A which has to do with appointments to both of those boards.

David Bunker: If a term expires, are you suggesting that the whole council gets to decide whether to reappoint?

C. Bowman: No, the mayor still gets to still suggest it. No, the mayor still says, “I’m not going to reappoint this person. I want to appoint this one.” And we can say, “No, we think we want to reappoint that one.” Or, “Fine, we don’t want to reappoint that one.”

C. Bowman: How is it than any other vote that the council does? I mean seriously, he makes the same things to us. The only difference is, is instead of it applying, right now it hasn’t applied to reappointments. It has only applied to filling new vacancies. It is no different than the new vacancy thing. He gives us a name and we either say yes or no. It’s the exact same thing, only this way it is taking it into reappointments as well. Hey, I may totally hate somebody on Planning Commission or Board of Adjustments and think, “I’m not voting for this person. Sorry.” And I may be outvoted.

Mayor McGee: And you’re assuming that that was even part of the criteria at the last issue that brought this all to a head. And it absolutely was not.

C. Bowman: You know what? I would love to discuss that last issue with you personally, because it doesn’t need to be a part of the public. Because I would love for you to know how I feel about it. Because you would probably actually be surprised because I think you’re painting me out differently in your mind as to how I truly feel about that situation. Because, I mean, seriously. And I will talk to you about that afterwards.

C. Bowman: So that’s my whole point. It’s consistent with how we do appointments anyway. And it’s not trying to strip power. It’s trying to make sure that there’s a good checks and balances in things. You know, I just think it makes more sense to do that.

David Bunker: Are you saying consider a reappointment the same as an appointment?

Mayor McGee: No, that’s not what you’re saying at all. What you’re saying is . . .

Mayor McGee: Let me just illustrate this. Let’s say I brought you a new person altogether. It’s John Doe. And you bring John Doe.

Mayor McGee: And you bring John Doe. And John Doe says, “Hey.” Or the council says, “Nope, we don’t like John Doe. Bring us a different name.” And you vote 5-0 against John Doe.

Mayor McGee: Yeah. And I have no problem with that. Or I bring John Doe and you say whatever vote in favor of John Doe, and so John Doe gets the appointment. That’s one thing altogether. But you don’t have the opportunity, currently, to say, “No, we want Jane Doe.”

Mayor McGee: It absolutely is. Because I am not presenting you with that person’s name. It is absolutely giving you that opportunity. You see where I’m coming from now? It does exactly what the three of us think it does.

C. Bowman: So, what, tell me then why you don’t – and don’t think of it from you being mayor, you look at the position – and why is there something wrong with it? With doing it that way?

Mayor McGee: Um. Well, A) because 90% of the cities in the state don’t operate under that form. And there’s a reason for it. B) Typically and traditionally, mayors have the authority to recommend an individual or not recommend an individual and then the council has the authority to ratify the recommendation.

C. Bowman: Okay, so not recommend. That is what we are asking for is to not recommend.

Mayor McGee: No, no, no. You’re giving the council the authority to say, “No, we don’t care if you don’t want to recommend him, we’re still going to reappoint him.”

C. Bowman: We have the power to appoint anyway, though. All the mayor does is recommend.

Mayor McGee: You have the power to ratify the mayor’s recommended appointment.

Mayor McGee: Right. But you’re giving yourself the power to say, “Okay, this is who we want. Period. We don’t care who you want.”

C. Kirk: I’m looking at it that if a member of a committee or commission serves a four-year, hypothetical, term, say. Okay. And at the end of those four years – he has served extremely well – there shouldn’t be any reason why the mayor shouldn’t recommend reappointment. Okay. However, It’s beginning a new term. It’s beginning a new term. It’s just like you as a council member, after you’re term is over, you want to run for reelection. . .

C. Bowman: And it’s not one person who votes me in, is it? Or says that I can be reelected? There’s power in numbers. It goes to a vote of more than one person. That’s my whole point.

C. Kirk: And it will if he makes the recommendation. He makes the recommendation initially. He makes the recommendation again. Unless he doesn’t want to recommend that person.

C. Kirk: But if he doesn’t want to recommend Joe Schmoe out on the street the first time, then he doesn’t.

C. Bowman: But right now it’s adding that in – what you just said. That stuffs missing.

C. Kirk: What you’re saying is that there is automatically a graduated preference to somebody that is already serving on a committee. That they should automatically be reappointed.

C. Richardson: It’s not saying that at all. It’s saying that if the majority of the council feels strongly about someone’s empirical service, that they disagree with the mayor’s observation, that that carries some weight.

C. Bowman: And I’ll turn the tables. If the mayor is chum-chum with somebody that I think sucks, I want to have the power.

C. Kirk: If he brings up somebody buddy-buddy then you vote not to ratify it. Not to appoint him.

Mayor McGee: You have that absolute power. Not to approve. That is absolutely true.

C. Wright: I mean seriously, why would anyone want to be the mayor if we keep taking away all of his privileges and his rights?

C. Wright: He just sits here and conducts the meeting. He does a lot of work all for not. He doesn’t have a vote. He just comes and runs the meeting.

C. Richardson: The mayor’s powers are all vested in the council, and the mayor is only as powerful as his council lets him be. And that’s always the case. That doesn’t matter if you’re Rocky Anderson or whether you’re . . .

Mayor McGee: Well, if it’s not a major power, why are you so interested in it?

C. Bowman: Because I think everyone should have a say in it. If it’s not a major power why do you want to hold on to it?

C. Kirk: I think that if we include that clause that was originally intended to be in the first one about how he has to give written notification not to recommend reappointment . . .

C. Richardson: Towns do have five member councils and mayor is one of them. But once you become a city then you don’t have that option.

C. Wright: I mean, there is a reason why we have a mayor. Because he has certain responsibilities and we have certain responsibilities.

Mayor McGee: Actually you do have that option as of the newest legislation, as of April.

Mayor McGee: Yep. This, in my opinion, fits the criteria that they addressed – the legislature – the whole reason why they chose to address that, and that is once you start taking away the duties, authority and/or powers of any particular legislative branch, whether it’s the – or any particular branch, I should say – whether it’s the mayor or the council, then you’re changing the form of government.

C. Richardson: Well, I guess the counter to that is that a lot of people felt like that is the way it was before.

Mayor McGee: My response would be, if you’re going to change the form of government, then use Charelle’s argument and take it to the people.

C. Richardson: People can take it to the people. That is what initiatives are about. We all know how I feel about them, though.

C. Richardson: Well, it’s just possible that we will not all agree on this, so what I’ve done is that I have included the sentence from the other one, “The mayor will send written notification to the member 30 days prior to the term expiration notifying him of the decision.” Insert that in the same spot as before. So I move to adopt ordinance 4-1-2008A, as amended.

C. Richardson: It includes that sentence that was in section 9-1B, “The mayor will send written notification to the member 30 days prior to the term expiration notifying him of the decision.” That happens in the second sentence o 9-1C-1, C, 2.

Mayor McGee: 9-1A-2A. By passing this it is inconsistent as it is written with what you approved.

C. Kirk: Uh, there is also a problem where it says the entire city council will then vote on whether to reappoint the member or not. And if you include the entire city council with Eric Johnson’s definition, then that includes the mayor as the entire city council. And he would be voting.

C. Richardson: I would amend the motion and the ordinance to strike the word “entire” every time that it falls in front of the city council.

Mayor McGee: So then it really . . . So what you’re saying then is that it really is truly a power grab by the council.

C. Richardson: No, it’s simply making it be the way that the people I talked to all thought it was. And, you know, it is not a power grab because it balances the power. It makes it the exact same way it is with the city manager. And I would not say there is a power grab in regarding who has the city manager. I would feel the same way if you were the councilman and I was the mayor, or you were the mayor and I were the councilman.

C. Bowman: It’s not . . . I mean, I have absolutely no problem sharing power with five other people.

C. Bowman: Well you just said it was all about the power. You just said it was all about the power. So, if anything it’s about the mayor having the power, is what you’re saying.

C. Kirk: I’m kind of lost. We have a motion, a second, an amendment, and something else?

C. Perry: Ya, so. I’m a bit confused, honestly. I don’t understand how taking power from one individual who has never – with all due respect – has never run against anybody and been elected against anybody, who was appointed and then ran unopposed and then putting the power in a council of five as opposed to a single individual who was never popularly chosen by the people is a power grab. I’ll be honest.

Mayor McGee: So what you’re saying, Jim, is that what Eric and Charelle have just said is not true and this is totally personal.

Mayor McGee: That is what he just said, because he’s specifically referencing me.

C. Bowman: Well then that is just his opinion. He did specifically reference you, and I have never specifically referenced you. I’ve referenced the position and the council rather than specific council members.

C. Perry: No, it’s not at all. I want to say for the record that, you know, I think you’re a good man. I think you’re honest. I think you have the interest of the city at heart. You know, as an elected representative, I just can’t imagine a scenario where putting a decision in the hands of one person as opposed to five people who are elected by the people of Cedar Hills is a power grab. I mean that’s just, like, ludicrous. That’s just completely contrary basic logic. (Mayor McGee requests that this and Jim Perry’s previous statements be verbatim in the minutes) The more people who are elected by the people who are making the decision, the better off we are. And that doesn’t matter whether it’s Mike McGee or Jim Perry or Eric Richardson or whoever it is. It’s better when it’s more people who are making the decision and who are elected by the people of the City of Cedar Hills.

C. Richardson: I think if it was a power grab, then we would have made the changes before we made any of the changes with the Planning Commission at the beginning of the year. But it’s not about power grab. It’s about clarifying language that was obviously ambiguous when we had to have a lawyer come in and spend 30 minutes or longer trying to explain to us what the code may or may not have said.

Mayor McGee: Well what you’re doing today is much different than what you did previously. So I’m curious as to what’s changed.

C. Kirk: He just amended it to read the same as the Planning Commission verbiage.

C. Perry: Yeah. We passed it previously and it was a 5-0 vote, and it was very clear what the ordinance was, what the procedure was.

C. Richardson: The thing that wasn’t in there was Ken’s statement from last time, and we just included that word for word, and other than that I think the only difference was that this version has both the spelled out word thirty and the number 3-0 and the other one didn’t.

Mayor McGee: Well, so, I guess, one final comment and then I’ll just let it go, and the council can do whatever it wants, I suppose, and I’ll just have to live and work with that. And that’s fine. So will any succeeding mayor. And that is, just following your previous arguments, where you’re saying that more votes are better, and you’ve now stricken entire council. That’s still not consistent with what your argument is.

C. Bowman: I told you I didn’t have a problem with it saying entire council. Kim said it was . . .

C. Kirk: In the council-mayor situation, I think we need to keep it to five council members that vote.

C. Bowman: See. He’s saying that. I’m not saying that. I don’t have a problem with that.

C. Richardson: Well, that’s the other thing that changes. We did strike the word entire out of this one and in the Planning Commission it still says entire. So, does it say entire city council?

C. Perry: Yeah, sorry. Since I’m on the phone, somebody clarify, because it’s kind of hard to follow, over the phone, what was the motion? Who made it?

C. Richardson: I made the motion. And, um. Do you have your packet? Are you familiar with what was in there?

C. Richardson: ‘Kay. So we made two changes to what was in the packet. The first one was on section 2, which is 9-1C-1 under subsection C, there are four spots where the word entire is contained. We struck the word entire.

C. Richardson: Additionally, on subsection C, item number 2, after the first sentence we added the same phraseology that was used last time regarding the Planning Commission from Councilman Kirk that says, “the mayor will send written notification to the member 30 days prior to the term expiration notifying him of the decision.” That sentence is inserted after the first sentence.

C. Kirk: That isn’t exactly what it said, I don’t think. I think it said that if the decision was not to reappoint he would notify him.

Kim Holindrake: The mayor will send written notification to the member 30 days prior to the term expiration notifying him of the decision.

C. Kirk: Here’s the fourth of May ordinance proposal. Let me read directly from it with my notes. “Reappointment prior to the expiration of a term.” It says, “the mayor with the advice and consent of the city council may choose to reappoint a member to another term. If the mayor chooses not to reappoint.” That verbiage was in here that we approved. Okay? And what was added to it, “by written notification to the member.” If he decides not to reappoint, he needs to notify him that he is not going to reappoint him.

C. Kirk: We talked about it. We sat about it. And I said, “Wait a minute, we haven’t added that.”

C. Richardson: I remember the written notification. But I understood it to be written notification of the mayor’s decision on his recommendation.

C. Kirk: Not to reappoint is what was in there. And that’s what’s written right here. That’s why I added that, and I said “No, no, no. If the mayor chooses not to reappoint,” And I said, “and then add ‘by written notification to the member’ the position is declared vacant at the expiration of the term.”

C. Richardson: I don’t recall that being there. I would have against that because it wouldn’t be consistent with this whole thing here.

C. Kirk: I know it isn’t. And right there in black and white it says, “chooses not to reappoint.”

C. Richardson: I understand that’s your black and white. It wasn’t on my copy.

C. Perry: Can we have an authoritative opinion on that. What exactly was passed? What was the verbiage?

C. Perry: Because my recollection is more in line with Council member Richardson’s.

C. Perry: And isn’t the verbiage that’s in our packet this week exactly . . .

C. Kirk: I’d like to make a recommendation at this point and that is that we have staff review the audio tape from the fourth of March.

Kim Holindrake: I went through everything because I had questions. That was exactly what was passed.

C. Kirk: Because my intent in adding that was that if a member of a committee or the Planning Commission—who we were talking about at that time—the decision of the mayor was not to reappoint, as it says in here, which is in our packets, that that written notification be given to that person. So there’s no doubt in his mind and that the council would know that the mayor has decided not to reappoint that position.

C. Richardson: Yeah, I mean, I wouldn’t be against reviewing tapes. I guess ultimately the written motion, the written ordinance is the one that always applies, for better or worse. I would have voted . . . I wouldn’t have made the motion to include that language that you said. That was an important point for me. Same way it is here. This verbiage you see here is the same verbiage that was on there for dealing with 1B. If we want it on the agenda again, if we want to vote on it again, we certainly can.

C. Richardson: From my opinion sitting here right now, it sounds like there’s just going to be a divide on whether that’s a piece of language that is important or not. And even if we review it, it is probably not going to be a 5-0 vote because some of us feel strongly that that sentence that you recall discussing, some wanted it in there, and some didn’t want it in there. And I guess I thought everyone thought it wasn’t in there.

C. Richardson: It certainly wasn’t my intent to deceive anyone. That’s why I wrote it down. I think that’s important.

C. Kirk: I think if we listen to the audiotape, we get the intent of the discussion that was going on, I think that will clarify where we misunderstood.

C. Richardson: I’m all for understanding where the misunderstanding there happened. I don’t know that it will change the outcome.

C. Kirk: And you know what? Like Councilman Perry has said many times, when this thing comes down to the final way that we want this thing to read, you get three votes, you get it. If you don’t, you don’t. But at this point I think there is a lot of misunderstanding and confusion of what was supposed to be in the original Planning Commission document on that ordinance. And it’s not the way I thought it was.

C. Perry: I would agree that there was a lot of confusion initially, but I thought when we reviewed it, and we amended it, and we passed a new version in a previous meeting, I thought we were all pretty much—in fact I thought we were all exactly—on the same page. Presuming all of us read it and we all put it forth 5-0.

Mayor McGee: Well in fact, if you recall right, I said, “You know what? I don’t have a single problem with this.” What we are seeing tonight is not that.

C. Bowman: This is exactly what I went off of and I was one of the big proponents of this just because I wanted that in there. I wanted it to come to a vote of the council. So I don’t know what everybody is confused about.

C. Richardson: Yeah, I mean, I guess I understand now that people didn’t all understand what it said. I was honestly surprised at the time that all six of us agreed upon it. I didn’t think that it was going to be a 5-0 vote with everyone agreeing. But, it was clearly written down. It was clear what was voted on and passed. Kim has the handwritten notes.

C. Bowman: I remember asking, like actually stopping and saying, “Ken, did we get what you wanted in there.”

C. Kirk: We need to add right after “chooses not to reappoint” I said, “we need to put ‘through written notification to the member.” So that it’s not speculation. That he’s not guessing whether he is going to be reappointed or not. That he knows that the mayor has decided not to reappoint him because the mayor has sent him a written notification, as it says here, that he has chosen not to reappoint him.

C. Richardson: Maybe it was because what I knew was written down on the papers I wrote, but I remember the discussion, but the way I guess I heard it was that the member should know absolutely whether the mayor was going to recommend him or not so that if they feel like they would like to continue to serve, as our prior chairman did, and that they weren’t going to have the recommendation to do so, then they would have the chance to say, “look council members, this is what I’ve done, and this is what I’ve added, and this is why I think I should continue on.”

C. Richardson: Yeah, so I was with you 100% that they need to receive the notification. The place, I guess, where our paths differ is that to you that notification is you’re on/you’re off, and if you receive the off, it doesn’t matter because the mayor said you’re off. To me it’s the mayor says, “I’m not going to recommend you,” and then you get the chance to come and say, “hey council, I would sure like to still be on Here’s what I’d like to serve.” And you can have the other commissioners come or the other Board of Adjustments come.

C. Kirk: Now I’m agreeing with Marisa when we get to that point. You know that mayor is endowed with certain rights or privileges or powers or whatever you want to call it. If people don’t like the word power, we’ll stay away from it. But I think that’s inherent in the position of mayor that he recommends to the council.

C. Kirk: Okay. Who gets appointed onto what commission. And that means a reappointment too. Now if he doesn’t want to recommend somebody for reappointment, then he should indicate to that commission member or council member—not council member—committee member, I’m not going to reappoint you.

C. Bowman: And that’s just what we’re saying, to bring it back to the council.

C. Bowman: He may say I don’t want to recommend this person, and we would say, “Great, don’t.” Seriously.

C. Perry: Yeah. And here’s the thing. State law clearly says that the council shall establish the rules by which people are appointed, reappointed, and the whole process happens.

C. Kirk: I’m not arguing that, Jim. I’m arguing—and we’re doing that. We are in the process of trying to establish those rules. My argument is that we apparently did something on the fourth of March that I didn’t know that we had done it that way. The argument that I had, and the conversation that Charelle and Eric and I had was to add this comment after and a decision was made not to reappoint. Not that he is going to recommend non-reappointment, and the council gets to vote on it. That wasn’t in the draft that we got, and the note that I wrote was he needs to receive written notification to know that, guess what, the mayor isn’t going to reappoint me, and if I want to continue to serve I need to contact my council members and go have a meeting with the mayor and try to figure out why. Have I not been doing the job? Does he not like the way I walk, talk and chew gum at the same time? Or whatever the case is.

C. Bowman: But we don’t even know that. We get to know the reasons why he recommends somebody, but unless this happens, we don’t get to know the reasons why.

C. Bowman: And they may really suck. I still don’t know. If you want to reflect back on what happened last time. I still don’t know the reasons.

C. Kirk: I don’t know the reasons why he doesn’t want to recommend somebody that applied, and he interviewed, and he didn’t recommend.

C. Bowman: Don’t you want to know? This will make it so that we can know those things and be involved. And the whole council can be. That’s my goal in that.

Mayor McGee: Let me just say that that’s baloney because I explained in detail why that didn’t happen.

C. Richardson: I would like the record to reflect that Council member Kirk thought that there was language in the motion that was voted on regarding section 9-1B in March and that he may not have voted for the motion if he had understood the language that was there.

(Note: On April 3, 2008, the City Recorder received a telephone message from Mayor McGee requesting the entire discussion on Item 10 be verbatim.)

11. Review/Action on Amendments to the Guidelines for the Design and Review of Planned Commercial Development Projects Specifically Building Height Limitations (10:55 p.m.)

Greg Robinson stated that this item has been requested by the developer who presented his mixed-use concept in the work session. Mr. LeFrank wants the corners of the buildings to be four stories. The Commercial Design Guidelines currently stipulate no more than 40 feet. This amendment allows for up to 50 feet of occupied space and additional height with the approval of the Planning Commission and the City Council. For every two feet of additional setback one additional foot of building height is allowed.

• C. Kirk stated that he likes the elevations presented for this project, but because of what happened with the St. Andrews Estates development and zoning for the reception center, he does not like the idea of changing the Commercial Design Guidelines for one specific development. He might be willing to consider it if the developer owned the property. Greg Robinson said the Planning Commission had the same discussion. They decided that whether it was this developer or another, the design would have to be good to get the additional height, and it would still need to be approved by the Planning Commission and the City Council. It is still within the power of the City Council to not allow the 50-foot height.

• C. Richardson stated that he does not want to see section 4.4.2 changed, but would like to see the other two sections changed. He said that the difference between this amendment and St. Andrews Estates is that St. Andrews Estates was City owned and the zoning change catered the property in order to sell it. This is someone else’s property, and this change would be made for anyone.

• C. Bowman said she would feel more comfortable leaving the Commercial Design Guidelines as written and making a finding that would allow up to 50 feet. David Bunker said that plan of action would be a gamble for the developer. If the Commercial Design Guidelines state that 50 feet is within the guidelines, a developer is more comfortable investing money in plans and elevations.

MOTION: C. Richardson - To retroactively and forward looking extend the meeting beyond 11:00 until 11:30 p.m. Seconded by C. Kirk.

• Greg Robinson said that at this point HB Development does not own the property, but have it under contract.

• C. Richardson stated that developers don’t like to buy property until they have approval.

• Konrad Hildebrandt stated that even though the Planning Commission puts weight into conformance to the guidelines, the purpose and intent section states that the guidelines are not intended to be so rigid as to deny flexibility.

MOTION: C. Richardson - To adopt Resolution 4-1-2008B, as amended for sections 4.2.2 and 4.3.2 of the Commercial Design Guidelines. Seconded by C. Kirk. Vote taken by roll call.

• Mesquite Park construction has started.

• Replacing the bay doors on the Public Works building would cost $10,000. Painting them would cost $2,500.

MAYOR AND COUNCIL REPORTS

13. Board and Committee Reports (11:20 p.m.)

• C. Bowman: Ashley Vogelsberg will be emailing Council members about shirts for the Family Festival. C. Bowman has called the homeowner who backs Mesquite Park about possibly removing her fence, but hasn’t heard back yet. She will arrange for a surveillance company to make a presentation on the May 6 agenda. David Told is getting prices on Trex for an Eagle Scout project to fix some benches. The Council would prefer to see the benches replaced with those that meet City standards. The Parks and Trails Committee suggested an adopt-a-park program. National Trails Day is the first weekend of June. They would like Mayor McGee to speak, and there will be a scavenger hunt along the trails.

• C. Perry: The Youth City Council did an amazing job with the Easter Egg Hunt.

• C. Richardson: The Planning Commission approved an amendment of setback for a lot in the Cedars. H.R. Brown submitted his resignation. UTOPIA had a special meeting to approve a line of credit.

• C. Wright: She would like to see statues on both sides of the entrance to the City at 4800 West and Cedar Hills Drive. She will work on the project if the Council will seriously consider it. C. Kirk worries about the appropriateness of the location. C. Richardson would rather get the fountain done first.

EXECUTIVE SESSION

14. Motion to go into Executive Session, Pursuant to Utah State Code 52-4-205

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

No Executive Session

ADJOURNMENT

16. Adjourn

This meeting was adjourned at 11:32 p.m. on a motion by C. Bowman, seconded by C. Kirk and unanimously approved.

/s/ Kim E. Holindrake

Approved by Council: Kim E. Holindrake, City Recorder

May 6, 2008