The Lindon City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, August 5, 2003 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: James A. Dain, Mayor Pro Tem
Pledge of Allegiance: Jerald I. Hatch
Invocation: Jim Dain

PRESENT

James A. Dain, Mayor Pro Tem
Jeff Acerson, Councilmember
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Jerald I. Hatch, Councilmember
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk

ABSENT

Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor

The Meeting began at 7:04 p.m.

PRESENTATION - The Mayor will recognize Dorsey Hooley, Public Works Inspector, as the City's Employee of the Quarter.

Mayor Pro Tem Dain invited Mr. Dorsey Hooley to the front. He read from the nomination form and enumerated Mr. Hooley's excellent qualities. He observed that Mr. Hooley never complains, assists everyone, and treats everyone the way he wants to be treated. He never needs prodding, is a good worker and good friend. Mayor Pro Tem Dain presented Mr. Hooley with a certificate in recognition of his sincere work and dedication. Mr. Hooley thanked his peers and the Council for the recognition. He told the audience that he enjoys working for the City and commented on the changes and improvements that have come about in Lindon during his employment. There was applause and pictures were taken.

MINUTES

The minutes of the work session of July 8, 2003, the regular meeting of July 15, 2003 and the executive session of July 15, 2003 will be reviewed.

The Minutes of the work session of July 8, 2003 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 1, Line 28: Add the word "west" after the name "Walker's."
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF JULY 8, 2003 AS CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

The Minutes of the regular meeting of July 15, 2003 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 7, Line 33: Add the words "AND ANIMAL RIGHTS" after the word "HOUSING."
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR SESSION OF JULY 15, 2003 AS CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED,

The Minutes of the executive session of July 15, 2003 were reviewed. There were no corrections.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE EXECUTIVE SESSION OF JULY 15, 2003 AS WRITTEN. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

OPEN SESSION

There was no public comment.

MAYOR'S COMMENTS/REPORT

Mayor Pro Tem Dain reported that Mayor Ellertson had left him nothing specific to report.

CONSENT AGENDA - No Items

CURRENT BUSINESS

1. Public Hearing - Pacland/Walmart Relief Petition. This public hearing has been continued twice before. This is the last continuation before the item will need to be re-advertised as a new public hearing. The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act on the matter of this request to reduce the amount of water required to be given to the City for this development and to pay cash in lieu of turning in water shares or water rights. The Planning Commission has heard this request and has made certain recommendations to the Council.

COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO OPEN ALL THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE AGENDA. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Planning Director Kevin Smith presented this application for relief from the Lindon City water share requirement. He told the Council that the Planning Commission had three recommendations on this application, ie.; 1) all available surface water shares from the approved water companies should be acquired and turned in to the City, after which ground water rights should be accepted; 2) no reduction in the amount of shares required should be considered; and, 3) a cash payment in lieu of shares or a bond for the transfer of the ground water may be in the best interest of the City and should be considered.

Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked Mr. Marc Cohen and Mr. Darrell Tate, representing Walmart/Pacland, for their comments. Mr. Cohen told the Council that the main issue for relief they wanted to concentrate on is the amount of water required. He noted that the City requires one share for each two acres of developed land. He asserted that the Walmart site contains thirty-three acres of which twenty-three acres are designated for the store and seven acres for the out lots. He informed the Council that Pacland/Walmart is not asking for relief on the number of shares for the out lots and are prepared to turn in four shares. He conceded that the nature of the businesses that may use these lots are still unknown and explained the willingness of Walmart to accede to the City's full requirement in this circumstance. However, based on empirical data obtained from other Walmart stores in similar climates and engineering data from both the City Engineer and Walmart's engineering staff, Walmart believes that an inequitable application can be construed to the City's requirement of twelve shares on the balance. He informed the Council that an estimate of 12.4 acre feet per year may be used on the site according to their information. He stated that the City requirement is six times more than this estimate of use. He agreed that the cost of the water shares is the issue. Walmart is willing to pay for the water that they will use and will willingly turn in the two shares that yield this amount of water. He added that Walmart is willing to turn in an additional two shares to account for yield fluctuations in water shares due to climate changes. This will equate to an amount double the amount of water that will be used on the site. He asked for a variance from the City on the water requirement to allow Pacland/Walmart to turn in a total of eight North Union shares.

Mayor Pro Tem Dain verified that the proposal is to turn in four shares for the Walmart site and four shares for the out lots. Mr. Cohen confirmed this statement. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked city staff if relief from the amount of water share requirement had been given in the past. Mr. Smith and Mr. Dameron both replied no. Mayor Pro Tem Dain explained to the applicants that one intent of the requirement is to prevent any water shares purchased with parcels of land in town from being sold outside of Lindon. Mr. Tate replied that Walmart is not in the business of brokering water, however, if there were extra shares that had been purchased with the land, they would be sold to finance the site. He explained that the problem is that the water shares are not available and Walmart has not been able to locate enough shares to meet the requirement. He noted that there will be no shares leaving Lindon through Walmart.

Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if the application for relief is for cash in lieu of shares or less water shares. Mr. Smith replied both. Mr. Cohen commented that he would like to focus on the amount first rather than the cash in lieu.

Councilmember Hatch explained that the secondary system had been originally built based on the acreage of the City and the number of shares needed to serve the total area. The share requirement had been set based on this criteria. Therefore, if exceptions are made now, the City's secondary system may be in jeopardy in the future, especially if a precedent is set on allowing less shares to be submitted. Councilmember Hatch commented that this parcel has been under irrigation in the past. Councilmember Acerson asked where the irrigation shares that have historically been used on this parcel have gone. Councilmember Hatch conjectured that the owners have retained the shares to sell separately. Mr. Cohen asked the Council to consider how many shares are needed to satisfy the needs of the site. Mr. Tate informed the Council that he was aware of only one property owner that had retained water shares or water rights.

Councilmember Acerson commented that changes happen, so in the event that relief is allowed and Walmart happens to leave Lindon, he suggested that the Council be allowed to revisit the water requirement to meet the new usage. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if this was possible. Mr. Smith replied that this would create an administrative problem in keeping track of this eventuality. Councilmember Acerson commented that water is becoming scarce and ample water is needed now to prepare for the future.

Mr. Dameron commented that Councilmember Hatch is correct in his account of the history of the secondary system. He noted that all the acreage of the City was taken into consideration when the requirement for water shares was set. The requirement was set to ensure the integrity of the system. He acknowledged that one request would not jeopardize this integrity, but it would set a precedent that could adversely affect the entire secondary system. He noted that the City Council had recently reduced the requirement for commercial sites by half. Mr. Cohen commented that Walmart was willing to pay for what they will use and to submit double this amount of water shares. Mr. Tate agreed and noted that if the requirement had not been reduced recently from one share per acre to one-half share per acre, they would still apply for relief because they feel that the requirement is onerous and inequitable.

Mr. Dameron informed the Council and applicants that the requirement for water shares had been established in the City Code as Ordinance #2. It is important to the City, and is used to meet the culinary, as well as the secondary, needs. Mr. Cohen replied that their estimates of use include the culinary needs also. Mr. Dameron asked the Council to consider the precedent that may be set and expostulated a situation where a homeowner might pave or decide to xeriscape three or four acres and ask for a refund of shares because he is using less. Councilmember Acerson expressed a concern that the City requirement is more than can be justified by use. Mr. Dameron replied that the City had conducted studies to initially determine the requirement and that a recent amendment had cut the requirement in half for commercial development. He expressed concern that the City may jeopardize future water supplies.

Mr. Smith commented that City Engineer Dave Thurgood has explained how yields change on water shares from year to year depending on climate. Mr. Thurgood has also informed the City that there is a possibility that the State Engineer may reallocate the state-wide distribution of water which would change the situation. Mr. Ken Pack, a water broker working with Walmart to locate shares, commented that the City has already received water from one property owner in 1993. Mr. Smith acknowledged that this water has been received and will fill the requirement for ten acres. He noted that the total acreage of the site is a fraction less than 34 acres from which the amount of 10 acres has been subtracted, and that leaves a balance of 24 acres. This gives a total requirement remaining to be submitted of 12 shares or equivalents.

Mr. Cohen reiterated his position on the inequity of this requirement as six times what will be used on the site. Mr. Dameron commented that these estimates of use and share yield can change from year to year. Mr. Cohen agreed and noted that this is the reason that Walmart is willing to submit double the estimate of use. He explained that Walmart is struggling with the economic impact of submitting more than what they will use. He commented that this site is over budget and that the focus is being particularly aimed at reducing expenses. He cautioned the City on assuming that just because the project has gone up for bid, it is a "done deal." The reason for the bid process is to make a decision on whether to continue. If the price tag of construction is reduced, they may continue. The water issue is a budget item of about $350,000.

Mayor Pro Tem Dain commented that the City Engineer has reviewed the information on use and has recommended no reduction. He added that this is not an attempt to discount these estimates. Mr. Dameron explained that although the amounts on yield had been provided for the Walmart engineers by the City Engineer, Mr. Thurgood had commented to staff on the interpretation taken and had questioned if the information had been understood. Councilmember Acerson commented that the Council needed to be consistent, especially if making exceptions. He added that the Council also needs to consider segments of costs that the City may incur on Walmart's behalf. Mr. Tate agreed that the City would incur costs, but pointed out that the City would accrue benefits also. He added that commercial development is attracted to Walmart which has an added benefit for Lindon.

Councilmember Hatch posed a hypothetical situation where a citizen of Lindon owns an eleven acre commercial parcel and has already turned in the water required. He asked if this citizen will subordinate the Walmart use during dry years, or, will this citizen get a rebate on water shares. Mr. Cohen commented that he sympathizes with the Council and realizes that this is setting a precedent. However, the application for relief is submitted pursuant to the City's code. He reiterated that Walmart is willing to double the estimated use amount. He observed that he feels that this relief petition is not unjustified or unwarranted considering the estimated use figures. Councilmember Hatch expressed the opinion that the City had already given a 50% relief to commercial development. Mr. Tate pointed out that this requirement is still six times more than what will be used.

Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if there was public comment. There was none. Councilmember Bath expressed the opinion that he was not comfortable with setting a precedent. He explained that he understands the use issue, but suggested another avenue to the WalMart representatives to make themselves whole. He commented that the system was formed to serve the whole City and lowering the requirement may put this system in jeopardy. Mayor Pro Tem Dain agreed and commented that the system is designed on the principle that there will be some give and take–some people will use more and some will use less. Councilmember Hatch commented that the price of North Union shares is more than shares of other water companies. Councilmember Bayless agreed that the price of shares is great, but the need for water is greater. Mayor Pro Tem Dain suggested that the applicant consider submitting ground water in lieu of surface water.

Mr. Cohen and Mr. Tate asked the Council to consider allowing cash payment in lieu of shares. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if it was appropriate to consider this as a separate motion. Mr. Dameron observed that the application is for both issues, however, it could be considered separately if desired by the Council. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked what the cash equivalent of a share would equal. Mr. Dameron replied that the amount is tied to the market value and set in the fee schedule each year. Councilmember Bayless suggested that the Planning Commission seemed favorable to this issue.

Councilmember Acerson commented that he also is concerned about paying for something that is not being used, but that the system was designed to benefit the overall community. He suggested that the system be evaluated to see if the expected use is in line with the water share requirement. After discussion, it was decided to make separate motions on each issue of the petition.

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO DENY THE REQUEST FOR RELIEF ON THE NUMBER OF SHARES AND REQUIRE SUBMITTAL OF SEVENTEEN NORTH UNION WATER COMPANY SHARES OR THE EQUIVALENT AS LISTED IN THE LINDON CITY FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE ENTIRE 34 ACRE SITE. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mayor Pro Tem Dain suggested that the Council discuss allowing a cash payment in lieu of water. Mr. Tate explained that Walmart wants as much flexibility as possible to meet the City's requirements. He pointed out that shares to meet the requirement are not available at present. Councilmember Hatch suggested that the City would prefer either surface or ground water rather than cash. Mr. Cohen requested the ability to submit share, groundwater or cash. Mayor Pro Tem Dain observed that the City needs water more than cash, but that cash exceptions have been made in the past. Mr. Tate told the Council that Walmart had searched and found every surface share available. He added that a long ground water transfer process was not in the best interests of Walmart, but he did understand that the City prefers water over cash. Mr. Smith suggested that if the Council is considering accepting groundwater, that Walmart can be required to post a bond for the groundwater shares that will be held until the transfer is complete. This will allow Walmart to go ahead with the building permit on schedule. No wait for the transfer will be necessary.

COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO REQUIRE WALMART TO SUBMIT WATER IN THE FOLLOWING PRIORITIES: FIRST, ALL THE AVAILABLE SURFACE SHARES; SECONDLY, GROUNDWATER RIGHTS; AND THIRDLY, CASH AS THE FINAL ALTERNATIVE; AND TO ALLOW WALMART TO BOND DURING THE GROUNDWATER TRANSFER PROCESS AS SUGGESTED. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

2. Public Hearing - Ordinance Adoption - Recoupment of Costs for Improvements (Ordinance 2003-13). The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve an ordinance which will allow Lindon City to be reimbursed by private land developers for public improvements paid for by the City which would generally be considered project improvements for private development. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this ordinance.

Mr. Smith presented this proposed ordinance which provides an avenue for recoupment of City-installed improvements that benefit private development projects. He noted that this is different from developer reimbursements from neighboring property owners. This ordinance would only be invoked when the City "up-fronts" improvement construction in special circumstances, such as when pushing 700 North to the freeway interchange and widening 600 North for safety reasons. He observed that situations such as these do not happen often. He also commented that the City has made agreements with property owners to accomplish this in the past, and that this ordinance just states the policy in writing. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked how the City would keep track of the costs to recover from development. He also verified that this ordinance could not be used to recover costs on improvements put in 25 years ago. Mr. Smith assured him that the ordinance would not affect anything done in the past, but would take effect from now into future transactions. He also commented that all potential reimbursements would be approved by the Council before construction. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked how credits for those property owners who give rights-of way would be computed. Mr. Dameron explained that all parties to a recoupment agreement would agree on the particulars before improvements are installed. He suggested the addition of a sentence to the ordinance that grandfathers in all existing improvements and applies only to future construction and improvement. A clarification of the wording in line four was also discussed. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if there was any public comment. There was none.

COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 2003-13 RECOUPMENT OF COSTS BY THE CITY FOR IMPROVEMENTS WITH THE CHANGES AS RECOMMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0).

3. Public Hearing - Ordinance Adoption - Public Safety False Alarm (Ordinance 2003-14). The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve an ordinance which will encourage security alarm users and alarm system monitoring companies to maintain these systems and reduce unnecessary public safety responses to false alarms. Pleasant Grove City has adopted a similar ordinance.

Mr. Dameron explained that the ordinance has been requested by the Public Safety Department and was adopted by Pleasant Grove City recently. Councilmember Hatch asked if the ordinance is working as intended in Pleasant Grove. Chief Tom Paul explained that the program had just started and that no fines had been levied yet, but that the awareness of false alarms had risen. Councilmember Hatch asked the amount of the alarm system registration fee. Chief Paul replied that the registration fee is $25.00. Chief Paul was asked if responses to a fire alarm were included in the false alarm ordinance. He replied yes, that the police respond to fire alarms since the fire department consists of volunteers.

Mr. Dameron pointed out some typographical errors and reported on the Mayor's questions. He commented that the Mayor had expressed concern that this ordinance should not discourage the reporting of alarms. He asked the procedure that would result in a response by public safety. He asked if the alarm company would call and verify the alarm before notifying the police. Chief Paul replied yes, that each alarm company had safeguards to ensure a minimum of false alarms. Councilmember Hatch commented that he <s>has</s> had been called out <s>many</s> several times to meet an officer at his former business.

Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if this ordinance would affect mostly businesses, or residences. Chief Paul replied that most insurance companies would not insure either new homes or business without alarms, so it affects both. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked what is considered a false alarm. Chief Paul explained that a call to the police that requires a response to the premises without cause is a false alarm. He assured the Council that if the call is canceled before the officer arrives at the premises, the fine is not applicable. Mr. Dameron asked if this ordinance is working for other cities. Chief Paul replied yes.

Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if there was any public comment. Mr. Greg Hall, newspaper representative, told the Council that he had first been made aware of this ordinance in Pleasant Grove. He suggested that it appears, from a citizen's point of view, that this ordinance can be interpreted as a revenue stream for the City. He referred to the $25.00 registration fee for everyone with an alarm. He also expressed concern on how an alarm company will verify a true alarm. He used the example of the alarm system installed in his home and noted that the system includes an auto voice attendant that monitors the home when the alarm is activated. He asked if the registration fee will affect residents since the ordinance already includes penalties for false alarms.

Councilmember Bath replied that the $25.00 fee is only to cover the administrative costs. The ordinance is intended as a corrective measure, not a penalty and pointed out that false alarms take officers away from their regular duties. It is not the intention to generate revenue, and the City will be very happy if there is never another false alarm at all. Chief Paul agreed that the registration fee is just an administrative fee to cover acquiring and keeping track of the information needed to contact responsible parties in the case of an alarm. The penalties are intended to transfer the costs of response to those that have the false alarms.

Councilmember Bayless asked if the information can be acquired from the security company. Chief Paul replied that the information is not available from the security companies. Councilmember Bayless commented that she understand the fee when there is repeated false alarms. She asked what happens if a false alarms is from a system that is not registered. Chief Paul responded that the public safety department may opt not to respond. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if there was any other public comment. There was none.

Councilmember Bayless expressed the opinion that she would be happier if there were no administrative fees, but could understand that the fines go to pay the officers that respond to the false alarms. Councilmember Bath observed that the department would be just as happy never to have to respond to a false alarm and hope that there is no generation of fines. The intent is to help to keep officers on duty. Councilmember Hatch commented that the ordinance is an incentive to keep alarm systems operating properly. Mayor Pro Tem Dain commented that he also had a problem with the administrative fee. Councilmember Bath suggested that an alarm system owner that invests $25.00 for a registration fee has a vested interest in seeing that the alarm operates properly.

COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE 2003-14 AMENDING TITLE 5 - BUSINESS TAXES, LICENSES, AND REGULATIONS OF THE LINDON CITY CODE BY ADOPTING AND ENACTING CHAPTER 5.14 - BURGLAR, ROBBERY AND FIRE ALARMS. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0).
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARINGS. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

4. Review and Action - Bid Award. Bids were received and opened on August 1, 2003 for construction of 700 North street from State Street to Geneva Road. The apparent low bidder was Geneva Rock in the amount of $403,483.20. Final bid tabulations will be brought to the meeting. Staff recommends the contract for this project be awarded to Geneva Rock assuming the bids are calculated correctly.

Mr. Dameron informed the Council that the bids for improving 700 North Street from State Street to Geneva Road had been opened on Friday, August 1, 2003. The apparent low bidder was Geneva Rock with a bid of $403,483.20. The bid tabulation had been completed and a mathematical error had changed the bid to $404,008.70 which is still the low bid. He commented that Staff recommends that the Council award the bid to Geneva Rock. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked what the engineer's estimate had totaled. Mr. Dameron replied $520,000. Councilmember Bath asked the estimated start date. Mr. Dameron responded that they anticipate two to three weeks start with a sixty day completion.

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO ACCEPT THE BID OF $404,008.70 AND AWARD THE CONTRACT TO GENEVA ROCK FOR THE 700 NORTH STREET-STATE TO GENEVA ROAD PROJECT. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0).

5. Review and Action - Property Purchase. In accordance with the adopted General Plan and the long range parks plan, negotiations for property on the east side of the City have recently concluded. The Council will consider approval of a property purchase agreement with Canberra Development Company for 6.55 acres.

Mr. Dameron presented the proposed agreement drawn up by Canberra Development for the Council's review. The agreement is to purchase the remaining 6.55 acres owned by the development company. He pointed out a proposed change suggested by the City Attorney in the third "Whereas." The sentence uses the word "threatened" and the City Attorney suggested that this word be softened to the word "discussed," or "Buyer has expressed an interest in condemning." The attorney also suggested removing the reference to a payment of $10.00 or other valuable consideration as properly belonging to a deed and not to this agreement. The final recommended change is contained in article 4.4 which he suggests a change to "Buyer shall give a letter stating buyer's interest in condemning the property." The recommended changes were discussed.

COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN ANEXUS PROJECT JOINT VENTURE AND LINDON CITY BASED ON THE CORRECTIONS AS NOTED ON THE ADVICE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY AND AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR TO HAVE FINAL APPROVAL AUTHORITY OF THE WORDING AND TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT AND ALL DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE TRANSACTION. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0).

6. Discussion - Installation Costs of Semaphore Pre-Emptive Units. The City purchased seven semaphore preemptive units last fiscal year. The installation costs have recently been received and the Council will discuss having at least two of these units installed this year.

Councilmember Bath reported that Chief Hales was having a hard time verifying the information on installation costs. He reported that Pleasant Grove installation costs were $780 per intersection and that the hope is to receive the same price. However, there was nothing official from the installation company verifying this amount. The locations intended for the semaphore pre-emptive units were discussed. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if the technology was stable, or likely to go out of date. Councilmember Bath replied that this was not a concern. Mr. Dameron suggested waiting to approve the expenditure until a firm commitment is received on the amount. Councilmember Bath and the Council agreed. Mr. Dameron replied that he would table action until this information is received.

COUNCIL REPORTS:

WATER, GENERAL PLAN, BUILDING INSPECTION, ENGINEERING

Councilmember Dain and the Council discussed plans for the Lindon Days parade.

SEWER, SOLID WASTE, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTIES

Councilmember Hatch reported that the North Pointe Special Service District had made a proposal to Geneva Steel for expansion property. He also reported that the District is exploring ways to keep the bailer although it had not met expectations.

TRAILS, PLANNING, ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ADMINISTRATION

Councilmember Bayless asked about the Pioneer Home break-in. Mr. Dameron explained that there was only minor damage to the walls and evidence of burned candles. He reported that the door will have the locks reinforced and re-keyed. He noted that he has arranged a meeting with the neighbors to explore additional security and watches. Councilmember Bayless reported some sprinklers that were operating during the daytime on City property.

STREETS, SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC SAFETY AND COURT

Councilmember Bath had no report for tonight.

PARKS, RECREATION, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, LINDON FAIR, NEWSLETTER

Councilmember Acerson reported that emergency preparedness will be the focus of the Lindon Stake Conference. He also reported that events for Lindon Days seemed to be progressing satisfactorily. The events were discussed.

ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT

Mr. Dameron:
1. Asked the Council to review the project tracking list for possible hearing requests. There were none.
2. Noted a letter from the Administrative Office of Courts reporting that Judge Bullock is doing a good job. He noted that the Judge will need to be reappointed prior to February 2004.
3. Inquired into the Council's desire to pursue paying tipping fees directly to the Transfer District as requested in the letter from the Director, Stuart Cowley. The Council discussed the advantages of this action. Councilmember Hatch reported that several cities were already paying the District directly. The Council expressed interest and Mr. Dameron was asked to arrange a meeting with BFI.
4. Observed that there would be a proclamation on the next agenda concerning the "Fill the Boot" campaign.
5. Announced that the last day to file a Declaration of Candidacy is August 15.
6. Reported that the re-striping of the intersection of 400 West and 200 South was scheduled for August 16.
7. Asked the Council to set the date for the Lindon City Christmas Party. The Council decided on December 5 at 6:00 p.m.
8. Confirmed that the Trust for Public Lands had scheduled a ceremony for September 20, 2003 from 11a.m. to 1 p.m. at the Dry Canyon Park to announce the purchase of the hillside property by the Forest Service. He noted that Senator Bennett would be present. The plans were discussed.
9. Presented a request from the Daily Herald for names of citizens who have made significant contributions to Utah County over the last 100 years.
10. Reported that the Board of Adjustments had granted a special exception for a lot less than 20,000 square feet on Canal Drive. He explained the circumstances that prompted the application. The Council discussed the issue.

COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON MOVED TO APPROVE THE PAY VOUCHERS. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

ADJOURN

COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:10 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVED - August 19, 2003

back to top