|
|
Home » City Government » Council » Schedule: Agendas and Minutes 2004 » 2004 Council Minutes » December 7,2004
December 7,2004
The Lindon City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, December 7, 2004 in the Lindon City Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Pledge of Allegiance: Larry A. Ellertson
Invocation: Ott H. Dameron
PRESENT ABSENT
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor Jeff Acerson, Councilmember
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Bruce Carpenter, Councilmember
Jerald I. Hatch, Councilmember
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk
The meeting began at 7:05 p.m.
MINUTES – The minutes of the regular meeting of November 16, 2004 will be reviewed.
The Minutes of the regular meeting of November 16, 2004 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 1, Line 28: Replace the word “reverses” with the word “reversed.” Replace the word “declines” with the word “declined.”
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING OF NOVEMBER 16, 2004 AS CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Councilmember Bath arrived at 7:08 p.m.)
OPEN SESSION – Citizens comments
There was no public comment.
MAYOR’S COMMENTS/REPORT
Mayor Ellertson observed that he would reserve his report for later in the evening.
CONSENT AGENDA – No items
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. Review and Action – Wasatch U-Cart. This item was continued from the November 16, 2004 meeting. The City Council will now reconsider the possible revocation of the conditional use permit for Wasatch U-Cart. The deadline for compliance with the conditions imposed by the Council was November 12, 2004.
Mayor Ellertson commented that this item had been continued from the last meeting. Mr. Smith agreed and added that the Council reviewed this application at the meeting of November 16, 2004 and that the deadline for compliance to the conditions was November 12, 2004. He reminded the Council that the Planning Commission revoked the Conditional Use Permit based on a history of noncompliance issues over the last two and a half years. He presented pictures of the site from both November 12 and today. He explained that he had met with Mr. Maynes to review the conditions of the Council. He pointed out that the site now includes the required twenty-feet of landscaping and trees on the frontages of Geneva Road and 240 North. He noted that the detention area needs to be sodded, although the site has topsoil and seeds. The trailer is still located on the site and needs to be removed.
Mr. Smith pointed out an area where landscaping rock was removed and grass installed. He also noted the concrete curbing where the landscaping meets the gravel parking lot had been installed. Mr. Smith observed that another area of concern is the storage of equipment and landscaping materials. He informed the Council that a large percentage of the junk equipment had been removed from the site, but the location and composition of the storage bins for materials had not received approval from the Planning Commission. Mr. Maynes informed the Council that he had recently removed some more of the equipment that still shows in the pictures.
Mr. Smith commented that the Planning Commission had expressed concern over the type of material used to construct the containment structures for landscaping materials. He noted that the bins are built of concrete traffic barriers or jersey barriers. He then presented pictures of the frontage on the 240 North cul-de-sac, and pointed out the landscaping and the concrete silo and batching area. He noted that the gravel base on the site is working fairly well and pointed out that a little mud had been tracked onto the street.
Mr. Maynes reported that he had submitted his plans for a building permit, but had not heard back from the Building Department on the status. He commented that he was ready to build and “waiting anxiously.” He noted that he was hoping to install the footings and slab before the end of the month and finish the building by February 2005. He informed the Council that he had closed his concrete business for the next three months to prepare for a reopening in Spring of 2005.
Mr. Smith presented the elevations and a proposal for an amended site plan that Mr. Maynes had submitted. Mr. Maynes explained that the building would be similar in structure and materials as his neighbor, the Servpro building. Councilmember Carpenter asked if the building was to be constructed of split-face block. Mr. Maynes replied that it would be a combination of split-face and single score block. Mayor Ellertson confirmed that Mr. Maynes’ wish is to get the building permit and then have the building completed before reopening his business. Mr. Maynes verified this intention. Councilmember Carpenter commented that it appeared that the Building Department is unwilling to issue a building permit with a revoked conditional use permit still in question. Mr. Smith agreed that the issuance of the building permit is contingent on the Council’s instructions and decision concerning the revocation appeal.
Mayor Ellertson and the Council reviewed the conditions of the previous revocation hearing. Councilmember Carpenter reviewed the items that were still pending, including the detention area that had been seeded and not sodded, the barriers used to construct the landscaping bins at the front of the lot that were not approved by the Planning Commission, and the fact that a building permit had not been applied for until after the conditional use permit had been revoked. He commented that it appeared that Mr. Maynes was asking the Council to have faith that the site would be completed. He asked Mr. Maynes if this was correct. Mr. Maynes replied yes.
Councilmember Bath asked about the removal of the trailer. Councilmember Carpenter commented that this would now happen simultaneously with the construction of the building. Mr. Smith commented that the landscaping now meets the requirements, although the detention pond area may need interpretation by the Council. Mr. Maynes pointed out that the requirement is to have grass, not sod. Mr. Smith added that the unauthorized storage has been mostly removed. Councilmember Carpenter asked if the gravel was adequate. Mr. Smith replied that there had been a lot of rain recently that had stressed all graveled yards.
Mayor Ellertson commented that if the building was constructed and the materials bins were approved, the site would be in compliance. Mr. Smith agreed. Councilmember Bath also agreed to the Mayor’s points, however, he expressed the opinion that the site had not been in compliance when the Planning Commission had issued the revocation. He suggested that it would not be fair to the Planning Commission to reverse their decision when it had been correct. He added that Mr. Maynes should reapply for a conditional use permit. Mayor Ellertson asked Mr. Smith the process for Mr. Maynes’ plan review by the Planning Commission if the Council upholds the appeal.
Mr. Smith explained that the applicant has appealed the Planning Commission’s decision to revoke a conditional use permit to the Council. The Council has two options: Disagree with the Planning Commission and find grounds to reverse the Planning Commission decision, or uphold the revocation and ask Mr. Maynes to reapply with a new site plan showing the correct bin location. He added that the Planning Commission has expressed reservations about the type of bin containment. Councilmember Carpenter agreed and noted that the material type appears “too temporary.” He added that Councilmember Bath’s point is well taken. He observed that the Planning Commission had struggled hard to reach the decision to revoke and that the improvements had been completed after this decision had been reached. Councilmember Bath agreed and again suggested that the revocation should be upheld and Mr. Maynes referred back to the Planning Commission to reapply.
Mayor Ellertson asked the procedure for reapplication. Mr. Smith replied that, if the Council decides to uphold the revocation, Mr. Maynes will need to submit new applications with fees and a building permit will not be issued until the new site plan is approved. Mayor Ellertson asked if the revocation procedure can allow Mr. Maynes to go back to the Planning Commission for review and approval to move forward on his building. Mr. Smith replied that there is not a lot of language in the appeal section of the code, so the Council has some latitude on how they proceed. He added that Mr. Maynes will not be allowed to operate his business on this site until it is approved.
Councilmember Bayless commented that she agreed with Councilmember Bath. She observed that the Planning Commission had worked with Mr. Maynes and given him every chance to comply. They had agonized over the decision to revoke. She agreed that progress had been made since the revocation, but there are still unfinished issues. She added that there is still validity to the Planning Commission’s concerns about compliance. Councilmember Bath asked about the time delay in the project that may be expected if the Council upholds the revocation. Mr. Smith replied that the Planning Commission can review the site plan and building elevations in January, or if the Council decides to reverse the revocation, he can present the building elevations as part of the Planning Director’s report at tomorrow night’s meeting. Mayor Ellertson commented that he would like to encourage the completion of the project.
Councilmember Bayless observed that she was not comfortable with minimizing the amount of construction left to finish on the project. Councilmember Carpenter agreed that Mr. Maynes should retain responsibility for the uncompleted items, but the Council can recognize the recent efforts at completion and not create more of a financial burden for Mr. Maynes by requiring him to reapply. Mr. Dameron commented that for Mr. Maynes to operate under the current site plan and begin to build, the Council must grant the appeal to the revocation, subject to certain conditions. Councilmember Bayless pointed out that Mr. Maynes is still not complying with the present site plan, and asked how the Council can justify granting the appeal. She added that the items that remain are somewhat minor and could have been dealt with before now. She expressed the opinion that the concerns of the Commission need to be addressed by the applicant in a timely manner that has not been demonstrated in the past. She asked what guarantees completion of the project if the Council grants an appeal. Mr. Dameron asked if the Council would like to continue the appeal hearing. Councilmember Carpenter pointed out that this still would not allow Mr. Maynes to start on his building until after the Council reaches a decision in January.
Councilmember Hatch suggested that Mr. Maynes consider finishing the surface of the bins. Mr. Maynes replied that he had researched the types of materials for bins and had found that most business use either railroad ties or jersey barriers. Councilmember Bayless commented that the Planning Commission was not happy with the appearance of the jersey barriers, but added that the y they were willing to work with Mr. Maynes to find a suitable alternative.
Councilmember Bath observed that the revocation should be upheld. Councilmember Carpenter asked Councilmember Bath if he would be willing to compromise. Councilmember Bath pointed out that the City had been working with Mr. Maynes for two years, and that little had been completed until the Planning Commission had felt forced to revoke the conditional use permit. He added that Mr. Maynes had an additional two months to comply during his appeal and that there were still items left uncompleted. He asserted that Mr. Maynes should be required to reapply.
Councilmember Carpenter observed that Mr. Maynes may be running the risk of not being approved at all. Councilmember Bath replied that he does not feel that the Planning Commission will be harsh and callous to Mr. Maynes. He added that the City has instituted a process to maintain a business in Lindon, and if the process is not complied with, the business owner runs the risk of losing his business. He expressed the opinion that granting an appeal is not a good answer to businesses that do not comply. Mr. Dameron suggested that the appeal can be denied and the application remanded back to the Planning Commission, rather than requiring a reapplication. He observed that the Planning Commission can look over the building permit application and site plan, and Mr. Maynes still cannot operate until the approval is given. Mr. Maynes pointed out that he will still lose a month in time. Mr. Smith noted that this depends on whether the Council upholds the revocation or grants the appeal with conditions. He suggested that the building permit can be issued if the later approach is taken.
Mr. Dameron suggested that if the Council grants the appeal, Mr. Smith can present the plans to the Commission tomorrow night and the building permit can be issued. The site plan can be amended in January. He pointed out that the building will not move on an amended site plan, just the location of the bins and the shape of the detention area. Councilmember Carpenter asked Mr. Maynes how he would feel if the Council decided to uphold the revocation with a recommendation to the Planning Commission to revisit the application. Mr. Maynes replied that it would set back his plans a month, but it would not be a huge dilemma now because winter has set in.
Mr. Smith observed that the plan review process had not been started because of the appeal process. He explained that the Community Development Department had not wanted to spend city finances on paying for the review if there was a possibility that the building would not occur. It would take a couple of weeks to complete the review. Mr. Dameron pointed out that a possibility exists that the Planning Commission may not approve the site plan, so the plans should not be sent for review until the approval has been obtained. Mr. Smith agreed and noted that this would add another couple of weeks.
Mayor Ellertson pointed out that the Council would accomplish a finalized site plan by taking either course of action and suggested the more uncomplicated route. Councilmember Bayless agreed but stated that her intention is to limit the invitations to the applicant to appear by pushing for timely completion now. Councilmember Bath indicated that he had an inclination to uphold the revocation because of the time period taken to get to this point. He expressed the opinion that he would feel better if the Planning Commission reconsidered the application and re-approved it. Councilmember Bayless agreed and pointed out that the Commission “battled and battled” with this application to achieve only a “half-step forward within six months.” She again pointed out that the remaining issues could already have been dealt with by the applicant. Mayor Ellertson pointed out that the application would still be going back to the Planning Commission and asked what would be accomplished by delaying the project even more. He added that if Mr. Maynes is allowed to start sooner, he will get finished sooner.
Councilmember Carpenter commented that it did not seem appropriate for the Council to step in after the fact and say that the Planning Commission was wrong to revoke the conditional use permit when the site is still unfinished. Councilmember Bayless added that the applicant has established a pattern to get a little bit done so that the Planning Commission would give him a little more time, but never finish. She pointed out that this has continued for two years. Councilmember Bath agreed. Mr. Dameron observed that the Council is debating the value of form over substance by respecting the role of the Planning Commission. He suggested that if Mr. Maynes is willing to delay, the order and precedence of the ordinances will be preserved. Mayor Ellertson and the Council discussed the amount of time represented by a delay. Mayor Ellertson asked Mr. Maynes if he was willing to concede to a delay of about two months. Mr. Maynes replied yes. Mr. Dameron assured Mr. Maynes that staff would expedite his reapplication process. Councilmember Bath observed that the Planning Commission process would also be faster because of the issues already solved and the items accomplished.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO DENY THE APPEAL BY ERIC MAYNES FOR WASATCH U-CART LOCATED AT 240 NORTH GENEVA ROAD AND REMAND THE CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION AND SITE PLAN REVIEW BACK TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION FOR FURTHER STUDY ON THE AMENDED SITE PLAN PROPOSAL AND FINISHING STEPS.
Councilmember Bayless commented that the Council encourages staff to expedite the process of reapplication. Councilmember Bath agreed and noted that the Council applauds Mr. Maynes for what has been accomplished.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION.
Mayor Ellertson asked what would preclude Mr. Maynes going back to the Planning Commission tomorrow. Mr. Smith replied that this application is not on the agenda. Mayor Ellertson agreed that there could not be an official review, but that the building plans and site plan can receive a design review and help speed the official process. Mr. Maynes asked if this means that he has to start all over from two and one half years ago. Mr. Dameron verified this statement. Mr. Maynes noted that last time he had to receive approval from both the Planning Commission and Council. Mr. Smith replied that the Council requests to see certain development applications, but this time he will not be appearing a second time for the Council.
Councilmember Hatch commented that he would be more in favor of upholding the revocation if the fee was waived. Councilmember Carpenter requested time before calling a vote to think about the motion. Councilmember Bath pointed out to Mr. Maynes that although this action would put his application “back to square one,” he was still a lot farther ahead because of the amount of work already done.
Councilmember Carpenter asked if the “clock starts over” when Mr. Maynes resubmits for a conditional use permit. Will he be allowed an additional two years to build and remove the trailer? Mr. Smith replied that the trailer was approved on a temporary site plan. Most of these temporary permits are limited to one year to complete and a second year is considered only if significant progress is shown. He informed the Council that the Planning Commission was likely to take into account the time already spent and not allow the trailer for another year. Councilmember Carpenter suggested that the motion be amended to include a recommendation to the Planning Commission that no time extensions for the trailer will be considered and the additional fees to reapply for a conditional use permit are waived. Mr. Smith commented that the city engineer has reviewed the site plan and his time has been paid by the previous fees. The reapplication would only require the Planning Commission time.
Mayor Ellertson asked if losing the conditional use permit jeopardizes Mr. Maynes’ financing. Mr. Maynes replied that it will set back the process, but not significantly. Mayor Ellertson asked if Councilmember Bath and Bayless were willing to amend the motion.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO AMEND HIS MOTION TO INCLUDE A RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION THAT THEY TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE TIME ALREADY USED FOR THE TEMPORARY TRAILER AND REFUSE ANY EXTENSIONS, AND THAT THE APPLICATION FEE FOR A SECOND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT IS WAIVED IN THIS INSTANCE. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE AMENDMENT. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH NAY
THE MOTION CARRIED (3-1) WITH ONE ABSENT.
(Councilmember Bayless was excused at 7:55 p.m.)
2. Review and Action – Interlocal Cooperation Agreement – Utah County Council of Governments. The City Council will review this agreement and possibly act to approve it.
Mayor Ellertson explained that the Utah County Council of Governments has been operating as a friendly group of people that get together and discuss common issues. It has been pointed out that this group has no decision-making authority for the individual members. He noted that this group had hammered out the hillside trespass agreement, but that it had then to be approved by each individual city council in Utah County. Now there is a question about a county-wide library system. He observed that there had been care exercised in drafting this agreement to allow the coalition to do business, but to limit the creation of another bureaucracy. He assured the Council that the intent is to keep local decision–making intact. He asked if there were any questions.
Councilmember Carpenter observed that his concerns seem to have already been raised by the City Attorney. He asked if the agreement will come back to the Council for approval after it is reviewed and amended. Mayor Ellertson observed that the Council may approve the amended agreement after the members offer input to the Council of Governments. He noted that his main concern with the current version is that there are more legal and liability issues than was intended. Councilmember Carpenter agreed and noted that the agreement is valuable because this document will help to delineate the purpose and intent of the participants.
Councilmember Hatch pointed out some formatting errors in the agreement. Mayor Ellertson asked if there were other concerns. Mr. Dameron asked for a motion to carry the recommendations for amendments back to the Council of Governments.
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE MAYOR ELLERTSON TO CONVEY THE CITY ATTORNEY’S RECOMMENDATIONS FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN LINDON CITY AND THE UTAH COUNTY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (COG) BACK TO THE COG REPRESENTATIVES. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
3. Review and Action – UTA Railroad Crossing Agreement for 700 North Street. The City Council will review this agreement and possibly act to approve it.
Mayor Ellertson explained the need for this agreement. He observed that the City had an agreement for crossings with the entity that owned the tracks before the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) purchased the rights. This agreement is necessitated because of UTA’s involvement. Councilmember Carpenter asked the meaning of the phrase “burdensome but not unreasonable.” He commented that the agreement seems to be dictating quite a bit of liability to the City. Mr. Dameron commented that the Center Street crossing had been a contract, not an agreement in advance. Councilmember Carpenter observed that this agreement seems to be looking for leverage. Mayor Ellertson asked the Council to note the City Attorney’s comments on this draft.
Mayor Ellertson commented that this agreement was intended to be essentially the same as the previous one with the old entity. Councilmember Carpenter asked about the UTA being able to employ personnel and contract at Lindon’s expense. Mr. Dameron explained that the previous agreement allowed a new crossing to be completed by the owner of the railroad at the expense of the party that wants the crossing. Councilmember Carpenter commented that the employment of personnel seems more obligatory than what Mr. Dameron just explained.
Councilmember Bath asked if UTA leases or owns this railroad line. Mayor Ellertson replied that they have bought this particular section. Councilmember Bath observed that Article 5 states that the requestor pays for work done, but then goes ahead and adds more to it. Councilmember Carpenter agreed that giving UTA the sole discretion to hire is “over the top.” Mayor Ellertson pointed out that the property belongs to UTA and asked the Council to consider the provision as if it was their personal property. He expressed the opinion that this provision is not unreasonable when considered from this viewpoint. Councilmember Bath commented that it can be unreasonable and needs clarification and limitation. He pointed out that a crossing can be a benefit to UTA also. Councilmember Hatch added that UTA should be responsible to fix the crossing even though the City may build it.
Councilmember Carpenter commented that he questioned the insurance clause also. Mr. Dameron commented that the master Interlocal Agreement with UTA provides that the cities may not require too many things of UTA and now it appears that UTA has turned it around to their advantage. Mayor Ellertson observed that there is a reciprocal agreement to prevent this eventuality. Councilmember Carpenter commented that if a crossing is used heavily and there are high insurance costs, according to this agreement the City must bear the cost. He asked if the insurance requirements are detailed. Mr. Dameron listed general liability, workers comp, etc. He commented that there is no clarification about accidents at the crossing. Councilmember Carpenter asked why the UTA would care if the City had Workers Compensation insurance. He suggested that the insurance be limited to the creation of the crossing only. He added that the provision is too broad. Mayor Ellertson observed that he would take these suggestions back to the UTA. He commented that they are receptive to clarification requests.
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE MAYOR AND STAFF TO PRESENT THE ISSUES RAISED TO THE UTA FOR AMENDMENT OF THE INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
4. Review and Action – Annual Meeting Schedule. The Annual Meeting Schedule for the calendar year 2005 which includes the meetings for the City Council, Planning Commission, Board of Adjustments, Redevelopment Agency, and Municipal Building Authority will be presented to the Council for a review and approval.
Mayor Ellertson asked if there were questions or comments. It was noted that asterisks had been included on July 5 and October 4 as dates that may be canceled. After discussion, Mr. Dameron was asked to remove these dates from the list because July 5 is a holiday and October 4 is the primary election day.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE LINDON CITY PUBLIC MEETING SCHEDULE FOR 2005 AS AMENDED. COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
5. Review and Action – Appointment of Representative to the North Union Canal Company Board of Directors. Mr. David Thurgood, current representative for the city to the North Union Canal Company Board of Directors, has requested to be released. The City Council will act to approve a replacement representative.
Mayor Ellertson observed that a recommendation has been made to appoint Public Works Director Don Peterson as the North Union Representative to replace City Engineer Dave Thurgood. He asked Councilmember Hatch if this recommendation met his approval as the City Council member assigned over water. Councilmember Hatch approved the recommendation. Mayor Ellertson commented that Mr. Peterson would like a stipulation added to the appointment that this representative cannot be made President of the Board. He explained that this stipulation would remove the perception of any conflict relative to the city representative being president.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE APPOINTMENT OF DON PETERSON AS THE LINDON CITY REPRESENTATIVE TO THE BOARD OF THE NORTH UNION CANAL COMPANY WITH THE STIPULATION THAT MR. PETERSON CANNOT BE ELECTED TO THE POSITIONOF PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD. COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCIL REPORTS:
WATER, SEWER, SOLID WASTE, HOUSING CONSORTIUM
Councilmember Hatch reported a traffic conflict with parked vehicles near the intersection of 400 West and 200 South. He suggested that the curb be marked for “No Parking” farther away from the corner to prevent a possible accident.
Councilmember Hatch commented on the hiring of a new correspondent for Lindon at the PG Review. There was a discussion of the reporting of Lindon news.
TRAILS, PLANNING, ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS, ADMINISTRATION
Councilmember Bayless was excused.
PUBLIC SAFETY, COURT, BUILDING INSPECTIONS
Councilmember Bath had no report for tonight.
PARKS, RECREATION, ENGINEERING, LINDON FAIR, NEWSLETTER
Councilmember Acerson was excused.
GENERAL PLAN, STREETS & SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS
Councilmember Carpenter had no report for tonight.
MAYOR’S COMMENTS/REPORT
Mayor Ellertson conveyed appreciation from the Mountainview Corridor EIS team for the input received at the meeting in Pleasant Grove recently. The Council discussed the project and the various entities involved.
Mayor Ellertson commented that there has been extensive discussion on the implementation of the streamlined sales tax (SST) and the upcoming the legislative session. He explained that the League of Cities and Towns, and now Governor Olene Walker, are supporting tax reform. He noted that he would keep the Council updated on the options under consideration. Councilmember Carpenter observed that one proposal is to pool sales tax and distribute based on population. He noted that residents are resistant to retail expansion and that this proposal will exacerbate the situation. Mayor Ellertson agreed that if the distribution is based on population, the cities will zone for residential and not commercial. Mr. Dameron added that recent conversations with the State Tax Commission have brought a possible error to light in one of Lindon’s distributions. There was a short discussion of the SST proposal.
Mayor Ellertson reported on progress to complete the 700 North corridor and the 1200 East corridor.
ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
Mr. Dameron:
Announced the Engineering Coordination meeting for December 15 at noon. Councilmembers Bayless and Carpenter volunteered to attend. He noted that the R2 Overlay Committee will also be meeting that night at 6:00 p.m. in the Conference Room. He added that Mayor Ellertson and Councilmember Carpenter are included in this group.
Asked if the Council was interested in a field trip to the Fieldstone projects in preparation for their presentation. The Mayor and Council all expressed interest.
Noted that several public hearings are scheduled for January, including the nonconforming uses ordinance amendment and an update to the City’s criminal code.
Asked for requests from the Project Tracking List. There were none.
Observed that Councilmember Carpenter is the Mayor Pro Tem for the next quarter.
Announced that recycling signups have been reduced to 255 with recently terminated accounts being considered. Councilmember Carpenter mentioned that the environmental club at BYU would be willing to help the City in some capacity pertaining to recycling. The Council discussed the offer and the recycling contractor, BFI. Mayor Ellertson suggested that the rules of recycling need to be clear. He observed that a flyer and advertising may help.
Noted the inclusion of the memo from the Lindon Fair Chairpersons as an action item. The Council discussed the memo and reached consensus to approve the staff recommendations.
Informed the Council that the drop in commercial customer usage reported by Mr. Thurgood in his presentation of the Water Rate Study has been found to be incorrect. He noted that the actual number is an increase in customers and use.
Reported that the auditors will be presenting the results of the City’s financial audit at the January 4 meeting. He suggested that the audit committee needs to meet before this time to address the issues or the presentation will need to be postponed.
Announced that culinary water wells #2 and #3 are off line for repairs. Well #2 is having the pump replaced and Well #3 is having its well house rebuilt.
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO APPROVE THE PAY VOUCHERS. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
ADJOURN
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING AT 8:45 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED – January 4, 2004
______________________________________
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator/Recorder
_______________________________________
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor |
|
|
