The Lindon City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting on Tuesday, January 6, 2004 at 7:00 p.m. in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers, at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.

Conducting: Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Pledge of Allegiance: Lindsey Bayless
Invocation: Jeff Acerson

PRESENT

Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Jeff Acerson, Councilmember
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Bruce Carpenter, Councilmember (newly elected)
James A. Dain, Councilmember (former)
Jerald I. Hatch, Councilmember
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator
Kristen Colson, Finance Director
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk

ABSENT

The meeting began at 7:06 p.m.

SWEARING-IN CEREMONY

The newly elected members of the Council will be sworn in to four-year terms of office. The City Administrator/Recorder and the Finance Director/Treasurer will also be sworn-in. The Utah State Code requires the appointed positions of Recorder and Treasurer to be reappointed after each municipal election.

Mayor Ellertson informed the audience present that the swearing-in ceremony is the formal part of the process to form the City Council since the recent election. The three elected Councilmembers–Mr. Bruce Carpenter, Ms. Lindsey Bayless, Mr. Jerald Hatch–the City Administrator/Recorder Mr. Ott Dameron, and the Finance Director/Treasurer Kristen Colson were asked to stand at the front of the room. Judge Bullock administered the oath. Pictures were taken for the newspapers. Mayor Ellertson commented that he looked forward to working with the newest Councilmember, Mr. Carpenter.

PRESENTATION

Mayor Ellertson and the City Council will recognize Jim Dain, former Councilmember, for his outstanding service and contributions to the citizens of Lindon and present to him a plaque expressing the gratitude of the city.

Mayor Ellertson acknowledged that he was feeling sentimental tonight about saying goodbye to long-time Councilmember Jim Dain. He has served as member of the Council since 1991. Mayor Ellertson commented that 1991 is the year that he moved to Lindon, so Councilmember Dain has served as long as the Mayor has been a resident. He wanted to compliment Councilmember Dain on his diligent service to the residents of Lindon. These years have been significant in the life of the city. The City would like to express their gratitude and present this token of recognition. Councilmember Dain came to the front as was presented a plaque. Pictures were taken and applause given.

Councilmember Dain thanked the Mayor for his kind comments. He commented that a lot of tough decisions have still to be made and he wished the Council the best. He observed that he was not leaving the City and wants to continue the friendships he has gained. This is a step in a new direction. He added that Lindon has been a wonderful place to live and we are lucky to be able to raise our families here. There was another round of applause.

Councilmember Acerson thanked Councilmember Dain for the high standards that he has set. He asked that Councilmember Dain let the Council know if he feels that they are stepping the wrong direction. Councilmember Bath agreed that Councilmember Dain had set an example that the Council could follow in good faith. Councilmember Bayless commented that she would miss Councilmember Dain's clear thinking and expertise. Councilmember Dain thanked the Council for their kind words.

ELECTION OF MAYOR PRO-TEM

A Mayor Pro-Tem will be elected from the members of the Council to serve in the absence of the Mayor.

Mayor Ellertson commented that he has talked with other communities about the Mayor Pro Tem position and would like to suggest a new procedure. He proposed that the position be rotated among the Councilmember on a quarterly or semi-yearly basis based on seniority. Councilmember Bayless asked how that would work. He explained that the most senior member of the Council would take the position for the next three to six months and then it would rotate to the next senior member. He suggested that this idea be tried and if it does not work, the item can be readdressed. Councilmember Bath commented that he liked that idea. Councilmember Bayless observed that this would take the burden off one person. She had no strong feelings on the subject otherwise.

COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPOINT THE MAYOR PRO TEM POSITION BASED ON SENIORITY ON A QUARTERLY TERM BASIS. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Councilmember Hatch, as the most senior Councilmember, will serve the first quarter of 2004 and Councilmember Bayless the second quarter.

MINUTES

The minutes of the meeting of December 16, 2003 were not ready for review.

OPEN SESSION - Citizens comments

There was no comment from the public.

MAYOR'S COMMENT/REPORT

Mayor Ellertson observed that Lindon had experienced a good year with a number of successes. He expressed optimism for the coming year. He noted appreciation for forward-looking staff and community members. He commented that efforts will continue to provide a corridor on 700 North to the freeway. He noted that the first portion is now open. There will continue to be work on improving utilities. The trail system is also a priority. He commented that the Lindon City Master Plan calls for a trail from the lake to the mountain with lateral trails north and south. This is an attempt to make Lindon a walkable community. He mentioned some challenges to the trail system in establishing crossings at the freeway, Geneva Road and State Street, but solutions are being found. He commented that another part of the trail system is the Murdock Canal trail and efforts to close the canal are moving rapidly. He expressed the opinion that this parkway/trail addition would be a great asset to the residents of Lindon. He noted that he is continuing to work with long range transit planning and mentioned the UTA Interlocal Agreement that will bring 42 cities along the Wasatch Front closer to commuter rail. He observed that there are ongoing plans for improvements and additions to the city roads and parks and mentioned that if there are any specific questions in this area to contact him directly or ask City Staff.

CONSENT AGENDA - No Items

CURRENT BUSINESS

1. Public Hearing - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - Assisted Living Centers. The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve a proposed ordinance amendment adding Chapter 7.72 - Assisted Living Centers to the Lindon City Code. The Planning Commission recommended approval with certain conditions and stipulations.

COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

Mayor Ellertson observed that everyone should have a copy of the most recent ordinance proposal. He commented that this has been in the process for the last several months and that he recognized many of the faces here. He asked Mr. Smith the best way to review the changes. Mr. Smith replied that he could walk through the whole draft section by section or just review the most recent changes. Councilmember Acerson suggested just walkingthrough the changes.

Mr. Smith noted that this new version had been reviewed by the city attorney. He has suggested excluding care of elderly family members within a home in the definitions. The definitions have been changed to encompass all types of senior care facilities. He commented that line 26 should have the addition of the word "only" after the word "shall." He noted that discussion of this section should consider the commercial zone on State Street. He then directed attention to the general requirements section. Councilmember Bayless suggested that the word "small" before the word "care" should be deleted.

Mr. Smith observed that the next section lists specific requirements for each size of facility. He asked the Council to note the 1500 foot separation requirement. He informed the Council that most of these requirements have been discussed and recommended from Planning Commission, Council and public discussions. Some have been moved from the group home ordinance that covered small facilities only. Councilmember Bayless commented that she was favorable to combining the small elderly care ordinance requirements and the assisted living center requirements into one ordinance. Mr. Smith noted the landscaping and architectural treatment sections were new. There is a section is to explain that a home being converted into a facility must remain looking like single family home. He suggested that the Council should discuss whether all sides should be required to maintain the single family home appearance. He commented that the parking standard is adopted from national data. He added that the occupancy and room size are moved from the group home ordinance and that the maximum size of a small facility is typical of a large home.

Councilmember Bayless asked how the required bedroom space of 74 square feet for the first occupant and 50 square feet for each additional occupant compares with the State requirements. Mr. Smith replied that these figures had been transferred from the group home ordinance and added that the State dictates the minimum square footage per occupant, but the City may require more. He pointed out the addition of requirements concerning deliveries and outside lighting.

The next section deals with specific requirements for medium-sized facilities. In addition to requirements that address the appearance, there is a minimum building size stated as an amount of square footage per resident, a maximum building size, and a restriction to one building per facility. The section dealing with large facilities makes all structures and sites subject to the commercial zone where they are located. He noted that the landscaping is more restrictive though.

Councilmember Bayless asked what the lot size requirements are for facilities in the commercial district. Mr. Smith replied that the commercial zoning ordinance requires one-half acre for a minimum lot. She questioned the fact that the lot size for the commercial zone is smaller than the minimum lot size for a medium-sized facility. Mr. Smith observed that there is no building size specified for the commercial zone either. He explained that when a commercial enterprise sets up their site plan, the parking and landscaping are determined first. What is left over can be used for the building. He observed that there would not be a large building on a commercial lot of one-half acre. Councilmember Bayless commented that it seems odd to have the requirement for small and medium and not for large. Mr. Dameron asked if she would feel more comfortable to add a minimum building and lot size to the large facility section. She replied yes.

Mr. Smith observed that the lot size in the residential zone was intended to allow extra space to buffer the facility from the neighborhood. The larger lot is not required in the commercial zone because there is not the impact. Councilmember Bayless commented that a developer could put a medium-sized facility in the commercial zone also and he would still be required to have a minimum lot size larger than a large facility because of the minimum size per bed.. Councilmember Bath suggested that there should be two sizes, small and large. The small can be put in residential areas and the large in commercial.

Mr. Smith suggested that the review continue on the last part of the ordinance. He pointed out the application and submittal requirements. He noted the addition of the noticing provision which is similar to the noticing requirements for the R2 Overlay ordinance. He commented that there is also a appeal process in the case of a denial of an application.

Mayor Ellertson asked the Council and public to focus on the revision. Mr. Smith assured the Council that he had no personal attachment to any provision of the proposed ordinance and welcomed any and all proposed revisions.

Councilmember Bayless expressed the opinion that all elevations of a facility should be appropriate to a neighborhood. Mayor Ellertson added that a similar concept is that any facility in a residential zone should have a residential flavor. Councilmember Bayless commented that the City normally does not check a home to see if it will fit into a neighborhood, but an assisted living facility is not the norm and may or may not have a greater impact. She felt that the building, at the least, should blend in. Councilmember Acerson expressed uneasiness telling people what color to use and how things should look. He suggested that aesthetic values are subjective and should be the responsibility of an architectural control committee to keep consistency with the neighborhood. Councilmember Bayless noted that the City spends time reviewing commercial buildings bordering onto residential districts. These facilities as proposed are well within a residential district. Councilmember Acerson agreed that more time is spent considering all areas when a conditional use permit application is reviewed. He just wanted to assure fairness and "ballast." Councilmember Bayless agreed.

Mr. Dameron suggested that the Council address whether an assisted living center should count under the R2 Overlay. Mr. Smith observed that the Planning Commission had spent time talking about this, but had reached no consensus on how to apply it. Mayor Ellertson commented that the challenge is how to count the units. Mr. Smith agreed and informed the Council that the ordinance defines a family as two or more related persons, or four unrelated persons, maintaining a common household. However, this is hard to equate to occupants in a structure such as an assisted living center. There is less traffic impact than a single-family home. He expressed the opinion that assessing the impact is a difficult issue. Councilmember Hatch suggested using the parking per unit to equate to the parking for a residential home or a multifamily unit. Mayor Ellertson suggested that public comment be taken.

Mr. Brad Hall of 612 North 75 West distributed a list of the average-size assisted living facilities in Utah County. He commented that this issue had been debated now for months and months and he, as well as many others, would like to see the issue wound up. He observed that he would like to have assisted living centers in Lindon, but he would like to see them downsized. He would like to see a maximum size and a limitation on where they are put. He felt that too much attention has been paid to a specific facility that was denied. He observed that the Planning Commission had recommended 40 beds as the maximum size in a residential district in the beginning. That has been reduced to 32, which is still the largest size in a residential district in Utah County.

Mr. Hall commented that the putting all the regulations for elderly care under one ordinance is a good move. He expressed the opinion that deleting the references to Section 17.70 and combining the ordinances into one will do away with the loophole of proximity. He commented that the State of Utah defines a small facility as 16 beds or less. He suggested that limiting facilities to that number of beds in Lindon is a benefit to builders as well as residents because there will be less neighborhood opposition. He did not think that limiting the size of the building footprint would accomplish the same things as limiting the number of beds. He suggested that limiting the footprint size would allow smaller, but multilevel buildings that bring the added challenges of elevators, ramps and walk-out basements. These challenges have also not been addressed in the proposed ordinance.

Mr. Hall commented that he would like to see the larger facilities limited to transitional areas, commercial areas or undeveloped residential areas. That way the neighbors will have a choice of whether they want to live next to a facility. He felt that if a neighborhood is fully developed, the building size should be limited to fit the existing homes. This will preserve the integrity of the existing neighborhoods. A building that houses 32 people does not fit into the traditional, existing neighborhood. There is a social impact on the neighborhoods besides the aesthetic impact. He also suggested that residents in larger facilities will find that they have a more "institutional" atmosphere. He recommended a compromise of a maximum building size of 10,500 square feet and 26 beds.

Councilmember Hatch asked the size of the Lindon Care Center facility on State Street. It was not known. Mr. Hall reiterated his concern about putting a facility of 32 beds in a developed neighborhood. He observed that the size of the building is what worries him. Councilmember Acerson observed that he had purchased 55 acres when he moved to Lindon. One of his neighbors came to him and asked his development intentions. She told him that she had built her home with the intent that this property would stay open ground. He suggested that sometimes neighbors have expectations and make assumptions about property that they do not own. He expressed the opinion that assisted living centers can have a positive social impact on neighborhoods also. He would like to see facilities become a part of the neighborhood for the benefit of the residents within the facility.

Councilmember Bayless agreed that the City cannot let existing residents choose who their new neighbors are or how they will build. She asked how you would decide an area is "too developed". It would be difficult to make that decision without becoming arbitrary. Mr. Harlow Clark, newspaper representative for the New Utah, asked if there was a limit on the size of a large house. Mr. Smith replied no. Mr. Clark verified that a home could be built that is larger than an assisted living facility. Mr. Smith confirmed this statement.

Mr. Hall pointed out that the largest facility built in an established neighborhood in Utah County is 21 beds. This facility is Stonebrook and it is located one-half block from a commercially zoned area. All the others of larger size were built in empty fields. He asked why Lindon, with its commitment to larger lots and open spaces, should consider something larger than Orem or Provo has allowed? He informed the Council that the average size of all the facilities in Utah County is 23.2 beds. If you add the largest, Jamestown, the average size drops to 16 beds. He claimed that there are many successful facilities in Utah County and the size has nothing to do with their success. He asserted that success depends on building a reputation for excellence that fills beds, and does not depend on the list of amenities. He pointed out that Greenwood in Lehi has a waiting list and have attributed their success to less staff turnover and a full-time activities director. He also asked if the existing density in a neighborhood counts. He asked why the R2 Overlay ordinance should preclude a 4-plex but not an assisted living facility. Mayor Ellertson replied that this is one of the issues that the Council is considering.

Councilmember Hatch reported that the Lindon Care Center is a 60-bed facility and has four beds per room. He commented that building a facility in a neighborhood is a community event. Mr. Hall suggested a smaller number of beds for residential neighborhoods. Mr. Farrer commented that the Planning Commission and City staff had spent a lot of time on this draft. This draft is the culmination of extensive research. He felt that the proposed ordinance is a good compromise as it is drafted and added that it is also the most restrictive in Utah County. He supports the draft as is and suggested that there had been enough talk. Mayor Ellertson observed that he understands the frustration level inherent in the public process, but asked that everyone be patient and allow the process to continue.

Mr. Farrer pointed out that the community works through development issues in the case of a church or school because of the social need of such a structure. He suggested that assisted living centers should fall in the same category because of the need to care for our elderly. He again expressed support for the ordinance as written. Mayor Ellertson explained that the intent of the ordinance is to apply to neighborhoods city-wide. The Council is taking care that all issues are addressed proactively, rather than reactively. Ms. Vicky Johnson told the Council that although she is not a resident herself, she had two children in Lindon. She observed that she has been to every meeting held to discuss this proposed ordinance. She expressed frustration that the Council spends 45 minutes listening to one person that repeatedly addresses the same concerns and brings no new information to the discussion.

Mr. Gary Otterstrom commented that assisted living centers are needed and good, but expressed concern about weekend parking. He pointed out that Locust Avenue is unimproved and stated that it would not be appropriate to line it with cars. He would like to see the Council address this issue. Councilmember Bayless replied that the Council is not addressing a specific facility on Locust Avenue, but an ordinance that will apply city-wide. She explained that the proposed ordinance make all assisted living facilities a conditional use. This allows the city to consider each application individually and require mitigation measures for the impacts that will affect the neighborhood, including street improvements.

Mayor Ellertson summarized the issues that remain to be decided. He noted the architectural compatibility of a structure on all four sides is one issue. The relationship of a facility to the R2 Overlay ordinance is another issue. He commented that the present proposal encompasses more than just assisted living facilities since the integration of Section 17.70. It now includes all types of elderly group homes, including rest homes and nursing homes. He suggested that the parking requirements have been addressed for assisted living facilities, but may not be adequate for these other types of facilities. He also suggested that all of these types of facilities do not always house just the elderly, but a broader population that needs assistance. The Council discussed this observation and suggested that word elderly be deleted and just the type of facility be addressed. Councilmember Hatch reminded the Council that care given by the family is also excluded.

Councilmember Bayless observed that the size issues are still unresolved. Councilmember Bath expressed the opinion that there should be just two sizes, one for commercial areas and one for residential areas. Councilmember Hatch agreed that he felt 32 beds was too large for an established residential area, but felt that the issue of size might be taken care of under the conditional use so that the facility will be considered individually and the size fitted to the neighborhood. Councilmember Bayless suggested that a motion would give the Council a starting place for discussion.

COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO LIMIT ASSISTED LIVING CENTERS TO NO MORE THAN SIXTEEN BEDS IN A RESIDENTIAL ZONE. HE FURTHER MOVED THAT ALL LARGER FACILITIES BE LIMITED TO COMMERCIAL ZONES. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION.

Mr. Mike Marchbanks stood and told the Council that he too, had been to all the meetings over the months. He observed that the medium-sized facility is more what is wanted in the community. He suggested that this size is more appropriate for Lindon and that it should not be eliminated. He expressed the opinion that this size would allow the amenities that bring a higher level of service to the facility's residents. He pointed out that the current ordinance allows 16-bed facilities. He claimed that he, for one, does not want his loved ones in a commercial zone and believes that the medium-sized facility in a residential zone is the answer. Mr. Farrer noted that the 16-bed facility is not what has been researched and recommended by the Planning Commission. There was discussion between the audience and Councilmember Bath on why he feels that 16 beds is the appropriate size in a residential zone. Mayor Ellertson commented that there was a motion on the floor.

Mr. Glen Arnell commented that if Mr. Farrer had proposed a 16-bed facility in the first place, it would already be approved and under construction. He suggested that Mr. Farrer was being "penalized for cleaning up the ordinance." He felt that Mr. Farrer should have been told from the start that only 16 beds would be considered. He suggested that Mr. Farrer had been mislead. Mr. Farrer added that Councilmember Bath is advocating starting completely over. He asked that the current proposal be considered. He asked why the medium-size facility should be eliminated. Mayor Ellertson replied that a 32-bed facility still exists, just not in a residential zone. Councilmember Bayless observed that there is a motion and second on the floor and the Council is obligated to vote on this proposal.

Mr. Farrer asked what beds have to do with size. Councilmember Bath commented that he had expressed his opinions on size in the past. Mr. Farrer disagreed. Councilmember Hatch expressed the opinion that the number of beds affects the eventual size of the building. He stated that limiting the number of beds limits the size of the building. Mayor Ellertson observed that the motion only addresses one part of the whole ordinance. Councilmember Bayless expressed the opinion that the motion does not resolve the size issue to her "comfort level." She suggested that the Council look harder at making the smaller size larger if the medium-sized facility is eliminated. Councilmember Acerson proposed that the Council vote in the current ordinance with the changes discussed before Councilmember Bath's motion. Councilmember Bayless replied that she was not completely comfortable with this version either. Mr. Dameron asked her to explain her concerns. Councilmember Bayless expressed the opinion that the upper level of the medium-size is too large for a residential zone.

Mayor Ellertson observed that the Council needs to resolve the issues that have been raised. He suggested that the remaining issues are the size in a residential district, if facilities count for the R2 Overlay, and parking for facilities other than assisted living centers.Councilmember Bayless suggested a cap on the size of the building and on the number of beds. Councilmember Hatch suggested a cap on the largest size of any facility in Lindon City too.

COUNCILMEMBER BATH WITHDREW HIS MOTION. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH WITHDREW HIS SECOND TO THE MOTION.

Mayor Ellertson listed the proposed changes to the draft ordinance. He noted that all sides of a building should fit the character of the neighborhood. There is a potential change of the parking to fit all types of care facilities and not just assisted living centers specifically. There is also the name change that provide for the care of all ages, rather than the care of seniors specifically. Councilmember Hatch suggested that the senior care be left in, but that the ordinance should include the other ages that need care. Mayor Ellertson noted that the relationship to the R2 Overlay still needs a decision. Mr. Dameron commented that another change agreed on is the exclusion of care to family members within a home. He added that still to be decided is the cap on the number of rooms and size of facility in a residential district.

Councilmember Bayless asked if the R2 can be used to solve the maximum size question. Mr. Smith asked if an R2 Overlay project is the same in intensity of use as a 16-bed or evan a 32-bed assisted living center. He asked how to equate family members and the number of cars to a group living in a facility. He suggested that the aesthetics of a building can be on a par to multiple-family housing so that it blends into the neighborhood. Mr. Dameron questioned whether the Council intends to have assisted living facilities in all the commercial zones, or just in the General Commercial and Mixed Commercial zones. He noted that the Home Depot is located in a Planned Commercial zone. The Council agreed that the Planned Commercial zone is not appropriate for assisted living centers.

Ms. Johnson told the Council that she appreciates the work that they have done. She observed that she could not sit in this position herself. She pointed out that there is obvious support for a facility of 32 beds. There are petitions on both sides of this issue. She challenged the Councilmember to go look at facilities in person and has herself visited them all except Jamestown. She claimed that it breaks her heart to walk into some of the small facilities. Mayor Ellertson replied that some of the Council have visited and researched other facilities in Utah County. Mr. Arnell asked if a 16-bed unit would meet all the ordinances to fit on a half-acre lot now. He was directed to Mr. Smith to address this question during business hours tomorrow.

COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE WHICH ADDS CHAPTER 17.72.- ASSISTED LIVING CENTERS TO THE LINDON CITY CODE. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

2. Public Hearing - Zoning Ordinance Amendment - R2 Overlay Noticing Requirements. The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve amending the city's R2 Overlay ordinance, specifically Section 17.46.090(1) to remove the neighborhood meeting requirement and adjust other noticing requirements. The Planning Commission recommended approval of this amendment.

Mayor Ellertson introduce this item which amends the R2 Overlay Ordinance to remove the requirement for a neighborhood meeting. Councilmember Bayless commented that it appears that it is more appropriate to have dialog on this controversial subject within the Council Chambers. Mr. Smith agreed that it seems to be a "comfort level" issue. Those that are opposed to an R2 project do not feel comfortable telling their neighbor this within the walls of their neighbor's home. Mayor Ellertson commented that there are still ways to "get the temperature" of the neighborhood. Mr. Smith agreed and observed that the amendment stresses getting more education to the public on the nature of the ordinance as well as a specific project. Mayor Ellertson suggested that the City continue to caution applicants that R2 projects are not readily embraced and generate lots of public comment. Councilmember Hatch commented that the neighborhood meeting was instituted as a way to help defuse a potential controversy. It has not provided the desired result. Councilmember Bayless asked the radius of the "notification" circle and how many property owners this generally contacts. Mr. Smith replied that the required 750 feet will contact from 35-40 property owners.
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE #2004-1, AMENDING CHAPTER 17.46.090(1) - NOTICING, OF THE R2 OVERLAY ORDINANCE OF THE LINDON CITY MULTI-FAMILY HOUSING CODE. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER CARPENTER AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (5-0).

3. Review and Action - Lindon City's Financial Audit Report for Fiscal Year 2002-2003. Michael R. Stoddard of CPA Network, LLC will present the city's annual audit report.

Mayor Ellertson welcomed Mr. Michael Stoddard and Ms. Victoria Richardson of CPA Network. Mr. Stoddard directed the Council to page one of his report for the "Financial Opinion." He reported that Lindon City has been given a clean and sound opinion. He next directed the Council to page forty. He commented that Mr. Dameron had asked him if there were any real issues this year. He had replied that Lindon has an excellent handle on their financial situation and the Council is kept well informed. His only real concern is the water fund. He reported that this fund seems required transfers from the other funds, and each year the transfers are larger. He suggested that water rates may need analysis to make this fund self-supporting. He turned the time over to Ms. Richardson for the list of accounts that were over budget this year.

Ms. Richardson directed attention to page fifty-five. Ms. Colson explained the items to the Council. She listed the semaphore signals that had been purchased for the emergency services department. There had also been some weed abatement projects at the last minute that had not been budgeted. Some engineering expenses for District #3, a project overrun on the landscaping of Geneva Road, and a rebate agreement with Lindon Gateway were figured in June after the budget ended. Mr. Dameron commented that the City staff tried to catch these after budget expenses, but that they were not "major material." Mr. Stoddard agreed.

Ms. Richardson observed that another suggestion she might make concerns the segregating of duties. Mr. Stoddard added that this is sometimes not feasible in small cities because of the small staffing constraints. He mentioned that he has a presentation that he would like to give to the Council that addresses the expectations of an audit and how it assesses risks.
Ms. Richardson noted that another area of suggested improvement is the payment of court fine surcharges to the State. There has been a problem with these fines not being submitted by the correct date. She noted that this area of concern is probably due to personnel turnover issues.

Ms. Richardson reported that the final issue is an excessive fund balance. She noted that this is a State compliance issue but not management issue. She offered to give Mr. Dameron some information on the calculation necessary to resolve this issue. She asked if there were any questions. There were none.

February 17, 2004 at 6:00 p.m. was set as the time to hear Mr. Stoddard's presentation. Mr. Stoddard thanked the Council and commented that it was always a pleasure to work with Mr. Dameron and Ms. Colson.

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO ACCEPT LINDON CITY'S FINANCIAL AUDIT REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2002-2003 AS PREPARED BY CPA NETWORK, LLC. COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

4. Agreement - UTA Interlocal Agreement with Cities along its Purchased Rail Right-of-Way. Mayor Ellertson will present a proposed Interlocal Agreement for approval between the Utah Transit Authority and Lindon City outlining the responsibilities of each party for the rail right-of-way. (This Agreement is to be adopted by ordinance.)

Mayor Ellertson reported that this interlocal agreement had been reviewed by the Utah Transit Authority, a subcommittee of the Utah League of Cities and Towns, Mountainlands Association of Governments and the City Attorney. He asked if there were questions from the Council. He noted that his concerns had been addressed in this draft. Councilmember Bath asked if this agreement anticipates the use and improvement of additional tracks or the use of the tracks that are existing. Mayor Ellertson replied that it addresses both issues. He commented that an effort has been made to identify all the questions and conditions that may arise over the term of the agreement, but recognizes that arbitration may still be needed. The plan is to have each community approve the resolution that adopts the agreement by the end of the month. Any changes to the agreement are due to the drafter by January 7th. Changes will be made by January 9th, and the final document approved before the end of January. The time spent in preparation of this agreement was discussed. Mayor Ellertson noted that there is anexemption from permitting fees for operations of the rail and also an exemption of fees to establish new crossings.

COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE RESOLUTION ADOPTING AND APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY AND LINDON CITY, PENDING REVIEW OF THE FINAL DRAFT. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

5. Review and Action - URMMA - Amendment to the Joint Protection Agreement. Dean Steel, CEO of URMMA, has requested each member city to take action to amend the Joint Protection Agreement by eliminating underinsured motorist coverage from the program.

Mayor Ellertson explain that the City will lose no additional coverage.
After discussion, COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE REJECTION OF UNDER INSURED MOTORIST COVERAGE UNDER THE UTAH RISK MANAGEMENT MUTUAL ASSOCIATION'S JOINT PROTECTION PROGRAM. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

COUNCIL REPORTS:

WATER, GENERAL PLAN, BUILDING INSPECTION, ENGINEERING

Councilmember Dain reported that he had no report. Councilmember Carpenter had nothing to add.

SEWER, SOLID WASTE, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTIES

Councilmember Hatch reported that he had no report for tonight.

TRAILS, PLANNING, ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ADMINISTRATION

Councilmember Bayless reported that she had no items to report tonight.

STREET, SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC SAFETY AND COURT

Councilmember Bath commented that he also had no report tonight.

PARKS, RECREATION, EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT, LINDON FAIR, NEWSLETTER

Councilmember Acerson observed that he had no report tonight.

ADMINISTRATOR'S REPORT

Mr. Dameron:
1. Noted some important dates for the Council. He commented that the Mayor's Open House is going to be held January 7. There is no topic. Mayor Ellertson commented that he was not going to be here. He asked for a sign on the door.
2. He announced that the engineering coordination meeting will be on January 15. Councilmembers Bayless and Acerson volunteered to attend.
3. Noted that there were no new items on the project tacking list
4. Asked for direction on setting the date of the annual Retreat. It was decided on February 28th at 8:00 a.m.
5. Reported that T-Mobile has requested a cell-tower location for the Public Works Property on West Center Street.

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

COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO ADJOURN THE COUNCIL MEETING AT 10:19 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.

APPROVED - January 20, 2004

back to top