|
|
Home » City Government » Council » Schedule: Agendas and Minutes 2005 » Council Minutes 2005 » March 8, 2005
March 8, 2005
The Lindon City Council and the Pleasant Grove City Council held a special meeting beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, March 8, 2005 in the Lindon City Center, City Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah. The agenda consisted of a discussion regarding the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Lindon and Pleasant Grove Cities for a common taxing district.
Conducting: Jeff Acerson, Mayor
Pledge of Allegiance: Bruce Carpenter
Invocation: H. Toby Bath
PRESENT ABSENT
Jeff Acerson, Lindon Mayor Eric Anthony, Lindon Councilmember
H. Toby Bath, Lindon Councilmember Mark Atwood, Pleasant Grove Councilmember
Bruce Carpenter, Lindon Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Lindon Councilmember
Jerald I. Hatch, Lindon Councilmember
Jim Danklef, Pleasant Grove Mayor
Jeff Wilson, Pleasant Grove Councilmember
Mike Daniels, Pleasant Grove Councilmember
Darold McDade, Pleasant Grove Councilmember
Cindy Boyd, Pleasant Grove Councilmember
Debra Cullimore, Deputy Recorder
MINUTES- There were no minutes reviewed at this meeting
OPEN SESSION-There was no open session at this meeting.
MAYORS COMMENTS/REPORT- There was no mayor’s report at this meeting.
CONSENT AGENDA- no items.
CURRENT BUSINESS-
Mayor Acerson opened the meeting with the introduction of the councilmembers present. He excused the absent councilmembers. Mayor Acerson commented that he was hopeful that everyone was meeting in the right spirit, and that he had worked with several members of the Pleasant Grove City Council before, and he hoped they could keep the right focus. Councilmember Daniels suggested that they list the main objectives they hope to accomplish so they can refer to them during the meeting, and gear the discussion toward meeting those objectives. The objectives agreed upon by the group were:
1. Eliminate the competition for sales tax dollars.
2. To have more orderly development, which would be mutually beneficial to both cities.
3. Each city should maintain autonomy.
4. The host city would be made whole before sharing any revenue.
5. Time is of the essence to avoid greed.
6. Quality should be the emphasis on the area as a gateway to the cities.
7. The agreement could create a possible expandable collaboration.
Mayor Danklef acknowledged that the agreement would take the cooperation of both cities.
Councilmember Bayless raised the question of the scope of the committee. She questioned if the committee will make decisions or if the decisions will be made by a Planning Commission review. She felt that the businesses in the area should conform to the community. Her concern is that one community will be willing to compromise and the other one won’t. Mayor Danklef explained that the committee will be responsible to make recommendations to the Mayor and City Councils of each city, the committee will not make the decisions. Councilmember Bayless then asked what would happen if the cities did not agree. Mayor Danklef stated that they would then have to agree to disagree, and pointed out the need for the councils to be united. Councilmember Bayless asserted that the design standards for development need to be approved before the agreement will work. She also stated that the cities would need to maintain integrity. If a development doesn’t fit design standards, they would have to pass it up. Councilmember Bath stated that he doesn’t want to see things get bogged down with the extra steps involved. He suggested that the Planning Directors of both cities get together to develop the standards for development. Mayor Danklef commented that the city where any business is located would make the final decision. Councilmember Carpenter expressed concern that the review process for design may become a point of contention instead of simplification. He feels that the Planning Commission generally follows the vision of the city council.
Councilmember Daniels stated that there is a need for a common design standard to avoid businesses choosing their location based on the look of the business. Councilmember Carpenter feels that the look of development could be slightly different and unique to each city. Councilmember Daniels agreed, and stated that quality would be the most important element. Councilmember Boyd stated that she feels the standards should be agreed upon before the agreement is signed. Mayor Acerson said that if the cities enter into an agreement, then the standards would follow. If the cities don’t trust each other enough for that to happen, then they shouldn’t enter into the agreement.
Councilmember Bayless observed that the committee would be made up of people who are familiar with the communities, and would be qualified to make a decision based on the community standards. Councilmember Daniels expressed the need to keep elected officials involved in the process, because they are accountable to the citizens. Mayor Acerson acknowledged the need for checks and balances. He observed that mayors come and go, and that they need to keep the citizens in mind. Councilmember McDade agreed that they need to create a framework for those who come after them to follow.
Mayor Acerson stated that he would like this to be a good project with a spirit of cooperation. Councilmember Bath observed that it goes to back to the word “coopetition.” He feels that other cities without similar agreements have not had good experiences, and that Pleasant Grove and Lindon can make it work. He pointed out the need for the cities to be able to talk about unforeseen problems as they arise. Mayor Acerson stated that the spirit of the agreement would be the guiding principle. Mayor Danklef stated that if the cities don’t try, they will never know if it will work. Mayor Acerson pointed out that there are provisions in the agreement for either city to get out of it if it “goes south.”
At this point, Mayor Danklef passed out current copies the agreement to the members of the Pleasant Grove Council. A group of boy scouts had entered the meeting several minutes earlier, and Councilmember Bayless asked if they understood what was being discussed. The scoutmaster asked Councilmember Bayless to explain, which she did. After the explanation, the scoutmaster, Mr. Curtis Wolthuis from Pleasant Grove, identified himself as an attorney and a developer. He stated that this was his nightmare. Mr. Wolthuis observed that it may be more difficult for developers to work with cities under this type of agreement. Councilmember Boyd agreed, and stated that she is concerned that businesses might be intimidated by dealing with two different cities. Councilmember Carpenter clarified that the design standards would be agreed upon by both cities, so that developers would only deal with one group to make the decision. Mr. Wolthuis commented on Cabellas decision not to locate in this area. Councilmember Daniels explained that generally “big box” businesses will look at a larger geographic area when choosing a location for their business. They will look at the whole valley as opposed to which side of the street to build on, so the agreement would probably not have had an impact on that decision. Councilmember Daniels stated that Lindon and Pleasant Grove will try to attract businesses from other cities, but not from each other. Councilmember Carpenter observed that the two cities can accomplish this better working together. Mr. Wolthuis asked how the development area was zoned and was informed by Councilmember Daniels that it was zoned as mixed commercial. The Assistant Scoutmaster, Mr. Jody Riggs of Pleasant Grove asked if both cities had the same vision for the development of the area. Councilmember Daniels responded that the focus would be on quality and the sharing of tax revenues, and that there would be other things which wouldn’t generate sales tax, but that the cities would share with each other rather than compete with each other.
The scouts were then introduced as Troop 785 from Pleasant Grove. The scouts present at the meeting were introduced individually as Brad Farnsworth, Jonathan Boyer, Michael Stirling, Keaton Secretan, Preston Chapman, Jake Hall, Braden Thornton, Jared Patten, Jacob Palmer, Beau Caldwell, and Rhett Rickenbach, all of Pleasant Grove.
Mayor Acerson recognized Utah County Commissioner Larry Ellertson present at the meeting. Councilmember Daniels suggested that they read through the document together and discuss any concerns or changes they would like to make. It was noted that the word “of” should be inserted in the first section of the recitals between the words “provisions” and “the.” It was clarified that in Item 1 exhibit “A” would consist of the map and legal description of the development area. Councilmember Carpenter pointed out that item 1C does not specify who would make amendments to the agreement, the committee or the city council. After discussion the group agreed that the sentence “Amendments would be recommended by the committee for approval by the City Councils” should be added to the item. It was also agreed after discussion that item 1F should be amended to read that “projects crossing boundaries will need approval from both city councils.” The members briefly discussed that item 2C was a new item and that they felt it was a good addition.
Councilmember Daniels asked for clarification of the definition of “sinking funds” referred to in item 3. Commissioner Ellertson explained that sinking funds relate to repayment of bonds issued to cities. It was explained that preexisting bond arrangements would be taken into account, and that the cities would know about those circumstances prior to signing the agreement. Mayor Acerson asked if the ground would all be free and clear before signing the agreement. It was explained that Exhibit “B” referred to in item 3 would identify eligible properties for terms of the agreement. Councilmember Daniels also clarified that if property becomes encumbered after the agreement, it will still fall under the terms of the agreement.
Councilmember Carpenter stated that under this agreement, neither city would benefit from offering incentives, so why offer them. Councilmember Daniels asked if they should agree on incentives prior to entering the agreement. Mayor Acerson stated that the cities need to agree on incentives and disclose what the incentives will be prior to the agreement.
Councilmember Daniels raised a question regarding the ten year time period referred to in item 8. Mayor Danklef asserted that the ten year time period would give each of the cities their “proportionate share of the agreement.” Councilmember Boyd stated that if the agreement were terminated, the ten year time period would only apply to projects that were established under the agreement. Councilmember Daniels asked why it had been written as ten years and not the fifty year period established by the agreement. He stated that the goal of the agreement is for it to function, not to fall apart. He clarified that this clause was not intended to address build out issues, but rather unforeseen circumstances. Mr. Wolthuis stated that he had worked on RDA for ten years, and that in his experience as a developer and an attorney ten years is to short a period of time. He felt that the agreement should be for the fifty year period previously stated. Councilmember Daniels stated that he would be uncomfortable with any time period less than twenty five years. After further discussion, members of the group agreed that item 8 should be amended to read fifty years instead of ten years.
Commissioner Ellertson commented that the terminology in item 2A needed to be more consistent. Councilmember Daniels stated that he felt good about it as it is. Commissioner Ellertson also observed that item five needed to reflect that Timpanogos Special Service District would be used by Lindon only if it is the most beneficial and cost effective alternative. Mayor Danklef stated that they weren’t sure if Timpanogos would even be willing to provide services.
Councilmember Boyd expressed concern over the large area covered by the agreement. It is her opinion that only areas that share boundaries should be considered for the agreement. Mayor Danklef explained that by utilizing a larger area, businesses could be better placed in relation to one another. For example, there could be separate areas for office buildings and retail businesses. He stated that the word “coopetion” fits. The development area of the agreement would enable businesses to be placed where they best fit. Councilmember Carpenter pointed out that this met the objective of orderly development. Councilmember Bath observed that the objective couldn’t be met using a small area, that the whole area needed to be taken into account. Councilmember McDade agreed that there is a need to have a bigger land area. Councilmember Daniels stated that this agreement has the potential for maximizing the benefit for everyone.
Mayor Acerson then opened the meeting for public comment. The first citizen to comment was Mr. Stanley Smith, residing in Pleasant Grove. He stated that the proposed 2000 West street goes through his property. See the attached written statement which Mr. Smith read.
The next citizen to comment was Mr. Kevin Collins of the Utah Valley Association of Realtors. Mr. Collins stated that he was not opposed to the agreement, but had some points of discussion he would like to mention. Mr. Collins is concerned that the committee may create an extra layer of government which would make it more difficult to get projects approved, causing developers to go elsewhere. He is also concerned that the approval process will become too subjective. Mr. Collins suggested that the councils identify potential points of conflict now. Two points mentioned were the auditing of state files as opposed to the review of existing files, as well as defining reimbursable costs incurred by the cities. Mayor Acerson asked if Mr. Collins saw anything positive to the agreement. Mr. Collins stated that a cooperative effort makes sense and that it reduces competition. He stated that developers will build in the best location, not where they receive the best incentives. His concern is that the process will slow developers down and that they will build in places where the approval process is easier. Mayor Acerson stated that the intent of the agreement is to encourage, not discourage development. Mr. Collins also stated that policies need to be put in place that will endure different personalities and changes in the future. Councilmember Carpenter asked if the approval process could be streamlined. Mr. Collins suggested that the approval process take place with the Planning Commission rather than the design committee. Councilmember Carpenter clarified that the design committee would establish the standards of the agreement, they would not approve projects. Mayor Acerson commented that the challenge of the agreement is in making the process easier than going somewhere else. Mr. Collins emphasized that developers won’t waste time. If the process is too difficult, they will go elsewhere. Mayor Acerson stated that the purpose of the agreement is to make us stand above everyone else.
Commissioner Ellertson suggested that there needed to be clarification of the 50/50 split of money. The split would be only on money actually received. He also suggested a joint committee to develop a master plan. This committee should include developers and citizens. Commissioner Ellertson observed that the agreement should streamline the process, not make it more cumbersome. Commissioner Ellertson also informed Mr. Smith that Lindon had tried to work with American Fork, and American Fork was unwilling to participate. He also pointed out that the agreement between Pleasant Grove and Lindon could benefit the Smith family. Mr. Smith stated that he just wanted the group to know that there was opposition to the agreement. He stated that they intend to have automotive related businesses on their property, and they have limited frontage. He wanted to be heard and is unable to communicate with Pleasant Grove officials. Councilmember Daniels asked Mr. Smith if his specific concerns were that he wouldn’t be able to develop his land the way he wanted. Mr. Smith stated that his concern is that he can’t communicate with Pleasant Grove and that it hasn’t changed in twelve years.
Mayor Acerson expressed appreciation to city officials for attending the meeting, as well as Commissioner Ellertson, the media, and citizens for attending. He commented that this should be an open process, and a process that feels good. He feels that the intent of the agreement is to meet the needs of everyone. He stated that he wanted this to be a unique situation. He observed that this is a business relationship, and that everyone should benefit from it or it’s not a good relationship. He then asked if there were any more comments. Mayor Danklef stated that he needed to comment on Mr. Smith’s statement. He stated that the Smith family wants things on their terms or no terms. Mayor Danklef observed that no matter what the agreement does, it won’t work for everyone. Councilmember Carpenter stated that he would look at Mr. Smith’s concerns to see if they are relevant to the agreement.
The formal meeting concluded at 9:05. Councilmember Bayless provided food for the meeting. Members of the City Councils and Mayors ate and talked informally about various topics for the remainder of the evening.
APPROVED-March 15, 2005
_____________________________________
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator/Recorder
_________________
Jeff Acerson, Mayor.
_______________________
Jim Danklef, Mayor |
|
|
