|
|
Home » City Government » Council » Minutes Archives; 2000 - 2003 » 2002 Council Minutes » July 16, 2002
July 16, 2002
The Lindon City Council held a regularly scheduled meeting, beginning with a Work Session at 6:00 P.M. on Tuesday, July 16, 2002, in the Lindon City Center Council Chambers at 100 North State Street, Lindon, Utah.
Conducting: James A. Dain, Mayor Pro Tem
PRESENT
James A. Dain, Mayor Pro Tem
H. Toby Bath, Councilmember
Lindsey Bayless, Councilmember
Jerald I. Hatch, Councilmember
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator
Venla Gubler, Administrative Clerk ABSENT
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor
Jeff Acerson, Councilmember
Kevin Smith, Planning Director
The Meeting began at 6:26 P.M.
WORK SESSION
The City Council will meet with representatives of the city’s financial advisors, Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, to discuss the proposed impact fee ordinance.
Mr. Jason Burningham of Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham directed the Council’s attention to page 47 of the study document, where the 54 total acres of park land had been divided into the acres that are fully developed and those that are purchased, but still undeveloped. The costs have been proportionally divided between the types of park acreage. He added that the park land had been originally estimated at $125, 000 per acre and now that more current valuations were available, the estimate is revised to $150,000 per acre. These changes have reduced the per capita cost amount to $339.81 from $772.00. There was a discussion of how the density of a housing area would affect the impact fee assessed for a building permit.
Mr. Dameron relayed a question from Chief Building Official Phil Brown about which impact fee to assess to a home that is built on a combination of five lots. He wondered if the impact fee should reflect the size of the home or the zoning of the lots. Mr. Burningham replied that the zoning is not the determining factor, but the impact or demand on the system. He recommended that the higher fee be assessed in this situation. He added that an eight-plex should be charged eight times the impact fee or one fee for each unit.
Mayor Pro Tem Dain confirmed that the impact fee would be assessed on the size of the lot and not the zoning of the parcel. He asked about the assessment for an elderly care group home. Mr. Burningham replied that the number of persons per unit would be used to determine the density and the density would determine the impact fee charged. Mayor Pro Tem Dain suggested that the study define low density and medium density and allow high density to encompass all densities higher than medium. He suggested that the density definitions may be needed outside of an R-2 Overlay Project for future reference. Mr. Burningham agreed and added that he would add a footnote to help determine the density category an application would fall into.
Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked what is currently being assessed for a park impact fee. Ms. Colson replied that the current park impact fee is $1,182.00. The new fee was noted at $1,501.94 for low density and $1,131.55 for medium and high density. Mr. Burningham asked if there were other questions on the park impact fee. There were none.
Mr. Burningham commented that the other issue raised had been on the I-15 Interchange impact area. He noted that the primary change in this study is located on page four where they had added more land use categories to the chart for reference purposes. He commented that trip generation manuals are $300.00 each if the City personnel need additional information, otherwise, this lists the categories that may be contemplated and most used and the firm will make the books available for reference. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked about the production and authority of the trip generation manuals. Mr. Burningham replied that the manuals consist of three volumes produced by a private consulting firm on contract to the Federal Highway Department. There are no competitive volumes.
Ms. Elise Christensen commented that this version of the study has adjusted the trip ends number of a convenience store with fueling operations. Mr. Burningham added that the firm had used an example to estimate the trip ends in the previous study which they had found was skewed to the high end of the scale. The cost of the City per trip end is figured at $56.98. It was noted that the table had erroneous information and would be corrected.
Mr. Burningham observed that it remains the City’s option to waive or reduce impact fees for any development that is an unusual circumstance, to induce sales tax revenues, or encourage low income housing. He noted that this option is detailed on page 8 or section 7 of the proposed ordinance. Mr. Dameron commented that the Council’s fear is that many of the development applications will ask for an exception. He asked what basis may be used to award the exception. Mayor Pro Tem Dain observed that a verified projection of “X” amount of future sales tax revenue may become a factor. Mr. Burningham agreed and noted that a sales tax and property tax revenue study had been used to justify the exception for Macy’s Macey’s in Pleasant Grove. He added that the applicant must justify their request for special circumstances based on studies or data. Mayor Pro Tem Dain commented that the City would probably develop criteria for exceptions during the hearing on the first request. Mr. Burningham cautioned that the City will generally not want to waiver or reduce the fees and it should be considered only as a inducement for a particularly attractive project that may not locate here otherwise. He suggested that the City may waive the impact fees to allow a project to construct some affordable housing.
Mr. Dameron observed that staff had discussed the service area boundaries and had suggested that the west side of the freeway is probably not receiving benefit from 700 North Street and 1700 West as the primary service roads. He noted that an area along Geneva Road was suggested as an addition to the map along with an area along State Street near 600 North. He asked how this change in acreage will affect the impact fee. Mr. Burningham replied that the impact fee will be higher proportionally as to the use or demand on those two streets. It would not affect the trip fee. Mr. Dameron noted that the acreage numbers will need verification.
Mr. Burningham commented that if the City does not receive the grant money the expenses will be higher and that will affect the trip fee. The grant funding was discussed. Mayor Pro Tem Dain observed that the State of Utah has cut some funding. The different types of land uses that may locate along the two major streets were discussed. Mr. Burningham noted that the different types would generate differing amounts of trip ends that would affect the impact fee amount.
Mayor Pro Tem Dain observed that he agreed with the logic that the two major streets affect the study area more than Interstate 15 itself. The study area was discussed. Mr. Dameron pointed out a discrepancy in some figures in the ordinance and the study. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if there were further questions. There were none.
REGULAR SESSION
Conducting: James A. Dain, Mayor Pro Tem
Pledge of Allegiance: Ott H. Dameron
Invocation: Jerald I. Hatch
PRESENT
James A. Dain, Mayor Pro Tem
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
Jeff Acerson, Councilmember
The Meeting began at 7:05 P.M.
MINUTES
Review of the Minutes of July 2, 2002.
The Minutes of the regularly scheduled meeting of July 2, 2002 were reviewed. The following corrections were made:
Page 3, Line 40: Replace the word “come” with the word “some.”
Page 12, Line 5: Replace the word “asked” with the word “ask.”
Page 12, Line 21: Replace the word “copy” with the word “send.”
Page 12, Line 22: Replace the word “on” with the phrase “a copy of.”
Page 12, Line 24: Add the phrase “and the Transfer Station” after the word “City.”
Page 12, Line 25: Replace the word “from” with the word “to.”
Page 12, Line 26: Replace the word “overburden” with the words “extra material.”
Page 12, Line 27: Replace the word “material” with the word “overburden.”
Page 12, Line 36: Delete the word “foothill” after the word “illegal.” Add the phrase “of the foothills by motorized vehicles” after the word “access.”
Page 13, Line 31: Add the word “the” before the word “city.”
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF JULY 2, 2002 AS CORRECTED. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
OPEN SESSION - Citizens comments
There was no comment from the audience.
MAYOR’S COMMENTS AND REPORT
Mayor Pro Tem Dain informed the Council that the Provo River Water Users Association has now reduced the allocation on Lindon’s secondary water to 55% from a 60% allocation per share. He added that the drought is taking its toll and Lindon residents need to conserve. Councilmember Bayless asked if the watering restriction was from the hours of 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. or 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. Mayor Pro Tem Dain replied that Lindon is 12 p.m. to 6 p.m. and the State of Utah recommends 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. There was a short discussion of following the State guidelines if Lindon reaches a crisis before the end of the watering season or for next year.
CONSENT AGENDA - No Items
CURRENT BUSINESS
1. Continued Public Hearing - Ordinance to Amend and Adopt Impact Fees. This is the second continued public hearing, this one from the meeting of July 2, 2002. The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve an ordinance which will update the city-wide impact fees for culinary water, parks and recreation, and sewer; and adopt a new streets impact fee for the area around and impacted by the new I-15 Interchange. Lewis Young Robertson and Burningham (financial consultants) have completed this study and will be present to answer questions.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Dain observed that the Council had just discussed this item in a work session and asked if there was more discussion. Mr. Dameron suggested a brief overview and the proposed amount for each impact fee for those residents in the audience, and then suggested the discussion be continued on the map for the I-15 Interchange service area.
Mr. Burningham introduced himself and commented that he had been asked by Lindon to revise and review the impact fee structure and to update the methodology. He observed that impact fees are assessed to developments that impact the infrastructure of the City. The elements of the impact fee study are two-fold; a city-wide service area of culinary water, sewer and parks, and a specific service area of streets impacted by the I-15 Interchange. He commented that there are capital structure needs associated with realizing the potential development of the Interchange. Mr. Burningham informed the audience that currently the culinary water impact fee for Lindon City is $1,070 per equivalent residential unit. The finding of the study suggests that the recommended maximum impact fee should be reduced to $1,026. The sewer system has anticipated much needed expansion costs, so it is recommended that the fee increase from $1,350 to $2,558. The current park impact fee is $1,182 and he recommends that the study further detail and define that fee by the population density to be $1,500 approximately.
Mr. Burningham informed the audience that street infrastructure improvements are needed in the amount of about $5,000,000–primarily for 700 North and 1700 West, including right-of-way acquisition and financing costs. This $5,000,000 cost is levied over 975 acres of service area which equates to approximately $57 per trip of demand. He explained that the land use categories of the businesses locating in this area will be used to recoup these costs. Issues to be resolved in this study are the accurate definition of the service area and the definitions of the different types of land use categories.
Mr. Dameron suggested that Mr. Burningham give some examples of the road impact fee by land use category. Mr. Burningham commented that manufacturing/distribution types of businesses will pay an impact fee of about $1,000 per thousand square feet. So if a facility is built of 20,000 square feet, the impact fee will be about $20,000. A mixed commercial use impact fee is $564 per thousand square feet and a fast food use is $2,800 per thousand square feet. He explained that these trip ends figures are derived from the trip generation tables produced by the Institute of Transportation Engineers and updated every three years from a demand study.
Mr. Dameron clarified that the Council is questioning the area serviced by the two roads that will be used to defray the costs through the impact fees. Mayor Pro Tem Dain pointed out that there are two main roads which will service the area with access from the I-15 Interchange. Mr. Dameron agreed and noted that 700 North and 1700 West will be the streets considered in the impact fee study. He commented that Lindon City staff has looked at whether the west side of the freeway should be included in the service area and have expressed the opinion that development on this side would not benefit from these two roads. They recommend that this area be eliminated from the service area. The area around Schaeffer Industries and across Geneva Road outlined in purple is also not included. Staff recommends that the service area include State Street south to 600 North and possibly further. Mr. Dameron noted that Mr. Ron Anderson had some comments concerning the service area at the last meeting.
Mr. Ivan Walker asked if the impact fee will be assessed on residences that are built in this service area. Mr. Burningham replied that there is no residential zone in the area. Mr. Walker informed that Council that Heber City is assessing an impact fee for streets that affects all properties that front the streets. He also suggested that high impact fees should not be assessed to property owners that are giving up land for the development of the street. Mr. Dameron agreed and replied that there is a waiver provision in the ordinance for those businesses that bring benefits to Lindon. Mayor Pro Tem Dain also agreed that it may be unfair to require a donation of property and to pay the impact fees too. He suggested that this may be a criteria to consider when contemplating an exemption to the impact fee. Mr. Dameron explained to Mr. Walker that future sales tax revenue is also an exemption factor.
Mrs. Kathy Rockhill of 600 North questioned making 600 North a service road to the freeway. It was explained to her that 700 North is the access road and will turn into 800 North near her neighborhood east of State Street– 600 North will remain the same width as currently exists.
Mr. Ron Anderson noted that the industrial park between Geneva Road and the freeway has few empty lots. The existing customers of these businesses will use the roads, but they will not be assessed the impact fee. Mr. Burningham agreed but noted that existing businesses have paid taxes to the City over the years and contributed to the existing roadways, which new development has not. Mr. Anderson observed that the level of service on these streets is raised. Mr. Dameron asked Mr. Anderson to suggest an equitable alternative. Mr. Anderson agreed that finding an equitable solution is not easy. He felt that maybe an increase in sales tax revenue would possibly help. Mr. Burningham commented that bonding over the general area may also be one solution to defray the costs. He observed that impact fees are proposed because they are felt to be an equitable solution. He commented that residents are still getting to their homes by other routes. They don’t need these new streets to access the freeway.
Mr. Wayne Peay suggested that the new roads would carry over 50% of resident’s vehicles from the upper part of Lindon and Pleasant Grove to access Salt Lake City. He asked if it was fair to ask business to pay for the roads that these residents will use. Mr. Walker suggested a toll road. Mr. Burningham noted that most roads are constructed by developer exaction. The City requires developers to put in the roads. Mayor Pro Tem Dain expressed the concern that this method will take too long. Lindon needs to move the traffic through to the new Interchange. Mr. Burningham agreed and noted that a mechanism to repay is needed before funding will be considered from an outside source. Allocation of the City’s income will be needed, either with franchise taxes, sales taxes, impact fees or property taxes.
Mr. Peay asked if assessing an impact fee will stop business from locating on this road. Mr. Dameron replied that Pleasant Grove City’s new impact fee is double what Lindon’s is proposed to be and it has not slowed their development down. Mr. Peay commented that he would “hate” to not see the roads finished from Lindon to the Interchange. Mr. Burningham agreed that the roads need improvement. The question still remains, “Who pays for it and how?” He observed that the City and his firm have “wrestled” with this question and see both sides of the arguments.
Ms. Rockhill suggested that the recently proposed property tax increase be applied to roads rather than parks. She expressed her preference for this alternative. Mr. Walker suggested that the impact fee be assessed city-wide rather than on a special service area. He felt that all citizens should contribute to the roads that they use. Mr. Dameron observed that most new roads are built by developers and the residents don’t pay for them. Mayor Pro Tem Dain commented that this is an unusual case. Mr. Burningham replied that repair and replacement of roads cannot be funded by impact fees. These are funded by property taxes or Class C road funds. Impact fees must be spread across those generating the need.
Mr. Walker asked what funding is anticipated by the City to build 1200 East. Mayor Pro Tem Dain replied that the City is depending on development or possibly some grant money to construct this street. He noted that 1200 East parallels the residential zone rather than the commercial zone like 700 North.
Mr. Burningham observed that $5 million in financing is required to build 700 North. If the City is considering a twenty year bond, the annual property tax on $150,000 home will increase about $20. Mr. Anderson commented that the property owners will benefit that much. He suggested that some combination of bonding and impact fees may increase the fairness. Mayor Pro Tem Dain suggested that the discussion be continued to the next meeting.
Mr. Dameron asked for Council direction on the service area map. Mr. Burningham commented that proposed revisions of the roadway impact fee analysis could indicate that a portion of the costs be assessed to the service area and a portion of the general city at large. He observed that the difficulty is the right percentage to assign to each portion. Mayor Pro Tem Dain observed that if the general obligation bond proposal is considered, then a consideration may be that increased future sales taxes may be used to pay the bond early and reduce the burden to the City. Mr. Burningham agreed that this is a possibility, but it depends on the structure of the bond. Some bonds cannot be paid off early to increase their marketability. The pay off funds must be escrowed until the call date.
Councilmember Bath expressed the opinion that property taxes should not be raised. Mr. Burningham agreed that he also did not think that a general obligation bond would be supported and should not be considered as part of this decision. Mrs. Maxine Smith commented that bonds will increase everyone’s taxes although not everyone will use those roads or derive an income from them. She suggested that the businesses that will reap income from traffic on those roads should pay for them.
The service area map boundaries were discussed. Councilmember Bath suggested that the boundaries be revised as recommended by staff. Mayor Pro Tem Dain questioned bringing the service area down State Street to 600 North. Councilmember Bath expressed the opinion that new businesses on State Street will benefit from improved access to the freeway. Councilmember Hatch declared a conflict of interest. Mr. Dameron asked if there was consensus to follow the staff recommendation. The Council agreed. Councilmember Bayless questioned how far south on State Street the service area should extend. Mr. Dameron noted that there are many lots vacant in this area. Councilmember Bath suggested that the City is better off including all commercial on State Street to Gillman Lane.
Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if the Council was in consensus to leave the west side of the freeway out. Mr. Dameron noted that the impact fee can be lifted when the pay back is completed, but that this will ensure that every new business in the area will pay the fee. He noted that the acreage will need recalculation to finish the map. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if a motion to continue the public hearing was needed. Mr. Dameron replied that the public hearing needs to be readvertised for the next meeting on August 20.
Mr. Burningham suggested that the ordinance on the city-wide fee can be passed so that fees can be collected for the sewer improvements. Mayor Pro Tem Dain noted that there were still inaccuracies and the ordinance would need redrafting to separate the city-wide and streets impact fee adoption. Councilmember Bayless suggested separating the items on the agenda also.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO READVERTISE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THE SEPARATED ITEMS OF A CITY-WIDE IMPACT FEE AND A STREETS IMPACT FEE FOR AUGUST 20, 2002. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
(Councilmember Bayless was excused at 8:05 p.m.)
2. Review and Action - Zone Change Request. This is a request by Kenneth McMillan and Wayne Peay to change the zoning for the rear portions of their lots to the Light Industrial zone from the current residential designation of R1-20 at approximately 70 South 800 West. This request is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Map. The Planning Commission recommended approval with a condition.
Planning Director Kevin Smith explained the application for zone change to the Council. He displayed an overhead transparency of the area and the current boundary between the Light Industrial zone and the R1-20 zone. He noted that the General Plan for Lindon City shows this area as potentially Light Industrial zoning. This application is for two property owners, Mr. Wayne Peay and Mr. Kenneth McMillan, to change the back portion of their residential lots to the Light Industrial designation from the R1-20 designation. They have plans to sell their property for the use of the S & L Construction site which faces Center Street. He explained that the Planning Commissioners have recommended approval of this zone change application with the condition that there be no access to 800 West through the R1-20 residential homes from the rezoned property. S & L Construction will be submitting an amended site plan to use the property.
Mayor Pro Tem Dain confirmed that all access to and from the site will be north to Center Street. This was verified. Councilmember Hatch asked about S & L Construction Company. Councilmember Bath asked if this rezoning application would encompass all the open area remaining in the block. Mr. Smith replied that this application only covered two of the property owners. The remaining property would stay in the R1-20 zone. Mr. Wayne Peay discussed alternate access west through Anderson Lumber to Geneva Road or south through Hansen Insulation to 200 South if the proposed sale to S & L Construction is not consummated. The Council heard these suggestions for alternate access and did not approve or disapprove of them. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if there were any further comments or questions. There were none.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BY KENNETH MCMILLAN AND WAYNE PEAY FOR A ZONE CHANGE (ORDINANCE #2002-20), CHANGING THE REAR OF THEIR PROPERTY AT APPROXIMATELY 70 SOUTH 800 WEST FROM R1-20 TO LI WITH THE CONDITION STIPULATED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, THAT THERE BE NO ACCESS FROM 800 WEST THROUGH THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (43-0) WITH ONE TWO ABSENT.
3. Review and Action - Re-Approval of Expired Conditional Use Permit/Site Plan. The is a request by the LDS Church for re-approval of the expired conditional use permit/site plan for a Stake Center at 50 East 600 North in the R1-20 zone. The Council reviewed the original site plan and therefore this re-approval will need Council action as well. The Planning Commission recommended approval with conditions.
Mr. Smith explained that a conditional use permit is valid for six months. The LDS Stake Center was approved in December and the permit expired in June. The LDS Church is ready to start construction and have applied to have the conditional use permit re-approved. They would like to add eleven more parking stalls to the site plan. The Planning Commission has recommended approval to the City Council with a few extra conditions concerning the construction period. They recommended that construction traffic be routed to 200 East rather than Locust Avenue because of the narrowness of the street, the construction the City is planning for the same area, and the preponderance of children in the area. The Commissioners would also like to encourage a quick time frame for construction on 600 North for the convenience of the residents. The final recommendation concerns traffic calming measures on 600 North.
Mayor Pro Tem Dain commented that the traffic calming measures cannot be installed before a traffic study has been done on the completed street. He asked how the City could handle the construction traffic. Mr. Smith suggested that contractors be cautioned during the preconstruction meeting with the City and developers. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if there was any comment or discussion. There was none.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO RE-APPROVE THE REQUEST BY THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT/SITE PLAN FOR THE PREVIOUSLY REVIEWED AND APPROVED STAKE CENTER AT 50 EAST 600 NORTH WITH CONDITIONS TWO AND FOUR AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION, TO WIT:
2) THE CITY SHOULD ESTABLISH A TIME FRAME FOR QUICK CONSTRUCTION OF THE 600 NORTH/LOCUST AVENUE INTERSECTION.
4) TEN ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES SHOULD BE APPROVED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PARKING LOT.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
4. Review and Discussion - Design Review of Concept Plan. This is a request by Ivan Walker for design review of a concept site plan for a proposed Convenience Store/Service Station located at approximately 750 West 700 North. The Planning Commission has reviewed this plan as well.
Mr. Smith displayed the proposed site plan for the Walker Convenience Store/Service Station on the corner of 700 North and State Street. He commented that the City Engineer had expressed concerns with the accesses on 700 North and explained that ASHTTO Standards recommend a 400 foot distance between a corner and a driveway. This proposed site plan has a distance of about 200 feet between the corner of 700 North and State Street and the first 50 foot driveway on 700 North. He observed that there is probably not a problem now with this configuration, but in fifteen or twenty years from now there may be a problem. Mr. Smith explained that the Walkers have addressed the engineer’s concerns with the Planning Commission and the Walkers agree that if there is a dangerous situation in the future, they will work with the City to solve the problem and not endanger their customers.
Mr. Dameron reminded the Council and the applicants that this analysis by the Council is only a design review and not an approval. Mr. Ivan Walker agreed and noted that the time is getting critical to begin construction of this project. To speed the approval process up, they would like a review of their layout, ie: driveway and structures, to see if the project will meet the City’s specifications. Now that the 700 North street alignment has been decided, they need the driveway locations to complete the plans.
Mr. Walker observed that his east driveway on 700 North is 220 feet from the intersection and pointed out other nearby driveways and their distance from the pertinent intersections. He commented that the Western Community Bank on 1000 South and State Street in Pleasant Grove has a driveway that is 60 feet from the corner on State Street and one that is 155 feet from the corner on 1000 South, PG/800 North, Lindon. Arctic Circle’s driveways on the Lindon side of the same street is 170 feet on 800 North and 50 feet on State Street. The Utah Community Credit Union’s driveways are 100 feet on one side and 70 feet the other side. The Chevron station on 1600 North in Orem is 150 feet, and the Del Taco across the street is less. The Walkers Station in Lindon on State Street and Center Street is 120 feet from the corner.
Mr. Walker explained the layout of the buildings he planned and how they relate to the current buildings. The drive-through of the Wendy’s was discussed. Mr. Mark Walker noted that the Planning Commission had seemed favorable to the proposed site plan and that the Walkers are willing to work with the City if the driveways pose a traffic problem in the future. Mr. Ivan Walker noted that he needed the final level of 700 North to complete the plans. Mr. Dameron commented that staff has no problem with the proposed drive approaches as presented.
Councilmember Bath agreed that he could see no problem with the plan as presented. Mayor Pro Tem Dain confirmed that the Council agreed with Councilmember Bath. There was consensus that the proposed plan would be acceptable.
5. Public Hearing - Ordinance Revision and Amendment - Sign Ordinance - Chapter 18 (Ordinance #2002-21). The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve an ordinance which will revise Chapter 18 of the Lindon City Code - Signs - particularly regarding billboards. The Council adopted a temporary zoning ordinance for a maximum of six months on April 2, 2002 until a new ordinance could be drafted. This proposed ordinance is the result of that redrafting. The Planning Commission recommended approval with comments.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Smith observed that he had been working with the City Attorney to revise the sign ordinance to meet the State Code. He noted that the changes are underlined in the copies included in the staff report. He explained that the sign ordinance is currently divided into three sections: administration, definitions and regulations.
This proposed amendment will separate billboards into an additional code section. Mr. Smith commented that the Planning Commission had spent the most time discussing the City’s intent for billboards–whether to remove all billboards entirely or to limit the number of billboards. This proposal to the Council limits the total number of billboards to twelve. Mr. Smith informed the Council that the present number of billboards on I-15 is nineteen. He explained that this amendment also expands the separation requirement between billboards from 750 feet to 1500 feet calculated on a radius. The separation requirement would limit the total number of billboards to nine as he had figured it. Mr. Smith noted that the amendment sets requirements for the relocation and reconstruction of signs, which are allowed if the sign is not moved to another location. The Planning Commission had also asked Mr. Smith to consult with the City Attorney on lease agreements between property owners and billboard companies.
Mr. Smith explained that Mr. Paul Magleby had been present at the Planning Commission and was favorable to the City requirement of recording lease expiration dates. Mr. Magleby’s reasoning was because of the automatic renewal clauses that lock property owners into unfavorable leases. This would allow the City to remind property owners of upcoming expiration dates and to possibly negotiate something more favorable to the City. Mr. Magleby had also brought up the selling of easements to billboard companies. This concerned the Planning Commission so they have asked the City Attorney to check on the legality of restrictive easements for billboard use.
Councilmember Bath asked City Attorney Gordon Duval to address the selling of easements for billboard construction and use. Mr. Duval disclosed that he could not argue in favor of prohibiting easements, however, he commented that it would not be in the best interests of the property owner to encumber his property forever with an easement. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked how the City will reduce the total number of billboards from nineteen to twelve without prohibiting replacement. Mr. Smith replied that the billboards will not come down without landowner agreement to removal of them or landowner negotiation with the City about the leases, with or without the prohibition on replacement. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked how the City will know the term of the leases. Mr. Duval replied that the City will require and record all lease termination dates. The City will not require knowledge of all the terms of the lease agreements, just the end dates. Mayor Pro Tem Dain noted that it would be up to the City to be proactive on termination dates.
Mr. Dewey Reagan of Reagan Signs asked for an explanation of the intent and impetus of this proposed ordinance. He questioned the legality of trying to force disclosure of the terms of a third party agreement where the State Code only requires an affidavit of owner approval in the application for a State permit. He also questioned the equitability for property owners as the total numbers are reduced from nineteen to twelve. Mr. Duval addressed his question on the legality of disclosure by explaining that a case in Roseburg, Oregon had ruled that cities have the right to require disclosure of lease information as part of their right to regulate private industries. He explained that the same ruling had been made in the telecommunications industry, and Wasatch County is currently asking all owners of cell towers for lease and colocation information. He added that the City is not asking for protected information, just the end date of the lease.
Mr. Duval addressed Mr. Reagan’s third question on the equitability of reduction. He pointed out that the existing nineteen signs have a right to stay there and are grandfathered in as nonconforming signs. If there is any reduction in signs, the goal is to have a total of twelve within a distance regulation. Mr. Smith pointed out that Lindon has nineteen signs with only three miles of I-15, which he considers as very liberal. Mr. Reagan disagreed with Mr. Duval’s assessment of Utah State Law. Mr. Duval replied that he would be willing to review Mr. Reagan’s provided case studies, but stood by his interpretation. Mr. Reagan agreed to provide to Mr. Duval the case law he referred to earlier. He addressed the fairness of requiring the removal of signs instead of relocation. He asked what was fair about requiring the first seven property owners between nineteen and twelve signs to remove their signs instead of relocating them. He expressed the opinion that this was not “equal protection.”
Councilmember Bath commented that Lindon City is not designating any particular signs as numbers thirteen to nineteen. Mr. Reagan observed that there will be no movement of signs at all until the total number is reduced to twelve signs. Mr. Smith commented that this is a difficult situation to define because there are no conforming signs in Lindon. Mayor Pro Tem Dain added that there is no place to move it.
Mr. Smith observed that the Planning Commission had asked him why the number twelve was chosen as the limit. They had asked the total number of signs if the distance separation was used as the limiting factor. He told the Council that the number of billboards would be reduced to nine if the 1500 foot separation rule was used to define the total number.
Ms. Kathy Rockhill of 378 West 600 North, commented that if a property owner wishes to renew a lease, they can for as long as they want to do so. She asked if the owner is happy with having the sign there, then why the concern. Mr. Reagan explained that existing signs on undeveloped property cannot be moved to accommodate a property owner’s plans for buildings or other improvements. Ms. Terry Evans observed that this is an excessive burden on the property owner.
Mr. Smith explained that the ordinance is intended to allow the replacement or reconstruction of a sign as long as the location and size are not changed. Mr. Guy Larsen of Reagan Signs verified that if Mr. Magleby wants to reconfigure his sign from a center pole to a flag pole, or change to another sign company, he can if the sign remains the same size and location. Mr. Smith agreed. Mr. Reagan confirmed that the sign must remain in the same place and same configuration. Ms. Evans asked if a sign could be re-erected under a new lease. This was confirmed.
City Attorney Jason Jared Frei asked if this was the City Council’s intention and added that not allowing any reconstruction is a way to remove signs. Mr. Smith agreed that this may be one way to remove signs, but the value of a sign is what keeps it up in a location year after year. Since a sign will probably not be removed for the value of the lease, this will allow a property owner to negotiate the best value for his location.
Mr. Smith added that the City does not wish to force property owners to remove billboards. Knowing the end date of their leases, will allow the City to notify an owner of an upcoming lease expiration and possibly negotiate a lease buy out. Mayor Pro Tem Dain agreed and added that if development occurs that conflicts with a sign location, it will be removed then.
Mr. Reagan asked what other industries are required to reveal the terms of a lease. Mr. Duval replied that the telecommunications industry is one that is so required. The City believes that provisions of a lease are used to restrict colocation opportunities for competitive telecommunications companies. Mr. Reagan asked why the City would want the information on a lease. Mr. Duval replied that the City would like the opportunity to talk a landowner out of renewing the lease.
Ms. Rockhill expressed the opinion that she was proud of Lindon for regulating signs and supporting the wishes of the citizens of Lindon. She realized that Mr. Reagan was only representing the interests of his company, but she felt that the interest of his company was to make more money and not the to enhance the value of the community.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Smith asked the Council to review page 13 of the proposed amendment, item 18.04.020(2)(g) which changes the wording. He noted that this clause would not allow a property owner to change the pole or to put up a new sign under a new lease. Mr. Frei verified that the Council wished to allow a landowner to move the pole to allow development and replace a sign to allow a new lease. Mayor Pro Tem Dain commented that the Council did not wish to “hamstring” a landowner. Mr. Dameron confirmed that a sign built in the same position and the same size would meet their requirements. The Council agreed. Mayor Pro Tem Dain commented that most development would probably just remove the sign.
Mr. Smith pointed out the clause dealing with asking for the expiration date of the lease. He asked the Council if they wanted to leave the total number at twelve or to change it to nine. Councilmember Hatch asked what the separation distance would be if the number was left at twelve. Mayor Pro Tem Dain expressed the opinion that the total number should be reduced to nine to conform to the 1,500 radius separation requirement. Councilmember Bath asked if it was necessary to have a total number restriction. Mr. Smith replied that the ordinance would be more clear and definite. Mr. Frei explained that a total number with a separation distance would prevent clusters of billboards on one or nearby neighboring parcels. Mr. Smith expressed the opinion that nine billboards on three miles of I-15 is still liberal.
Mr. Smith asked if the revision of the sign ordinance a month ago is included in the wording of this ordinance. Mr. Frei was uncertain and it was noted that a copy of the previous amendment would be forwarded to him the following day.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE ORDINANCE #2002-21, AN AMENDMENT TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE OF THE LINDON CITY CODE WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES:
1. THAT THE WORDING ON 18.04.020(2)(g) BE CHANGED TO ALLOW A SIGN TO BE RECONSTRUCTED OR REPLACED IF THE NEW SIGN REMAINS IN THE SAME LOCATION AND AT THE SAME SIZE.
2. THAT THE TOTAL NUMBER OF SIGNS LISTED IN 18.04.010 BE CHANGED TO NINE, NOT TWELVE; AND,
3. THAT THE LEASE AGREEMENTS REFERRED TO IN 18.04.020(5) BE REQUIRED TO RECORD ONLY THE EXPIRATION DATE OF THE LEASE AND NOT OTHER INFORMATION.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (43-0) WITH ONE TWO ABSENT.
6. Public Hearing - Ordinance Amendment - Home Occupations - Section 17.04.440 (Ordinance #2002-21). The City Council will hear public comment and possibly act to approve an ordinance which will amend Section 17.04.440 of the Lindon City Code - Home Occupations. The Planning Commission recommended approval.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mr. Smith explained that home occupations are becoming more and more of an issue. He has spent a lot of time discussing certain circumstances with home occupation business owners. This amendment is proposing that the Council consider changing the provision dealing with an employee working at the home. He observed that he could explain best with an example and proceeded to describe a home business that cares for children and would like to employ a sister-in-law to help on a part time basis. He commented that home businesses which he struggles with are landscapers or contractors whose employees leave their cars at the home and on the street all day and go to a job site in a company vehicle. That is the reason for the addition of clause 17.04.440( j) which reminds home occupation owners to be a good neighbor.
Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked what started this process of amendment. Mr. Smith replied that the process was started by staff in response to the number of complaints. When the complaints are investigated, the home occupation owners and staff cannot agree to an interpretation of the code. Councilmember Bath commented that “we want to keep our residences as homes,” not business locations. He added that he really struggles with the extra cars on the property and streets and the safety hazards that they present. Mayor Pro Tem Dain pointed out that the vehicles are required to be off the public street. Councilmember Bath replied that many times there are three or more vehicles on the property.
(Councilmember Bayless arrived at 9:21 p.m.)
Councilmember Bath commented that he was not against having a home occupation, but if the business grows to the point where they need an employee, then they have outgrown the home location. Mr. Smith reported on a neighborhood meeting in which the employee question had arisen. He observed that the residents present at this neighborhood meeting did not see one employee parking off-street as a problem. Councilmember Bath replied that the problems will arise when every home business is allowed to have one employee. The business will grow and have additional equipment and vehicles to keep the employee productive. He added that if the City allows one employee per business then soon each business will need another and it will turn into a regulation problem. He asked how the City will know if a business only has one employee. He observed that allowing one employee will not solve the problems that are being experienced.
Mr. Smith pointed out that if a business is complying with all the regulations, the City does not receive complaints. He observed that the businesses that are being complained about have multiple employees. Councilmember Bath commented that he felt the good neighbors statement was a favorable addition to the ordinance. Mr. Dameron observed that the Lindon City Council has historically supported home occupations. Mayor Pro Tem Dain commented that many of the home occupation businesses have employees, and if they are parked off street and complying with the ordinances, he felt that having an employee should be made legal.
Mrs. Maxine Smith of 260 South 280 West, reported that she had dealt with the problems created by a home occupation business in her neighborhood for over a year. She observed that she wanted neighbors not businesses, and that it was hard to deal with the noise and all the vehicles. She felt that businesses do not make good neighbors and encouraged the Council to not invite more business into neighborhoods that are supposed to be residential. If the businesses are allowed to grow and employ a worker, it will create more problems for the neighborhood.
Ms. Kathy Rockhill commented that she also has one neighbor with a home business that is a good neighbor. She observed that it is hard to judge all home businesses by one that is a problem. There was a short discussion on the complaint process and enforcing the provisions of the home occupation ordinance. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if there was any more public comment. There was none.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO CLOSED THE PUBLIC HEARING. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked the Council if there was more discussion. Councilmember Bath commented that he was still struggling with the employee issue. He observed that if there were only one hundred businesses employing one employee, that adds one hundred extra people into the neighborhoods. He questioned turning the neighborhoods into business districts. Councilmember Hatch reported that he also has a neighbor with a home occupation, but their neighborhood has more of a problem with parking when there are family parties.
Mr. Smith suggested that a possible solution is to approve a six month trial period with a review of home occupations with employees at the end of that time. Councilmember Bayless commented that it is “easier to give than to take away.” She asked how the City could rescind the approval of one employee at the end of the trial period. Mayor Pro Tem Dain felt that businesses should be allowed to have one employee, that many businesses are doing that now and not creating problems, and they should be able to do it legally.
Councilmember Bayless observed that if a business is a good neighbor and there are no complaints about their employee, they can operate unimpeded. She commented that this discussion is the result of an application for a daycare business that wanted employees, which probably does not fit the home occupation requirements and should be a commercial business. She felt that this ordinance amendment is a compromise to help this individual.
Mr. Smith noted that a lot of the surrounding cities do allow employees, but when they see a business that jeopardizes the lifestyle of the neighborhood, their home occupation permit is revoked. Mayor Pro Tem Dain commented that he would like to hear comment from the public who have home occupations. Mr. Smith noted that the residents that he had talked with do not object to home occupation employees as long as there is no outside evidence of the home occupation. Councilmember Bayless observed that when you start involving others in the operation of a business there are potential problems. Mr. Smith expressed his opinion that allowing one employee is reasonable and trying to enforce the no employee issue is difficult.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND AND REVISE 17.04.440 - HOME OCCUPATIONS TO THE COUNCIL MEETING ON AUGUST 20, 2002. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR, EXCEPT COUNCILMEMBER BATH WHO VOTED NAY. THE MOTION CARRIED.
7. Review and Action - Feasibility Study - Utopia. The City Council received the Preliminary Assessment Report prepared by Dynamic City on behalf of UTOPIA for Lindon City during the meeting of June 18, 2002. This report stated that the city appeared to be a good candidate for moving into the feasibility phase of the project. The project consists of providing a fiber optic cable network to all homes and businesses within the UTOPIA member cities.
Mr. Dameron observed that this item has been before the Council for discussion several times. He noted that the preliminary assessment recommends that Lindon City move ahead to the next stage of the process. The Council needs to make a decision before August 1, 2002. The costs to consider are the $40,000 needed for the feasibility study and the $5,250 already spent for the preliminary assessment. He presented a list of pros and cons on this issue for the Council’s consideration. Mr. Dameron commented that the money is at risk, but if Lindon stays with UTOPIA through the bonding process, the money will be reimbursed. He noted that the plan is to have service provider contracts in hand before going to the bonding market, but there is the risk of either not getting the contracts as anticipated, or the bonding market not accepting the collateral as sufficient and not funding the project. He likened the project to a train station opening a new line. He said that the founding seventeen cities are the first train leaving the station. Sandy City has opted out of the organization, but is the only city to do so. He added that there will be other trains leaving the station. The tickets may be more expensive and the next train may not depart for ten years, but the destination may be more assured.
Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if there had been interest from service providers in the network. Mr. Nate Taylor of Dynamic City replied that the large service providers like Qwest and AT&T are not anxious to have competition and are not interested in disturbing their monopoly at the present time. He added that if UTOPIA’s member cities are looking to established cable companies to provide services to their customers/residents, they may be disappointed. He felt that the market for services will be filled by other competitive, but smaller, service providers. He hypothesized that when the market giants are pressured by the competition of the smaller providers, they then will be anxious to use the UTOPIA network.
Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked what the worst case scenario would be. Mr. Dameron replied that if the network is not bonded, then the money that the city has invested will not be reimbursed. Lindon City will receive a feasibility study with a detailed engineering map and a survey of possible subscribers that may be used in the future.
Mr. Kelly Phillips of Center 7, a Lindon business, asked the Council to consider an aspect of this proposal that has previously not been discussed. He informed the Council that Center 7 has been in negotiations to become a Network Operations Center (NOC) for the UTOPIA project. Center 7 management is concerned that their bid to be a NOC may be seriously hampered if Lindon City is not included in the founding members as there is a strong bias for those cities that will be included. They have invested heavily as a company and may be excluded if Lindon does not go forward. He asked the Council to consider the financial impact of Canopy Corporation/Center 7 in the community and what significant interest the City may experience by getting Lindon to be a part of this project.
Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked if Center 7 views this project as viable. Mr. Phillips expressed his opinion that UTOPIA is the “next great infrastructure,” if it is done the correct way. He asked the Council to consider the employee and tax base that may accrue to Lindon. He added that “the next train may be too late for Canopy.” Mayor Pro Tem Dain commented that he appreciated Mr. Phillips presence to explain the Canopy Corporation perspective. Councilmember Hatch observed that Mr. Phillips had answered one of his questions.
Mayor Pro Tem Dain commented that Lindon has been a pioneer in the past by implementing a pressurized irrigation system, and now possibly another opportunity to pioneer in another area is available to the City. Mr. Phil Windley introduced himself as the “head geek” of the State Government and also a resident of Lindon. He reported that he had been asked to testify on a legislative committee for telecommunications innovations and is impressed with the UTOPIA concept. He noted that he cannot promise that it will work because there are lots of opportunities for mistakes. But if Lindon does not participate, they will not reap the benefits. He suggested that Lindon “take the reins.”
Ms. Rockhill asked if the City had to spend $40,000 to fine find out if it will work. She asked if Orem is a member. Mr. Phillips agreed that it was a risk, but Orem is a member, although Spanish Fork and Provo have opted to take another approach. Mr. Taylor pointed out that Lindon has a strategic asset in Canopy Corporation. Ms. Rockhill questioned the risk and pointed out ways that Lindon may spend money more wisely.
Mr. Dameron commented that Councilmember Acerson was not present, but had talked with many of the Councilmembers and staff concerning a conservative approach. However, Councilmember Acerson had not heard the Canopy perspective, and that may have influenced his caution. Mr. Dameron observed that the Council has to make the business decision whether to spend the money, but in considering new ventures, progress at times can only be realized by taking a chance. He added that if the bonds are issued, the City will be reimbursed for their investment. Councilmember Bath commented that in the present economy, getting the funding is a concern.
Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked what would happen if Lindon proceeds and ten other founding cities pull out. Mr. Taylor answered that most cities have already resolved to continue. Only Lindon and Taylorsville have not made a decision. Mr. Phillips noted that the project’s critical mass cities of Murray, West Valley and Layton have already voted to continue.
COUNCILMEMBER BATH MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION 2002-8 AUTHORIZING LINDON CITY TO CONTINUE AS A MEMBER OF THE UTAH TELECOMMUNICATION OPEN INFRASTRUCTURE AGENCY (“UTOPIA”), AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN ALL DOCUMENTS NECESSARY ON BEHALF OF LINDON CITY, AND APPROVING THE EXPENDITURE OF $40,000 WHICH IS LINDON CITY’S SHARE OF THE FEASIBILITY PHASE COST. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS NAY
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED WITH A VOTE OF 3-1 WITH ONE ABSENT.
8. Review and Action - Deeds to Property Owners along Main Street from Center Street to State Street. The City Council approved the narrowing of Main Street from Center Street to State Street during the discussion of the redesign of this portion of Main Street. This is a request from staff to approve deeding the remaining ground to the adjacent property owners along this part of Main Street.
Mr. Dameron asked the Council to approve the deeds to individual residents along the redesign of Main Street. He drew attention to the map prepared by the City Engineer detailing the narrowing of Main Street and the right-of-way property that will be deeded to adjoining property owners. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked when the Main Street construction bid will be opened. Mr. Dameron replied that the bid opening was scheduled for July 29, 2002.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE QUIT CLAIM DEEDS TO PROPERTY OWNERS ADJACENT TO MAIN STREET BETWEEN CENTER STREET AND STATE STREET (LIST OF NAMES AS FOLLOWS): LAMAR D. & VERGIA T. SCOTT, KAY B. RODGERS, LAWRENCE V. & LOLA L. ABBOTT, TYLER H & JOYCE Y. RODGERS, WILLIAM C. & DIANE E. LEWIS, SFM INC., AND WALKER INVESTMENT COMPANY. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. THE VOTE IS RECORDED AS FOLLOWS:
COUNCILMEMBER ACERSON ABSENT
COUNCILMEMBER BATH AYE
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS AYE
COUNCILMEMBER DAIN AYE
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH AYE
THE MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY (4-0) WITH ONE ABSENT.
9. Review and Action - Certified Tax Rate Review. During the budget issue discussions in June of 2002, the Council asked that a survey be conducted asking the citizens to respond to the question of whether or not to keep the Certified Tax Rate the same as last fiscal year or use the reduced rate sent to the city of Utah County. The results of the survey will be discussed and the Council will decide whether or not to continue with “Truth in Taxation” public hearings to keep the CTR the same as last fiscal year.
Mayor Pro Tem Dain opened the discussion on the CTR review. Ms. Rockhill commented that the economy is down and many residents are feeling the crunch. Water rates have been raised; Alpine School District just passed a new bond; and the gas rates were also raised. Mayor Pro Tem Dain observed that the Council is not for or against raising the CTR, they just want to see what people want. The Council reviewed the responses that had been received. It was noted that the responses totaled seven in favor and fourteen in opposition. Councilmember Hatch observed that this did not seem to be the year to consider a CTR adjustment.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO TAKE NO FURTHER ACTION TOWARD “TRUTH IN TAXATION” PUBLIC HEARINGS. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
10. Review and Action - Meeting of August 6, 2002. The Council expressed interest in cancelling the meeting scheduled for August 6, 2002 due to the Lindon Days Celebration during that week. The Council will decide whether or not to cancel this meeting.
After discussion, COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO CANCEL THE REGULARLY SCHEDULED MEETING OF AUGUST 6, 2002. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
WATER, GENERAL PLAN, BUILDING INSPECTION, ENGINEERING
Councilmember Dain had nothing to report for this meeting.
SEWER, SOLID WASTE, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND PROPERTIES
Councilmember Hatch reported that the Northe Point Special Service District has received communication from the Garden Island Golf Course again. There is also a proposal for soccer fields on the landfill area. He noted that a decision will be made in November 2002. Councilmember Hatch reported that the bailer was not ready yet, but was close to operation. He commented that Waste Management has applied for funding from their parent company to expand the recycling operation. There was a discussion on recycling feasibility. He reported that a “Welcome to Lindon” sign had been mutilated.
TRAILS, PLANNING, ZONING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ADMINISTRATION
Councilmember Bayless had nothing to report for this meeting.
STREETS, SIDEWALKS, PUBLIC SAFETY AND COURT
Councilmember Bath commented on the August 24, 2002 park reservation for Bikers Against Child Abuse (BACA). He asked the details. Councilmember Bath reported that the Public Safety Department was willing to make a presentation on their new computer software system. This was tentatively scheduled for August 20, 2002. Mayor Pro Tem Dain asked how the volunteer request was progressing. He suggested that a letter from the City to the Lindon LDS Stake Presidents may be appropriate and enhance the desired results.
PARKS, RECREATION, EMERGENCY MNGMNT, LINDON FAIR, NEWSLETTER
Councilmember Acerson was excused.
ADMINISTRATOR’S REPORT
Mr. Dameron:
1. Asked the Council if there were any applications on the tracking list which they would like to review. There were none.
2. Reported that the Engineering Coordination Meeting was scheduled for Thursday, July 25, 2002 at noon. Councilmembers Bath and Bayless volunteered to be there.
3. Discussed pending park improvements at Pioneer Park and the Veteran’s Hall with the Council.
4. Requested a date for the Employee Christmas Party so a caterer can be arranged. December 6, 2002 was decided on and the Veteran’s Hall will be the location.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO APPROVE THE PAY VOUCHERS. COUNCILMEMBER HATCH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND CONVENE THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AT 10:48 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER HATCH MOVED TO ADJOURN THE EXECUTIVE SESSION AND RECONVENE THE REGULAR SESSION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AT 11:23 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
COUNCILMEMBER BAYLESS MOVED TO ADJOURN AT 11:24 P.M. COUNCILMEMBER BATH SECONDED THE MOTION. ALL PRESENT VOTED IN FAVOR. THE MOTION CARRIED.
APPROVED - August 20, 2002
_______________________________________
Ott H. Dameron, City Administrator/Recorder
_______________________________________
Larry A. Ellertson, Mayor |
|
|
