City Council Agendas & Minutes
Regular MeetingFruit Heights, UT · April 8, 2025
Minutes
MINUTES
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
FRUIT HEIGHTS CITY
910 South Mountain Road
April 8, 2025
WELCOME:
Mayor John Polman called the meeting to order at 7:00 pm.
PLEDGE & OPENING CEREMONY:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor John Pohlman with Council Member Mark Cottrell conducting the opening
ceremony by prayer.
COUNCIL MEMBERS PRESENT:
Mayor John Pohlman, Council Members, Gary Anderson, Mark Cottrell Eileen Moss, Shon Stevenson. Council Member
Florence Sadler was excused
CITY STAFF PRESENT:
City Manager Darren Frandsen, Public Works Director Layne Leonard, and Deputy Recorder Hailee Ballingham.
VISITORS: Mary Monson, Paul Nielson, Linda Crismer, Jim Crismer, Marc VanOene, Paula Stepheson, Todd Stevenson,
Mike Burnett, Sam Eichelberger, Caroline Eichelberger, Jeanne Groberg, Jon Groberg, Nathan Rich, Blake Winslow, Ruth
Manning, Kyle Manning, Celeste Cottrell, Starli Taft, Kimberly Wagner, Nancy McPherson, Debbie Hopkins, Jennifer Rowley,
Ted Ellison
DECLARATION OF CONFILICT(S) OF INTEREST: None
CITY COUNCIL TRAINING:
Council Member Stevenson provided a brief training on the responsibilities and expectations of serving on the City Council.
He highlighted key duties such as enacting ordinances, overseeing zoning and public safety, managing the city budget with
transparency, and engaging in long-term strategic planning. He emphasized that while the position is officially part-time, the
time commitment is significant, involving frequent communication with residents, city staff, and fellow council members. He
also outlined three essential skills for council members: Effective communication – including active listening and clear
articulation. Critical thinking – making balanced, informed decisions based on diverse input. Leadership – collaborating
respectfully and serving the community without dictating.
PUBLIC COMMENT:
Paul Nielson, has a lawn Care business, he spoke regarding the removal of his business sign, which was legally placed on
private property with the owner’s permission. He stated a city employee threatened to remove the sign after one week, due
to resident complaints. Mr. Nelson questioned the validity of the complaints and emphasized that the sign was compliant
with the city code. He requested better communication from the City before any removal of legally posted signs on private
property.
Ted Ellison voiced concerns about the removal of Jake brake restriction signs on US-89 due to a UDOT regulation prohibiting
such restrictions on roads with speed limits of 65 mph or higher. He described the ongoing noise disturbances from trucks
using Jake brakes, particularly in early morning hours, and the reduced effectiveness of sound walls after the elevation of US-
89 was raised by 3–4 feet during recent construction. Mr. Ellison requested the City’s support in petitioning the governor and
UDOT to allow enforcement of local ordinances regarding Jake brake use.
PRESENTATIONS:
Bella Burt, Abi Jennings, Ella Riggs gave the Youth City Council report on their recent leadership conference at Utah State
University, which emphasized the importance of support systems and understanding different perspectives for effective
communication. The next Youth Council event will be an Easter Egg Hunt on Saturday, the 19th, at 10:00AM for children ages
0–12.
DISCUSSION ITEMS:
5.1 Public Hearing RE: Ordinance #2025-02 Title 2A Chapter 3 Election and Qualification
City Manager Frandsen provided an overview of the ongoing consideration to transition from a caucus-based election system
to a primary election system. Following the City Council’s direction in September 2024, staff conducted research and
distributed a community survey, which received 172 responses—approximately 70% of which favored the change to a
primary system. Staff have presented the pros and cons of both election methods in council meetings. An ordinance has been
prepared for consideration, and a public hearing will be held during the meeting to allow residents to voice their opinions.
The council discussion and potential action on the ordinance were scheduled to take place later in the meeting under action
items.
Council Member Shon Stevenson made a motion to open the public hearing on Ordinance #2025-02 Title 2A Chapter 3
Election and Qualification Council Member Mark Cottrell seconded the motion. It was unanimously approved by the council
(0:20)
Ruth Manning expressed frustration with the current caucus system, highlighting concerns about low participation and the
challenges for residents with travel or other obligations to attend. She noted that the same people often participate, which
limits the diversity of voices in the process. Ms. Manning suggested that the Youth City Council could help by canvassing
neighborhoods to raise awareness of caucus events and emphasize the importance of community involvement. She stressed
the importance of maintaining a strong local voice in city government and encouraged greater community participation in
the process.
Marc VanOene spoke in support of maintaining the caucus system. As a conservative and precinct chair with the Davis
County Republican Party, he emphasized the system’s long-standing effectiveness and accessibility. He argued that the
caucus process encourages grassroots involvement, minimizes campaign costs, and allows neighbors to engage directly in
selecting candidates. He shared personal experiences, highlighting the value of community discussion and participation
without the influence of big money. Mr. VanOene concluded by expressing appreciation for the tradition.
Todd Stevenson expressed opposition to the proposed ordinance to eliminate the caucus system. He shared his personal
experience, stating that the caucus process encouraged his initial involvement in local politics and allowed him to successfully
run for office without extensive campaigning resources. Stevenson addressed common criticisms of the caucus system—such
as concerns about inclusivity and system manipulation—stating that these are often misunderstandings or general
frustrations with elections. He emphasized that caucuses provide a platform for candidates to speak directly to the
community and offer more accessible paths to candidacy compared to a primary system, which he argued increases costs
and discourages participation. Additionally, he raised concerns about transparency in the filing process outlined in the
ordinance, noting that if candidate filings are not made public in real time, it could give current council members an unfair
advantage. He urged that any ordinance ensures equal access to filing information for all potential candidates.
Kimberly Wagner shared that although she has reservations about traditional partisan caucuses, she believes the caucus
system has been effective in a nonpartisan city like Fruit Heights. She noted that she has participated in nearly every caucus
since moving to the city. Wagner expressed concern about the occasional imbalance in candidate interest in both rooms
during caucus night—citing experiences where some rooms had no volunteers while others had multiple candidates. She
suggested implementing a way to indicate, upon entry, how many individuals intend to express interest in running, which
could help distribute candidate participation more evenly.
Blake Winslow shared his thoughts on the caucus system. He noted initial confusion about caucus upon moving to the city,
often receiving unclear responses to go “upstairs or downstairs.” He pointed out that such ambiguity can discourage
participation. Winslow emphasized the broader issue of inclusivity, particularly for individuals who may not be part of the
dominant religious or cultural communities. He expressed appreciation for the statement from Mr. Stevenson that anyone
willing to engage and participate has a chance to run and contribute.
Council Member Gary Anderson made a motion to close the Public Hearing on Ordinance #2025-02 Title 2A Chapter 3 Election
and Qualification Council Member Eileen Moss seconded the motion. unanimously approved by the council (0:38)
A resident encouraged a more conversational tone during the meeting and asked clarifying questions about the proposed
ordinance and election systems. Key points discussed included: Nonpartisan Elections: It was clarified that races under the
proposed primary system would be nonpartisan, meaning candidates would not campaign under specific party labels.
Primaries are used only when more than two candidates file for a single seat. For example, if four individuals file for mayor, a
primary would be held to narrow the field to two candidates. Caucus Process: In contrast, the caucus system relies on
precinct-level nominations, often split between two groups (e.g., "pinecone" and "sagebrush"). Each caucus nominates
candidates for open positions. Cost of Elections: City staff explained that running a primary election costs approximately
$5,000. While caucus meetings are free, primary elections would be a new expense. Budget Impact: The cost of a primary
would be incorporated into the city's upcoming fiscal year budget, which starts July 1st. While no immediate tax increase is
planned, the funds would need to come from within the existing budget, potentially requiring cuts elsewhere.
5.2 Public Comment RE: Recycling
The council is conducting two related public hearings—one to receive input on a recycling program, and the other on the
consolidated fee schedule which includes funding for the recycling service. There is no ordinance change being made to
mandate recycling; rather, the public hearing is for comment on the proposed fee schedule update that incorporates a
bundled recycling program. If the council decides not to move forward with recycling, the fee schedule vote will be tabled
and revised accordingly. City Manager Frandsen gave Details of the Recycling Program Proposal: Partnered with Robinson
Waste, the city's hauler, to lock in a three-year rate for recycling services, to minimize cost increases. The cost includes
purchase of 2,000 recycling bins (~$120,000) this is offset by a $30,000 grant from Integrated Waste. This makes the cost
$15 per can. Cities that divert green waste or recyclable materials from landfills receive credit incentives. Fruit Hights city
is one of the top diverters of green waste, contributing to significant savings. A community survey indicated that
approximately 70% of respondents supported recycling in some form. The proposed recycling program is bundled—all
residents would be charged the $20.50 monthly fee, which covers one garbage can and one recycling can. A resident can
request not to have a recycling can delivered but the residents would still pay the full fee. This is an “all or nothing”
bundled model.
Council Member Gary Anderson made a motion to go into an open public comment RE: Recycling Council Member Mark
Cottrell seconded the motion unanimously approved by the council (0:48)
Marc VanOene expressed opposition to the mandatory recycling program, and he already recycles aluminum cans
independently. He does not see the need for the additional fee. Concern that the program is mandatory, thus forcing all
residents to pay for recycling, even if they do not use it. The resident referenced a previous comment made at a past
meeting, stating that much of the recyclable material ends up in landfills, which undermines the program’s environmental
benefits.
Kimberly Wagner raised concerns about the bidding process for the recycling program. She noted that the city resident
has been using a private vendor for over 20 years for recycling services and expressed satisfaction with the service. She
asked whether the current vendor would have an opportunity to bid for the contract, or if the contract had already been
renegotiated with Robinson Waste. The response clarified the new recycling service would be added to the existing
contract, she expressed concern that if mandatory recycling is not implemented now, it could lead to future increased
costs to haul trash to alternative facilities.
Nathan Rich Executive Director, Wasatch Integrated Waste, wanted to answer some of the questions. The current private
recycling vendor, Mountain West Recycling (now owned by Ace Waste and Recycling), has historically provided great
service. But the city benefits by having one hauler (Robinson Waste) for both trash and recycling, reducing the number of
trucks on city streets and increasing efficiency. Although Ace did not bid on the new program, they are cooperating by
redistributing their existing recycling carts to other cities such as Sunset and Morgan, which are implementing bundled
programs. The $5/month increase (which includes recycling pickup and new bins) is considered good value, especially with
fixed costs for the next three years. The current integrated landfill is nearing the end of its usable life. No more expansions
are planned. Recycling is essential to reduce long-term hauling and landfill costs. Fruit Heights already diverts 16% of its
waste via green waste programs; adding recycling could increase diversion to 30%, significantly reducing waste volume.
He Emphasized that recyclables are not being dumped or sent to China. Since China stopped accepting materials, the U.S.
has developed domestic markets for major recyclables like cardboard, aluminum, steel, and plastics #1 and #2.
Paul Nielson expressed concern that fixed-income residents, particularly elderly individuals (e.g., 75+), may struggle to
absorb continued cost increases like those from the proposed recycling fee. He Highlighted the disparity between older
residents who generate minimal recyclables (e.g., limited cardboard from online shopping) and younger families or
individuals with frequent Amazon deliveries, who may quickly fill their recycling bins. Suggested implementing a discount
or reduced rate for elderly or low-usage households to reflect their lower waste and recycling generation.
Mike Burnett asked for clarification on how recycling is sorted—specifically whether there are separate cans for
cardboard, glass, grass clippings, etc. Mike noted that while many want to recycle properly, the process can be confusing.
He Suggested the city provide educational materials (e.g., instructions on what and how to recycle) to help residents
participate effectively.
Nathan Rich Executive Director, Wasatch Integrated Waste talked about if the city approves the mandatory recycling
program, the district will provide a comprehensive education campaign to help residents properly participate. Postcard
mailing to all residents, announcing the start of the program and linking to an online landing page with more details.
Informational packets delivered with each recycling cart, including Frequently asked questions, sticker guide on the bin
itself outlining acceptable materials and recycling instructions. Residents can look up District’s website where there are
detailed recycling guidelines and resources. Wasatch Integrated also offers Facility tours for any group size to help
residents understand how recycling is processed.
Jeanne Groberg expressed appreciation for the information shared during the meeting and noted that she has personally
toured the Wasatch Integrated Waste facility. She empathized with the discomfort some residents feel about being
required to recycle. However, she strongly supported the practical rationale for the program presented by the district
particularly the limited space at the landfill, the rising cost of transporting waste, and the importance of long-term
planning for the community. She shared her personal experience that a large percentage of her household waste goes into
the blue recycling can, which is always full by the time of biweekly pickup demonstrating its utility and benefit.
Debbie Hopkins voiced her support for the recycling program, stating she has been a recycler for many years. She shared
that when she and her family built their home in Fruit Heights 12 years ago, the cost of commercial recycling at that time
felt too high, so she opted not to participate. Instead, she used various free recycling services around the county and was
pleased when drop-off locations returned to the landfill. She used to believe recycling should remain optional, but her
perspective has changed due to current landfill capacity issues. She emphasized that this is a community issue and
believes a $5/month fee is a reasonable investment to maintain quality of life and necessary services.
Ted Ellison shared their frustration with the current recycling service through Ace, citing poor customer service and lack of
communication. He expressed concern over a rate increase from approximately $6.87 to $9.67 per month without any
prior notice or explanation. The increase was only noticed due to personal tracking of monthly expenses. He strongly
supports the proposed city recycling program, especially at the lower rate of $5/month, and hoped it would replace their
current service.
Mike Burnett has concern about inefficiencies in recycling usage, specifically:
Noted that some residents place unclasped cardboard boxes in bins, creating the appearance of full cans filled mostly with
air. Compared this to others who collapse cardboard and may only require a pickup every five weeks, not every two. He
asked if cost per can or pickup frequency has been considered in the fee structure. City Staff clarified that the program is
based on bi-weekly recycling pickups, which works for the majority of households.
Jennifer Rowley expressed strong support for the recycling program and the proposed $5/month fee. Emphasized the
minimal financial burden of the fee. She framed the issue as one of generational responsibility, asking what people would
do for their children and grandchildren. She Commented on the excessive waste in society, mentioning:
Frequent Amazon deliveries result in excess cardboard waste. Heavy soda consumption, leading to a lot of recyclable cans.
Jennifer stressed that it’s not just about ourselves, but about doing what's right for the future.
Kyle Manning Shared a personal situation: hosting millennials in the basement who generate a high volume of recyclables.
They Currently utilizes the landfill facility to manage overflow recycling — expressed gratitude for its availability. He asked
whether a second recycling bin would be available. The city Staff Response: Yes, a second bin is available for an additional
$5/month.
Council Member Mark Cottrell made a motion to closed public comment RE: Recycling Council Member Gary Anderson
seconded the motion unanimously approved by the council (1:25)
5.3 Public Hearing RE: Resolution # 2025-04 Adopting an updated Consolidate Fee Schedule
City Manager Frandsen talks about the city reviews and updates its consolidated fee schedule a few times each year. Recent
updates include Violation fees (e.g., for noncompliance with rental properties). These changes allow enforcement based on
ordinance and provide clear reference points for fees. Garbage & Recycling Fee Changes: Bundled Program: First garbage can
+ recycling can: $5 increase now $20.50/month. Second Garbage Can: Additional $2 increase. Additional Recycling Cans: Each
additional recycling can (2nd, 3rd, etc.): $5/month. Future Utility Fee Studies: A study on stormwater fees is planned.
Currently, the city is prioritizing a transportation study, which is nearing completion. Once the transportation study wraps up,
they will move forward with stormwater fee evaluation.
Council Member Eileen Moss made a motion to open the Public Hearing RE: Resolution # 2025-04 Adopting an updated
Consolidate Fee Schedule Council Member Gary Anderson seconded the motion it was unanimously approved by the council
(1:28)
No public comments
Council Member Shon Steveson made a motion to close the Public Hearing RE: Resolution # 2025-04 Adopting an updated
Consolidate Fee Schedule Council Member Mark Cottrell seconded the motion it was unanimously approved by the council
(1:29)
5.4 Bids to outsource an IT provider
Purposed to review and compare bids from multiple IT service providers for ongoing support and infrastructure
management. All vendors were asked to provide bids based on current needs, including Microsoft software licensing,
Cloud and secondary state-required document storage, On-site tech support, Program and software updates, Firewall and
cybersecurity maintenance Vendors being considered: 1. Computech (Current provider) Base cost: $2,250/month
Additional cost for security upgrade (e.g., ransomware protection): $243/month. Total it upgraded: $2,493/month Pros:
Known service level, existing relationship 2. Wasatch IT Offered 3 tiers of service at different pricing levels Details not
discussed fully but noted for flexibility in service levels 3. Intuitive IT (Recommended Provider) Initial one-time fee listed:
$20,000, monthly service fee: $2,386/month. Clarification: If the city enters a 3-year contract, the $20,000 will be waived
Includes full system review and upgrades (security, firewall, updates) Focused on aligning city systems to current
standards immediately. The Staff recommends Intuitive IT, based on: Strong presentation and clear understanding of city
needs. Competitive monthly cost once the one-time fee is waived. Comprehensive upgrade and support plan included.
ACTION ITEMS:
6.1 Approve/Deny Ordinance #2025-02 Title 2A Chapter 3 Election and Qualification
Council Member Moss expressed concern that the city may be too quick to dismiss the caucus system due to current state
laws. Since only two cities use it, she believes this gives the city a unique opportunity to advocate for changes at the state
level. Overall, she feels not all options have been fully considered and encourages further exploration before making final
decisions.
Mayor Pohlman talked about under the caucus system, an average of only 56 people are deciding who gets on the
election ballot. The question is: why wouldn't we instead allow a much larger number—around 880 people on average, as
noted by Brian McKenzie, the county elections official—to make that decision?
During the council discussion, council members had concerns about the potential cost for candidates who would need to
campaign for both a primary and a general election. Mayor Pohlman pointed out that the benefits of a caucus system
include more direct interaction with candidates and a chance to ask them questions—essentially a more personal vetting
process. Then he talked about the primary election system offering greater equal representation, which is a key
difference. He also noted with caucuses, you often see only certain groups or "pockets" represented, whereas a primary
includes a broader voice from the entire community.
City Manager Frandsen made a recommendation to table Ordinance #2025-02, Title 2A Chapter 3: Election and
Qualification, and to continue the public hearing at the next council meeting. This recommendation was made to give
everyone time to reflect on the ordinance and consider all the comments and concerns that were shared.
Council Member Shon Stevenson made a motion to table Ordinance #2025-02, Title 2A Chapter 3: Election and
Qualification Council Member Mark Cottrell seconded the motion the past 3 (Gary, Eileen, Shon yea) to 1 Mark Nay) (1:55)
6.2 Approve/ Deny Resolution # 2025-04 Adopting an updated Consolidate Fee Schedule
The council reviewed Resolution2025-04, which includes updates to the consolidated fee schedule, notably incorporating a
recycling program. Steveson noted potential cost savings for residents who currently use multiple black (trash) cans,
suggesting the recycling program may encourage reduced trash usage. A question was raised regarding the requirement for
properties with ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) to have two black bins. It was clarified that this requirement is part of an
existing ordinance, and any changes would require a separate ordinance amendment, not covered by this resolution.
Council Member Eileen Moss made a motion to approve Resolution # 2025-04 Adopting an updated Consolidate Fee Schedule
Council Member Gary Anderson seconded the motion it was unanimously approved by the council (2:00)
6.3 Approve/Deny a bid to outsource an IT provider
Council member Mark Cottrell made a motion to accept the bit for intuitive IT Council member ShonStevenson seconded the
motion it was unanimously approved by the council (9:02)
6.4 Approve/Deny March 18, 2025, City Council Minutes
Council Member Shon Stevenson made a motion to approve March 18, 2025, City Council Minutes Council Member Mark
Cottrell seconded the motion it was unanimously approved by the council (2:03)
TABLED ITEMS: None
CALENDAR:
8.1 April 4-21 ,2025 Green Waste Spring Cleanup (vouchers are available starting April 1, 2025)
8.2 April 19, 2025, Easter Egg Hunt 10am At City Hall
8.3 April 22, 2025, City Council Meeting
8.4 April 29,2025 Planning Commission Meeting
PAST DISCUSSION ITEMS:
CITY COUNCIL REPORTS:
Council Member Mark Cottrell, the staff, has started working on things for Founders Day
Council Member Moss: the CCC/Emergency Preparedness committee is expected to start providing training at the city
council meeting at the second meeting every other month
MAYOR REPORT:
CITY STAFF REPORTS:
Public Works Director Leonard: During the last snowstorm, one of the smaller international trucks suffered a blown front
differential, with an estimated repair cost of about $10,000. Additionally, the skid steer needs final drive repairs,
estimated at $9,500. These are critical repairs, as the equipment is currently unusable without them. While not originally
budgeted as separate line items, Darren will be working on the costs within this year’s existing budget, as these repairs
can't be delayed until next year.
City Manager Frandsen: Fruit Height, Farmington, Kaysville, and the school district met recently to discuss a proposal for a
shared indoor lap pool. The school district is considering building a state-of-the-art, fast-flow lap plus a smaller shallow
area for swim lessons—at an estimated cost of $50 million. While the district would likely cover initial construction
through a bond (potentially going on the ballot), the cities involved might be responsible for ongoing maintenance. The
pool wouldn’t be located at a school but within the Farmington–Kaysville area on district-owned land. It’s still early in the
discussion, and any decisions would go through public hearings and city council approval. A special service district may be
formed to manage the project.
CLOSED SESSION:
ADJOURNMENT:
Council Member Gary Anderson made a motion to adjourn the meeting with Council Member Shon Stevenson seconding
the motion. It was unanimously approved by the Council. (9:15)
Not approved until signed.
/S/: _____________________________
Hailee Ballingham, City Deputy Recorder
Date approved by City Council: April 22, 2025
Agenda
FRUIT HEIGHTS CITY COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA
Notice is hereby given that the Fruit Heights City Council will hold a regular meeting at 7:00pm on
April 8, 2025, at Fruit Heights City Hall, 910 South Mountain Road Fruit Heights City Utah.
Fruit Heights City is now streaming City Council Meetings on its YouTube Channel. Please follow us at
https://www.youtube.com/@fruitheightscity9716/streams
1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor John Pohlman
1.1 Pledge of Allegiance (John)
1.2 Prayer or Thought (Mark)
1.3 Roll call (Hailee)
1.4 City Council Training (Shon)
2. DECLARATION OF CONFLICT(S) OF INTEREST
3. PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
The public may address the City Council regarding issues that are or are not on the agenda.
Please limit comments to 3 minutes. Please state your name and address of residence for
the record. No actions may be taken on items not specifically listed on the agenda.
4. PRESENTATIONS
4.1 YCC Report
5. DISCUSSION ITEMS
Discussion items to be considered.
5.1 Public Hearing RE: Ordinance # 2025-02 Title 2A Chapter 3 Election and Qualification
5.2 Public Comment RE: Recycling
5.3 Public Hearing RE: Resolution # 2025-04 Adopting an updated Consolidate Fee Schedule
5.4 Bids to outsource an IT provider
6. ACTION ITEMS
6.1 Approve/Deny Ordinance # 2025-02 Title 2A Chapter 3 Election and Qualification
6.2 Approve/Deny Resolution # 2025-04 Adopting an updated Consolidate Fee Schedule
6.3 Approve/Deny a bid to outsource an IT provider
6.4 Approve March 18, 2025, City Council Minutes
7. TABLED ITEMS
8. CALENDAR ITEMS
8.1 April 4-21 ,2025 Green Waste Spring Cleanup
(Vouchers are available Starting April 1, 2025)
8.2 April 19, 2025, Easter Egg Hunt 10 am at City Hall
8.3 April 22, 2025, City Council Meeting
8.4 April 29, 2025, Planning Commission Meeting
9. PAST DICUSSION ITEMS
10. COUNCIL REPORT
11. MAYOR REPORT
12. STAFF REPORT
13. CLOSED SESSION
The City Council may vote to discuss matters in a closed session for reasons allowed by law,
including, but not limited to, the provisions of Utah Code § 52-4-205 of the Open and Public
Meetings Act, and for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-
1-137.
14. ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING
I HEREBY CERTIFY that this notice and agenda was posted at Fruit Heights
City Hall, on the City’s website, www.fruitheightscity.com, as well as
posted on the Utah State Public Notice website in accordance with the
requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act, including, but
not limited to, provisions of Utah Code § 52-4-202.
Hailee Ballingham
Hailee Ballingham - Deputy Recorder
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing
special accommodations during this meeting should contact the Fruit Heights City
Manager, Darren Frandsen at (801)546-0861 at least 24 hours prior to the
meeting.
Helpful Links.
Fruit Heights City Website: https://www.fruitheightscity.com/
Fruit Heights City YouTube Channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCaIqHYd0U5RCpaDo8rquABw
Fruit Heights City Facebook Page: https://www.facebook.com/FruitHeightsCityGovernment
**Guarantee Fee: Not ready, no show, no call, outside normal business hours, extra inspections will be charged to this fee. If fee is depleted to less than 25% the permit
holder will receive a stop work order until the fee is brought back to starting balance. The city reserves the right to lien the property After Final Inspection, Certificate of
Occupancy and all items are completed (broken sidewalk, curb & gutter, grading, etc.) The permit holder shall request a refunded of 50% of the Guarantee Fee. (If no
request is made, the Guaranty Fee bala11ce will be forfeited 60 days after final inspection and/or Certificate of Occupancy.)
Demolition Permit (house, buildings) $ 250.00
Fence Permit $ 10.00
Geotech
Grading Permit sensitive land ordinance requirement professional review
$ 600.00
Inspection Fees.
Outside normal business hours (minimum charge of two hours)
$ 135.00 per hour
Re-inspection
$ 135.00 each
Inspection for which no fee is specifically indicated ( min charge of .5 hours)
$ 125.00 per hour
Schedule inspection (not ready, no show, no call)
$ 200.00
Additional plan review required by revisions (min charge of.5 hours)
$ 135.00 per hour
Landscaping Fee
Plan Review $ 75.00
New Landscape Permit ( Includes up to 3 inspections) $ 350.00
Moving Building
Moving a Building Bond Minimum bond $ 10,000.00
Maximum bond $ 25,000.00
Pools
Application Fee Pools, Tubs and Spas
Private $ 250.00
Public $ 500.00
Plan Review and Building Fees:
Commercial/Public 65% of the building evaluation
Residential/Private 40% of the building evaluation
Business License Fees
Internal Accessory Dwelling Unit (IADU)
Application $ 150.00
Renewal $ 20.00 per year
Fine for non-compliance after notice is given first 30 days $250.00 after 30 days $100 per day
External ADUs and Short-Term Rentals
15 days after notice from the city if still non-complaint: $250.00
Ongoing non-compliance: $100 per day until compliance is achieved
Apartments:
New Application plus per unit
$ 75.00
$ 10.00 per unit
Base Renewal plus per unit
$ 30.00
$ 10.00 per unit
Change of Business Name $ 15.00
Commercial
New Business Application $ 150.00
Renewal $ 100.00
Home Occupation:
Business License Fees New Business Application $ 75.00
Renewal $ 25.00
Home Daycare or Pre-School Required Plan Check and Inspection (+New Application or Renewal Fee) $ 150.00 each
Home Occupation Low Impact: (based on review of application, not subject to licensing fees
New Business Application $ 20.00
Renewal $ 10.00
Hotel:
New Application plus per
unit
Base Renewal plus per unit
$ 50.00
$ 10.00
Lost License $ 5.00
Mobile Home Parks:
New Application plus per
unit $ 75.00
$ 10.00 per unit
Base Renewal plus per unit
$ 30.00
$ 10.00 per unit
Single Family Dwelling Rental
New Application $ 150.00
Renewal $ 25.00
15 days after notice from the city if still non-complaint: $250.00 Ongoing non-compliance: $100 per day until compliance is achieved
Solicitation License:
New Application (expires 1 year from application date) $ 150.00
Solicitation without license per offense $ 250.00
Temp/Event
For Profit $ 65.00
Non Profit $ 30.00
The following fee are to be established by Resolution from the Fruit Heights City Council
Alcoholic Beverages $ 150.00
Agriculture Vendors $ 150.00
Christmas Tree Sales $ 150.00
'Fireworks Sales $ 450.00
Itinerant or Transient Merchants $ 150.00 per location
Mechanical & Electronic Amusement Devices $ 225.00
Pawnbrokers $ 750.00
Sexually Oriented Businesses $ 750.00
Certification of Copies $ 2.00
GRAMA Research, Compilation, editing, etc.
First 30 min No Charge
Additional time (one hour min.) As per GRAMA Requirements
City Building
Basement Rental
Deposit $ 150.00
Hourly (Resident) $ 10.00 per hour
Hourly (Non-Resident) $20.00 per hour
Refundable if left clean and no damage $ 50.00
Code Enforcement
Regulatory Signs Current cost and install $ 400.00
Street Name Signs Current cost and install $ 650.00
Sign Permit Fees:
Permanent:
Attached $ 90.00
Detached $ 125.00
Temporary:
Attached $ 75.00
Detached $ 75.00
Sign Reclaiming Fee: Temporary signs which are confiscated for code violations may be reclaimed by paying:
First Offense $ 10.00 each sign
Additional Offenses $ 25.00 each sign
Weed Mowing Charge:
Hourly rate 1 hour minimum plus Additional Administration
C0,8 lr.r a,,,.r,h ♦if'l"IO ,-.if.I, ic, ro,...11irl"'!lorl ♦r. ""'"".," """""'a.I r,J f"ll.r,..no.+,, $ 250.00 per hour
2025
Base Rate $ 22.00
Water Usage Adopted Tier Rate Schedule
Water Service to customers outside the boundaries of the city will be charge double the base rate
Development Impact Fees
Commercial Development Impact will be calculated by Engineer
Park Impact Fee Current Adopted Fee
Mobile Home Pad $ 1,115.00 per pad
Mull Family Structure $ 1,115.00 per unit
Single Family Structure $ 1,115.00 per lot
Sewer Impact Fee Set by Central Davis Sewer District
Mobile Home Pad $ 2,400.00 per pad
Mull Family Structure $ 2,400.00 per unit
Single Family Structure $ 2,400.00 per lot
Storm Water Impact Fee Current Adopted Fee
Mobile Home Pad $ 1,683.72 per pad
Mull Family Structure $ 1,683.72 per unit
Single Family Structure $ 1,683.72 per lot
Water Impact Fee Current Adopted Fee
Mobile Home Pad $ 8,912.93 per pad
Mull Family Structure $ 8,912.93 per unit
Single Family Structure $ 8,912.93 per lot
Documents/ Reports
Budget Report one copy free to a city resident upon request $ 5.00 each
Business License listing Financial $ 2.00 each
Report one copy free to a city resident upon request $ 5.00 each
General plan $ 20.00 each
Public Works Standards Subdivision $ 25.00 each
Ordinance $ 25.00 each
Zoning Ordinance $ 25.00 each
Zoning Code Chapters $ 1.50 each
Dog License Fee:
License Fee Established by Davis County Animal Care
Kennel Fee Established by Davis County Animal Care
Kennel renewal fee Established by Davis County Animal Care
Excavation Permit Fee
Current Public Works Standards
Base Permit Fee $ 100.00
Storm Water Permit Fee
City SWPPP Application Fee $ 135.00
UPDES State Permit Application Fee $ 450.00
Storm Water Permit Bond $700 + $1,100/acre ( not to exceed $4,000)
Permit Reinstatement Fee (after STOP WORK ORDER) $ 300.00
Storm Water Permit Violation Minimum Fines: ( could be up to $1,000.00 per violation per day)
Violation Initial Offense 2nd Offense 3rd Offense
Lapse of UPDESA Permit Coverage $60.00 per month out of coverage
SWPPP not Posted On Sile $ 100.00 $ 200.00 $ 400.00
Tracking of soil off site $ 100.00 $ 200.00 $ 400.00
Housekeeping Violations $ 100.00 $ 200.00 $ 400.00
BMP's not installed as shown on SWPPP $ 100.00 $ 200.00 $ 600.00
Not completing On Site Inspections $ 150.00 $ 300.00 $ 600.00
Uncontrolled Storm Water around site $ 150.00 $ 300.00 $ 600.00
Improper Chemical Storage $ 150,00 $ 300.00 $ 600.00
Soil/Construction Material Stacked On Impervious Surface $ 150.00 $ 300.00 $ 600.00
improper Sediment Control $ 150.00 $ 300.00 $ 600.00
Improper Outhouse location/not staked down $ 150.00 $ 300.00 $ 600.00
Failure to Maintain Records of SWPPP $ 200.00 $400.00 with STOP WORK ORDER
Illegal Discharge from site $ 300.00 $600.00 with STOP WORK ORDER
Improper Concrete Washout $ 300.00 $600.00 with STOP WORK ORDER
Failure to Obtain a Permit $500.00 with STOP WORK ORDER
Failure to Implement the SWPPP $500.00 with STOP WORK ORDER
* 3rd Offense will be accompanied with a STOP WORK ORDER
• Fines are minimums and can be adjusted to compensate for the severity of the infraction
Storm Water Illicit Discharge Cleanup Fee Actual Costs $ 200.00 minimum
In addition to the above fees, the developer will also pay any Engineering cost.
Single Lot or Parcel Residential Construction Cleaning Fee (sweeping, tracking, etc.) Actual Costs $ 200.00 minimum
Vandalism
Minimum Fine $ 500.00 plus restitution
CHAPTER 2A-03. ELECTION AND QUALIFICATION
2A-03-010. Elections
2A-03-020. Declaration Of Candidacy
2A-03-030. Nomination Petition
2A-03-040. Residency And Registered Voter Requirements
2A-03-050. Term Of Office
2A-03-060. Vacancies
2A-03-070. Oath Of Office
2A-03-080. Bond
2A-03-090. Salaries
2A-03-100. Transfer Of Records
2A-03-110. Campaign Finance Statement
2A-03-120. Ethics Act
2A-03-130. Political Activities
2A-03-010. Elections.
Consistent with the provisions of Utah Code Annotated Section 20A-1-202, as amended, the offices
of mayor and council member shall be filled by election of the registered voters of Fruit Heights City in an
at large municipal election held on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November in odd numbered years.
Municipal elections for the offices of mayor or council member shall be conducted in the manner provided
in the Utah election code, set forth in Utah Code Annotated title 20A, and applicable provisions of Utah
Code Annotated Section 10-3-201 et seq., as amended.
2A-03-020. Declaration Of Candidacy.
Any eligible and qualified person desiring to run for the elected municipal offices of mayor or council
member shall file a declaration of candidacy with the city recorder in accordance with the filing requirements
set forth in Utah Code Annotated title 20A, chapter 9.
2A-03-030. Nomination Petition.
Any resident of the city may nominate a candidate for elected municipal office by filing a nomination
petition with the city recorder in accordance with the filing requirements set forth in Utah Code Annotated
title 20A, chapter 9.
2A-03-040. Residency and Registered Voter Requirements.
Persons eligible to file a declaration of candidacy or to be nominated for the elected office of mayor
or council member shall be a registered voter of Fruit Heights City, shall have resided in Fruit Heights City
for the twelve (12) consecutive months immediately before the date of the election, and shall meet the
residency and filing requirements of Utah Code Annotated Section 20A-9-203, as amended. Pursuant to
Utah Code Annotated Section 10-3-301, as amended, each person elected to the office of mayor or council
member shall maintain residency within the boundaries of the city during his or her term of office. If a person
elected to the office of mayor or council member establishes his or her principal place of residence outside
the municipality during his or her term of office, the office is automatically vacant. If a person elected to the
office of mayor or council member is absent from the city anytime during his or her term of office for a
continuous period of more than sixty (60) days without the consent of the city council, that person's elected
office is automatically vacant.
2A-03-050 Term of Office.
Persons elected to the office of mayor or council member shall begin their term of office at twelve
o'clock (12:00) noon on the first Monday in January following their election, and shall continue in office for
four (4) years thereafter and until their respective successors are chosen and qualified, except in case of
death, resignation, removal or disqualification from office.
2A-03-060. Vacancies.
Vacancies in the offices of mayor or council member shall be filled in accordance with the provisions
of Utah Code Annotated Section 20A-1-510, as amended.
2A-03-070. Oath of Office.
(a) Required: All elected officials shall take, subscribe and file the constitutional oath of office
before entering upon the duties of their respective offices. Elected officials shall take their oath of office at
twelve o'clock (12:00) noon on the first Monday in January following their election or as soon thereafter as
is practical.
(b) Administered: The oath of office shall be administered by the city recorder, any judge or
any notary public.
(c) Filed: All oaths of office shall be filed with the city recorder.
(d) Failure To Comply: No official act of any officer shall be invalid for the reason that he or
she failed to take the oath of office.
2A-03-080. Bond.
(a) Required: Elected officers of the city before taking office shall execute a bond with good
and sufficient sureties payable to the city or shall be included within public employee blanket bonds, in the
amount of not less than ten thousand dollars ($10,000.00), conditioned for the faithful performance of the
duties of the respective officers and the payment of all monies received by such officer according to the law
and the ordinances of Fruit Heights City.
(b) Approval: The bonds of council members shall be approved by the mayor, and the bond of
the mayor shall be approved by the city council, at the first meeting of the city council in January following
a municipal election. All bonds of elected officers shall be filed with the city recorder.
(c) Premium Charge: The premium charge by a corporate surety for any official bond shall be
paid by Fruit Heights City.
(d) Additional Bonds: The city council may at any time require further and additional bonds of
any elected officers of the city.
2A-03-090. Salaries.
Elected officers shall receive such compensation for their services as the city council may fix or
amend by ordinance in accordance with the notice and hearing requirements set forth in Utah Code
Annotated Section 10-3-818, as amended. The compensation of elected officers shall be paid at least
monthly. City staff, as part of the regular budget process, may review the appropriateness of the
compensation received by the mayor and city council members and recommend adjustments thereto as
deemed appropriate, taking into consideration the impact of inflation, consumer price index and the
compensation of elected officials in nearby cities of similar size.
2A-03-100. Transfer of Records.
Every officer of the city upon expiration of his or her term for any cause whatsoever shall deliver to
the city recorder all books and records which may be the property of the city.
2A-03-110. Campaign Finance Statement.
(a) Statement Required: Each candidate for municipal office shall file with the city recorder a
campaign finance statement disclosing his or her itemized and total campaign contributions and
expenditures in accordance with the procedures and requirements set forth herein and in Utah Code
Annotated Section 10-3-208, as amended.
(b) Time For Filing: Each candidate for municipal office who is eliminated at a municipal
primary election shall file with the city recorder a campaign finance statement no later than thirty (30) days
after the date of the municipal primary election. Each candidate for municipal office who is not eliminated
at a municipal primary election shall file with the city recorder a campaign finance statement no later than
seven (7) days before the date of the municipal general election and another campaign finance statement
no later than thirty (30) days after the date of the municipal general election. A campaign finance statement
required under this Section is considered filed if it is received in the city recorder's office by five o'clock
(5:00) P.M. on the date that it is due.
(c) Definitions: For purposes of this Section, the following words shall have the meanings set
forth:
CONTRIBUTION: All monies, in-kind contributions and contributions of tangible things given to the
candidate or to the organization(s) representing the candidate, for the purpose of enhancing the candidate's
campaign.
EXPENDITURE: The monetary, in-kind payment or payment of tangible things to any person or
entity, by the candidate's campaign.
REPORTING DATE: Ten (10) days before a municipal general election (for a campaign finance
statement required to be filed no later than 7 days before a municipal general election) and the day of filing
(for a campaign finance statement required to be filed no later than 30 days after a municipal primary or
general election).
REPORTING LIMIT: Any contribution or expenditure in an amount equal to fifty dollars ($50.00) or
more.
(d) Campaign Finance Statement: Except as provided in subsection E of this Section, each
campaign finance statement shall:
(1) Report all of the candidate's itemized and total campaign contributions, including
in-kind and other nonmonetary contributions received before the close of the reporting date, and
for each contribution that exceeds the reporting limit, identify the name and address of the donor,
the date the contribution was received, and the amount of the contribution or the estimated value
and type of the in-kind contribution;
(2) Report all of the candidate's itemized and total campaign expenditures made
through the close of the reporting date, and for each expenditure that exceeds the reporting limit,
identify the name of the recipient of the expenditure, and the date, purpose and amount of the
expenditure; and
(3) Report the aggregate summary of the total campaign contributions and
expenditures received or made to date, i.e., totals from previous reports and the current report.
(e) Alternative Statement: If the candidate receives five hundred dollars ($500.00) or less in
campaign contributions and spends five hundred dollars ($500.00) or less on the candidate's campaign,
the candidate shall be required to merely report the total amount of all campaign contributions and
expenditures.
(f) Notice To Candidates: The city recorder shall, at the time a candidate for municipal office
files a declaration of candidacy with the city, and again fourteen (14) days before each municipal general
election, notify the candidate in writing of:
(1) The provisions of state statutes and city ordinances governing the disclosure of
campaign contributions and expenditures;
(2) The dates when the candidate's campaign finance statement is required to be filed;
and
(3) The penalties that apply for failure to file a timely campaign finance statement,
including the statutory provisions that require removal of the candidate's name from the ballot for
failure to file the required campaign finance statement when required.
(g) Failure To File: Except as provided in subsection H of this Section, if a candidate fails to
file a campaign finance statement in accordance with the provisions of this Section and applicable
provisions of state law, the city recorder shall inform the appropriate election official who shall, if practical,
remove the candidate's name from the ballot by blacking out the candidate's name before the ballots are
delivered to voters; or if removing the candidate's name from the ballot is not practicable, inform the voters
by any practicable method that the candidate has been disqualified and that the votes cast for the candidate
will not be counted.
(h) Inadvertent Omissions: Notwithstanding subsection G of this Section, a candidate who
timely files a campaign finance statement seven (7) days before a municipal general election is not
disqualified if: 1) the statement details accurately and completely the information required herein, except
for inadvertent omissions or insignificant errors or inaccuracies; and 2) the omissions, errors or inaccuracies
are corrected in an amended report or in the next scheduled report.
(i) Public Records: Financial disclosure reports filed pursuant to this Section are considered
public documents open to inspection in accordance with Utah Code Annotated Section 10-3-208, as
amended, and the Utah government records access and management act, as amended. The city recorder
shall make each campaign finance statement filed by a candidate available for public inspection and
copying and post an electronic copy of the same in accordance with applicable provisions of Utah Code
Annotated Section 10-3-208(5), as amended.
2A-03-120. Ethics Act.
All elected officers shall comply with the provisions, conditions and requirements of the Utah
municipal officers' and employees' ethics act as set forth in Utah Code Annotated Section 10-3-1301 et
seq., as amended.
2A-03-130. Political Activities.
(a) Officers: Municipal officers shall comply with and be subject to the political activities
provisions of Utah Code Annotated Section 10-3-1108, as amended.
(b) City: The city shall comply with the terms and conditions of the political activities provisions
of Utah Code Annotated Section 10-3-1108, as amended. Pursuant to the political activities of public entities
act, as set forth in Utah Code Annotated Section 20A-11-1201 et seq., as amended, unless specifically
required by law, the city may not make expenditures from public funds for political purposes or to influence
a ballot proposition.
Darren Frandsen March 19, 2025
910 South Mountain Road
Fruit Heights, Utah 84037
(801) 546-0861 ext. 4
Subject: Managed IT Services and Basic Cyber Security Proposal – Pricing
Summary
Dear Darren,
Thank you so much for considering Intuitive IT Solutions as your trusted partner for
Managed IT Services and Basic Cybersecurity Solutions. We are so excited to work
with you and your team and helping Fruit Heights City strengthen and elevate its IT
and cyber security posture!
As previously discussed, your tailored solution is structured in two key components:
1. Initial Implementation:
This phase covers all necessary hardware, software licenses, labor, and project
management required to align your IT environment with current industry
standards. The total investment for the implementation is $19,770.51.
2. Monthly Managed Services:
Our ongoing monthly services provide proactive maintenance, essential cyber
security solutions, software licensing, user cyber security training, and
unlimited remote support. The monthly fee for these services is $2,386.21.
However, upon approval of a 36-month agreement, we will make the initial
implementation investment of $19,770.51 for you.
Important Details Regarding Payment and Discounts:
For full transparency, please note the following terms:
• The quoted pricing includes a 5% discount for payments made via automatic
ACH.
• Payments via automatically scheduled credit card transactions receive a
reduced discount of 2%.
• Payments made by check are eligible for the full 5% discount if payment is
received on or before the due date. Checks received after the due date will
result in forfeiture of the discount.
• A one-time setup fee, equal to the monthly service fee ($2,386.21), is
required at the start of service.
• By covering the initial implementation investment, Intuitive IT Solutions retains
ownership of the associated equipment, which will be leased to Fruit Heights
City for the duration of the agreement.
Proprietary and Confidential 1 | Page
Thank you again for the opportunity to partner with Fruit Heights City. We look
forward to delivering a secure, reliable, and efficient IT infrastructure to support
your continued success.
Warm Regards,
Dave Franz
President/CEO
Intuitive IT Solutions
Proprietary and Confidential 2 | Page
Get email alerts for Fruit Heights
A daily email when new agendas and minutes are posted.