City Council

River Heights City COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Thursday, April 11, 2019 Notice is hereby given that the River Heights City Council will hold its regular council meeting beginning at 5:30 p.m. in the River Heights City Office Building at 520 S 500 E. Opening Remarks (Clausen) and Pledge of Allegiance (Wilson) Adoption of Previous Minutes and Agenda Reports and Approval of Payments(Mayor, Council, Staff) Public Comment Adoption of An Ordinance to Create a Fence Section in the River Heights City Code Presentation of a Potential Recreational Trail Discuss and Decide if the Church Owned Property, East of the LDS Church Building on 600 E, will Stay in River Heights or go to Providence Adjourn PostejJ this 8*^ day of April 2019 CV Sheila Lind, Recorder AUachments for this meeting and drafts of previous meeting minutes can be found on the Stale's Public Notice Website (pmn.utah.gov) In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliarj" communicative aids and services) during this meeting should notify Sheila Lind.(435)770-2061 at least 24 hours before the meeting. 520 South 500 East River Heights, Utah 84321 Phone & Fax (435) 752-2646  River Heights City 1 2 3 Council Meeting 4 5 April 11,2019 6 7 8 Present: Mayor Todd Rasmussen 9 Council members: Doug Clausen 10 Robert"K" Scott 11 Elaine Thatcher 12 Dixie Wilson 13 14 Recorder Sheila Lind 15 Public Works Director Clayten Nelson 16 Treasurer Wendy Wilker 17 18 Excused: Councilmember Blake Wright 19 Finance Director Clifford Grover 20 21 Others Present: See attached roll 22 23 24 The following motions were made during the meeting: 25 26 Motion #1 27 Councilmember Wilson moved to "adopt the minutes of the council meeting of March 25, 28 2019 and the evening's agenda." Councilmember Scott seconded the motion, which passed with 29 Clausen, Scott, Thatcher and Wilson in favor. No one opposed. Wright was absent. 30 31 Motion #2 32 Councilmember Clausen moved to "pay the bills of earlier in the week and the pay request 33 from Landmark in the amount of $10,609.54." Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion, which 34 passed with Clausen, Scott, Thatcher and Wilson in favor. No one opposed. Wright was absent. 35 36 Motion #3 37 Councilmember Thatcher moved to "adopt Ordinance 1-2019, An Ordinance to Create a Fence 38 Section in the River Heights City Code with the changes suggested and deletion of the proposed 10-12- 39 3:D, which bans chain link fences." Councilmember Wilson seconded the motion. Wilson and 40 Thatcher were in favor. Clausen and Scott were opposed. Mayor Rasmussen broke the tie by 41 opposing. Wright was absent. 42 43 Motion #4 44 Councilmember Clausen moved to "adopt Ordinance 1-2019, An Ordinance to Create a Fence 45 Section in the River Heights City Code, with the adjustments/corrections discussed by the mayor 46 regarding four feet, six feet and transparency and adding to 10-12-3, the wording "within setbacks." Rivor Ilaiglnu Ciiy Cuunnil MyyUngp 520 South 500 East River Heights, Utah 84321 Phone 8c Fax (435)752-2646 47 Councilmember Scott seconded the motion, which carried with Clausen, Scott and Wilson in favor. 48 Thatcher opposed. Wright was absent. 49 50 51 Proceedings ofthe Meeting: 52 53 The River Heights City Council met at 5:30 p.m. in the Ervin R. Crosbie Council Chambers in 54 the River Heights City Building on Thursday, April 11, 2019 for their regular council meeting. 55 Opening Remarks and Pledge of Allegiance: Councilmember Clausen opened the meeting with 56 a thought and Councilmember Wilson led the group in the Pledge of Allegiance. 57 Adoption ofPrevious Minutes and Agenda: Minutes for the March 25,2019 meeting were 58 reviewed. 59 Councilmember Wilson moved to "adopt the minutes of the council meeting of March 25, 60 2019 and the evening's agenda." Councilmember Scott seconded the motion, which passed with 61 Clausen, Scott, Thatcher and Wilson in favor. No one opposed. Wright was absent. 62 Reports and Approval ofPavments(Mavor. Council. Staff): 63 64 Public Works Director Nelson 65 • Landmark Construction has requested their final pay installment of$10,609.54 for the 700 66 South Sidewalk project. Everything on their punch list has been completed. The city has a 67 couple loads of gravel to spread but will wait until things dry out. 68 69 Finance Director Grover was absent. 70 71 Treasurer Wilker 72 • The list of bills had already been approved by email earlier in the week,to avoid late fees on a 73 few ofthem. 74 75 Councilmember Clausen moved to "pay the bills of earlier in the week and the pay 76 request from Landmark in the amount of $10,609.54." Councilmember Wilson seconded the 77 motion, which passed with Clausen, Scott, Thatcher and Wilson in favor. No one opposed. 78 Wright was absent. 79 80 Councilmember Thatcher didn't have anything. 81 82 Councilmember Scott 83 • The Preparedness Fair at the LDS Stake Center will be held on the 16^. He will be there to 84 represent the city. 85 86 Councilmember Clausen 87 • He has checked with City Engineer Craig Rasmussen about the possibility of the city being 88 able to provide the east church property with sewer. Mr. Rasmussen felt it wouldn't need a lift 89 station ifthe city could get an easement for it to be gravity fed. He also thought River Heights 90 could loop a water line ifthe city could get an easement on the north side ofthe church. He 91 also verified that HOAs are not assumed by the city. River Heights City Council Meeting,4/11/19  92 • He is going to look into the city's water shares to see if there is something that needs to be done 93 so they don't get taken away. PWD Nelson stated the water rights were updated a few years 94 ago and are good for 20 years. Recorder Lind informed there is a binder in the office which 95 documents the updates, if Mr. Clausen wanted to review it. 96 97 Councilmember Wilson 98 • T-ball sign ups are going on and soccer is getting started. 99 • The city will get on the schedule for Arrow to do the park fence. 100 101 Councilmember Wright was absent. 102 103 Recorder Lind didn't have anything. 104 105 Mayor Rasmussen 106 •He has started finding out the process for to selling the Old Church property. He is working 107 with City Attorney Jenkins and will bring the information he finds out to the council. 108 Councilmember Clausen offered to meet with them. 109 " He would like to meet with each of the council members in the next couple weeks to discuss .110 budgets. They can also meet with FD Grover if they would like. After Mayor Rasmussen 111 meets with them, he will turn their budgets into Mr. Grover for his review. 112 113 Public Comment: Geoff Smith,757 RH Blvd., discussed that Providence residents are trying to 114 bring forth a referendum to keep the north portion ofthe Chugg property (east ofthe school)from 115 being developed with high density. Mayor Rasmussen pointed out that the south portion of the Chugg 116 property will begin development soon. 117 Ruthann Nelson,555 E 600 S,said a preliminary plat proposal for 150 dwellings, from Jeff 118 Jackson is going before the Providence Planning Commission. She said the feasibility study applies to 119 all three properties (north, south and east ofthe church). Mayor Rasmussen agreed but wanted 120 everyone to know the referendum only applies to the north portion. 121 Geoff Smith asked if the church pavilion property would be included. Mayor Rasmussen said 122 the Church will keep the pavilion, trees and church building properties. He asked, if the Church 123 property was annexed to Providence, would the Church and Johnson properties be left as an island. He 124 was told it would not(it would be surrounded by River Heights on the west and north). 125 Sharlie Gallup, 675 E 400 S,said there is a letter of intent for Visionary to purchase the 126 church's property. It hasn't been sold yet. She suggested I^ver Heights City could petition the LDS 127 Church to build another church building and pavilion there or offer to buy it. Mayor Rasmussen has 128 talked to the director of the church department. They have a letter of intent from Visionary and won't 129 entertain any other buyers unless Visionary backed out, in which case, it would go up for sale. 130 Geoff Smith asked ifthere was access from the property to 600 East. Mayor Rasmussen 131 answered,the only access to the property would be through a historical right-of-way north ofthe 132 pavilion, which can't be closed offfor public access. It seemed unlikely that a road could go through; 133 regardless, that is not a plan. 134 Ruthann Nelson was under the impression that the church was selling the east property because 135 it was landlocked. Mayor Rasmussen said the ROW is more the size ofa trail. He understood the 136 property was becoming landlocked due to the development to the east. River Heights City Council Meeting,4/11/19 137 Michelle Kimball, 952 E 480 S, asked if the property sold and stayed in River Heights what it 138 would be zoned. Mayor Rasmussen said it would be zoned single-family residential. 139 PWD Nelson said the owner of the property can choose to stay in River Heights or deannex to 140 Providence (depending on where they can get the services they need and the cost) since they are on the 141 border of both cities. Councilmember Clausen didn't believe this was a legal opinion. 142 Mayor Rasmussen explained that the potential owner of the property would like to deannex. 143 To do so, he would need the approval ofthe city council. There is nothing that says cost must be a 144 reason for deannexation, only the possibility of utility services. If River Heights can provide all 145 services, it still may not be good grounds for keeping the property. 146 Josh Paulsen, ofProvidence, asked for an explanation of the current "residential zone" in River 147 Heights. Mayor Rasmussen explained, 20% buildable, 8,000 square foot lot size. 148 Michelle Kimball doesn't want to see the property go to Providence. River Heights could gain 149 tax benefit and some input on how its developed if it stays. 150 Kathryn Hadfield, 349 S 1000 E,pointed out a few scenarios for the property; The Church 151 could decide not to sell and then the property would stay as is. Mayor Rasmussen informed that the 152 Church does desire to sell. Ms. Hadfield continued; It could stay in River Heights and whoever buys 153 the property could develop it and access it through the Providence development or get an access 154 somewhere else. Or, it could go to Providence and be part ofthe Visionary development. She pointed 155 out there may be impact fees at the beginning that River Heights would collect. There would also be 156 property taxes, which wouldn't be much, because residential areas don't make money for the city. 157 Councilmember Clausen said there may not be impact fees with an HOA because they would stand the 158 cost of infrastructure maintenance. There wouldn't be an impact on the city if the city didn't take it 159 over. 160 Nikki Tate, 445 S 850 E,asked if the property stayed in River Heights would our city still be 161 maintaining the infrastructure. Mayor Rasmussen said, not if it's an HOA. However, sometimes 162 property owners may not get the help they need from their HOA and turn to their government for 163 assistance. Ms. Tate pointed out the potential for a referendum on the November ballot and four new 164 council members in Providence, which could shut down the developer's current plan. She suggested 165 putting off a decision on the church property because the plans could become completely different 166 after November. 167 Laura Fisher, 1590 Canyon Road in Providence, said their past mayor, Don Calderwood has 168 said its unlikely that the south side will be developed because ofthe possible standstill on the north 169 side, which will affect the construction ofthe bridges. Mayor Rasmussen believes Providence has 170 agreed to pay a portion ofthe upper bridge. He understands the access is at Spring Creek or 1000 East. 171 He thought the bridge was a separate issue and the south developer would be required to pay their 172 portion of it. He hopes when the northern section is done there will be access. 173 Shellie Giddings asked for the River Heights Council to slow down and not make a decision 174 right now. She guessed the developer was pushing. The city doesn't have to give in. 175 Gary Wilkingson asked what River Heights would gain by allowing the property to go to 176 Providence. Mayor Rasmussen said there are pros and cons either way. He understands the desire to 177 slow a decision but he is sensitive to a developer wanting to know how to move forward. He agreed 178 there are emotional feelings toward Visionary. If the property stayed in River Heights, any developer 179 meeting the"city's requirements would be able to move forward. The property has the potential of49 180 lots with current zoning. Jeff Jackson is proposing 38 lots, a lot of green space and high quality single- 181 family homes. If we allow a boundary adjustment and he starts development soon we will get a nice 182 plan. If the referendum then goes through, it would be too late to do townhomes in this area. There is River Heights City Council Meeting,4/11/19  183 also no access to 600 East in River Heights, which makes sense to have the property in Providence 184 where the access is. Iflegal battles continue with the whole development, it would be easier to have 185 all the properties in the same city. Mr. Wilkinson questioned why River Heights would stick their 186 neck out for Jeff Jackson when he doesn't own the property yet. He didn't trust that Mr. Jackson 187 would follow his word. If a legal battle comes up, the Utah Local Government Trust will be paying 188 the legal fees, not River Heights City. He doesn't want to see River Heights get bullied, but rather to 189 get a desired outcome. 190 Cindy Montoya is not happy with Providence. She has seen 3 different plans from Visionary, 191 each one has increased in density. 192 Mayor Rasmussen pointed out that the first plan they brought to River Heights was all single- 193 family homes. River Heights asked him to come back with a plan that showed variety, rather than a 194 cookie-cutter look. 195 Jamie Saltem went to school with Jeff Jackson. She asked him after the public hearing in River 196 Heights what he was doing. He admitted to her that his high-density plan was about money. She 197 asked if he would want it in his backyard and he said it didn't matter because it wasn't going to be in 198 his yard. 199 Josh Paulsen said the Providence Planning Commission is revisiting their LCR ordinance. 200 Roxanne Bilbao, Windsor Drive, was in an earlier meeting with Jeff Jackson where her 201 husband asked if he would be able to make a profit with a single-family development. Mr. Jackson 202 said he could but he wouldn't. 203 Richard Johnson said his property has been included in Providence's annexation plan. He 204 wants his property to stay in River Heights. Mayor Rasmussen explained that a property owner would 205 need to initiate an annexation to another city. 206 Ruthann Nelson asked how a decision could be made ifthe church hasn't petitioned to 207 deannex. Mayor Rasmussen said the council isn't deciding on a deannexation tonight, but rather just 208 discussing how they feel about it. They could decide with Providence to do a boundary adjustment. If 209 Visionary ends up buying the property and its decided the property would be better offin Providence, 210 then the cities would adopt a resolution to make a boundary adjustment, have a public hearing and then 211 file it with the county. 212 Andrew Cobabe supported earlier comments. He hoped River Heights could maintain control. 213 Mayor Rasmussen addressed "not knowing what a developer would do." According to the 214 River Heights attomey, if the property was allowed to go to Providence, River Heights would make 215 100% sure that the developer would be legally bound to what he said he was going to build. The 216 current plan is a better plan than River Heights would require of a developer. '217 Josh Paulson invited River Heights councilmembers to attend a Providence Planning 218 Commission to join in a dialog on how to get what they all want. 219 Jessica Wilkinson agreed they are showing a good plan. But, why would River Heights give up 220 the right to have any say on the property. Ultimately, the developer will look out for himself. 221 Gary Wilkinson said he's an attomey and pointed out there is no 100% guarantee that River 222 Heights would get what they wanted if it went to Providence. 223 Roxanne Bilbao asked if the Army Corp of Engineers has investigated the property's water 224 table. She was told they determined there couldn't be basements. 225 Josh Paulson said Providence recently reviewed their contract with the sheriffs department. 226 There is concem that higher density will raise demands on emergency calls by 30%. They are already 227 strained to stay within their contracted hours. He stated he has been impressed with how River Heights 228 has handled themselves with this issue. He said Providence gives the impression that there is some River Heights City Council Meeting, 4/11/19 229 kind of collusion with them and the developer to help him get what he wants. It doesn't make sense to 230 the residents. He'd like to see it all slow down. 231 Councilmember Clausen felt the property should stay in River Heights. Councilmember Scott 232 agreed. Councilmember Thatcher also agreed and would like to see any decision pushed back. 233 PWD Nelson suggested not waiting for a decision because if River Heights wants to keep it, 234 they need to be working on sewer easements through a property that is up for sale right now. If Jeff 235 Jackson pushes to go to Providence he may get it because River Heights has no road access. 236 Mayor Rasmussen said if River Heights wanted to keep it, they could work on providing an 237 access on 600 East. A number of people were not supportive of this idea at all. 238 Planning Commissioner Noel Cooley suggested another access possibility would be through 239 Dan Weston's cul-de-sac to the north. 240 Councilmember Wilson feels it best for the property to stay in River Heights, at this point. 241 Councilmember Scott said if all traffic would funnel east through Providence, then River 242 Heights should keep the property. If we need to provide an access on 600 East then give it to 243 Providence. 244 Mayor Rasmussen will look into the ramifications of an access onto 600 South and how much 245 say River Heights would have on it. He will email the information he finds out. 246 Councilmember Wilson doesn't believe they have enough information for a decision. 247 Adoption of An Ordinance to Create a Fence Section in the River Heights Citv Code: PWD 248 Nelson explained the proposed fence ordinance. The suggested changes came from all the current 249" confusion. He has been a proponent of'no permit required' to prevent the city from being involved in 250 potential legal issues. About a year ago the code was changed to allow six foot fences on comer lots, 251 as long as they were transparent. The changes being discussed tonight require any fence along a road 252 to be transparent if its over four feet. 253 Councilmember Thatcher expressed opposition to 10-12-3:D regarding no chain link fences. 254 She felt it was elitist. 255 Mayor Rasmussen recommended that a person building a fence fill out an agreement that they 256 had read the fence code, in an effort to keep track ofthem. PWD Nelson explained that the city 257 usually finds out about them when they call in a blue stake. The Zoning Clearance Permit for building 258 a house would have fence regulations attached. It can also be included in the Utility Service 259 Agreement. The city could require them to sign that they have read it. Fencing companies also keep 260 up on the city mles pretty good. 261 Zoning Administrator Don Davis clarified the city would receive no fee, if there was no 262 requirement for a fence application. He was told this is true. He pointed out that the language states a 263 fence can be 4 foot or 6 foot transparent. He suggested clarification on what the situation would be on 264 a 5 foot fence. 265 Councilmember Thatcher wanted to remove the regulation about no chain link. She said 266 wrought iron is very expensive, and vinyl isn't good material. Chain link is not ghetto fence. Banning 267 it is saying that an ordinary person can't afford to live in River Heights. She doesn't want River 268 Heights to be high end. Chain link is dog and child proof and is affordable and transparent. Mayor 269 Rasmussen pointed out other 90% transparent options that cost less than chain link. 270 Councilmember Wilson asked how much the city would save by doing chain link along the 271 brow of the hill, compared to wrought iron. PWD Nelson reported the 700 South fence was going to 272 cost $4,800 in chain link but ended up costing $11,000 in wrought iron. 273 P'WD Nelson continued his explanation of the suggested ordinance changes. River Heights City Council Meeting,4/11/19 274 Councilmember Thatcher moved to "adopt Ordinance 1-2019, An Ordinance to Create a 275 Fence Section in the River Heights City Code with the changes suggested and deletion of the 276 proposed 10-12-3:D, which bans chain link fences." Councilmember Wilson seconded the 277 motion. Wilson and Thatcher were in favor. Clausen and Scott were opposed. Mayor 278 Rasmussen broke the tie by opposing, which killed the motion. Wright was absent. 279 Councilmember Clausen moved to "adopt Ordinance 1-2019, An Ordinance to Create a Fence 280 Section in the River Heights City Code with the changes." Councilmember Scott seconded. Mayor 281 Rasmussen asked for further discussion. 282 It was pointed out that chain link would be okay if it was within the setback. PWD Nelson 283 Clayten said that is currently the case. 284 Councilmember Scott sees potential problems with those who haven't been allowed to do a 285 chain link and now they can. They may be upset about the amount of money they spent. 286 Much discussion was held on deciphering and deciding on where they would allow chain link. 287 It was decided anyone could have chain link as long as it's not outside of their setback. The title of the 288 section was changed to: Fence Regulations within Setbacks. 289 Councilmember Clausen moved to "adopt Ordinance 1-2019, An Ordinance to Create a 290 Fence Section in the River Heights City Code, with the adjustments/corrections discussed by the 291 mayor regarding four feet, six feet and transparency and adding to 10-12-3, the wording "within 292 setbacks." Councilmember Scott seconded the motion, which carried with Clausen, Scott and 293 Wilson in favor. Thatcher opposed. Wright was absent. 294 Presentation of a Potential Recreational Trail: ProLog Irrigation President Chris Milbank 295 handed out some information about repairs the irrigation company made above Denzil Stewart Nature 296 Park. An outcome of the repairs was ±e creation ofa walking path about 8-12 feet wide. It starts 297 where the pump house is at 600 East River Heights Blvd, one block from the city's park. It would end 298 in Logan's Stewart Nature Park. He's talked about it and showed many people, all of whom are in 299 favor. He was in attendance to ask for city for support. The problem might be with the property 300 owners. They currently have a prescription easement for the irrigation line but would need a different 301 type of easement for a trail on their property. 302 Councilmember Clausen asked Dayton Crites (Cache County Trails Specialist) the process for 303 getting easements. Mr. Crites said the first step is usually sending a letter explaining the benefits of a 304 trail. Conversations through supporters who already know the property owners is also effective. To 305 get an easement is ideal; license agreements also work but are not as permanent. 306 Discussion was held on property line gaps. Dayten Crites said these would be cleaned up. 307 Landowners on both sides ofthe canal would need to be contacted since the property division usually 308 runs through the middle of the easement. 309 Chris Milbank informed that trails increase the value of homes and state law limits liability on 310 trails. 311 Councilmember Clausen suggested putting it on a future agenda and asking all the landowners 312 to come to the meeting. Mr. Crites proposed determining a light understanding of for and against from 313 property owners first. 314 Councilmember Thatcher said she loves the idea but is concerned about safety for women on 315 the trails. Dayten Crites explained why he feels it would be safe; its adjacent to a city park and open. 316 He volunteered to pull police records on the area. 317 Councilmember Wilson asked what they would be asking for from the city, ifthe property 318 owners gave their permission. Mr. Milbank said just support for now. Mr. Crites said if River 319 Heights, Logan and ProLog contribute seed money, other matching funds are possible. River Heights City Council Meeting,4/11/19 320 Councilmember Clausen suggested some ofthe council members talk to certain property 321 owners. Mayor Rasmussen felt if support was gained, it could be put on the agenda to determine what 322 kind offunding they could contribute. Councilmember Scott suggested councilmembers could 323 accompany Mr. Milbank when talking to property owners, as a show ofsupport. 324 Mayor Rasmussen said they are in favor and asked Mr. Milbank to work with him to determine 325 which councilmembers could go with him. 326 Discuss and Decide if the Church Owned Property. East ofthe LDS Church Building on 600 E. 327 will Stay in River Heights or go to Providence: Discussion was held during public comment. 328 The meeting adjourned at 8:15 p.m. 329 330 331 332 Sheila Lind, Recorder 333 334 Todd A. Rasmussen, Mayor River Heights City Council Meeting,4/11/19  Please print your name on the roll. A.f\ '^x^T^XA^xy ffl icUii \CiM^'dL V(\^\ccr\^jL flo'^.A-tll^'^ Y i I ^xxxbcmxMlcnsA^ (iW^ wiw-ivJs^W — 6i(^diyiy SAKY Y:- /A Clit/iduM-oA-kc/^ oht "' l>to ('W'^k yfjalh'i€ Vi'o^-e ■fV-W Tai+ C^35yv 'Vaa.lSAa ( ?iro\J ^icWrA -^qIascvx Ulou^ .iaJ ChXiS Yvilto^Ky^ -\va\)f^wy^ OM)^r\ Oi-kyS  River Heights City Bills To.He Paid \ 4/10/2019 Payee,' pescription Admin. P&Z Parks/Rec Pub. Safety Com.Aff. Roads Water Sewer Total 10-39 Online Annual Web Hosting $360.00 $360.00 Bear River Heailh Depmtment Water Conform Testing $40.00 , $40.00 Blue Stakes OfUt^ E-mail Notifications 1.29 $8.29 - $8.53 $25.11 Cache Valley Publishing Planning Commission -Ad $45.89 $45.89 Caselle, Inc. Monthly Support Fee $91.69 $91.66 $91.65 $275:00 Century.Equipment Back Hoe Window Latch $5.27 S5.28 $5.27 $15.82 Coates & Coats, LLC Hydrojett 2 Main Lines 600 S. 500 E $400.00 $400.00 Daines & Jenkins Telecon regards to Brian Anderson Ixtter $81.00 $81.00 Freedom Mailing Services, Inc. Bill Processing $144.84 $48.28 $48.28 ■ $241.40 International Institute of Municipal Clerk Annual Membership $170.00 $1^0.00 It Worics Technician to Assist Back-ups $67.50 •$67,50 Lee's Plumbing Park Bathroom Flush Valw, New ball, S241.50 $241.50, Lowe's Cojicrete Mix, Electronic Measure, T^e $52.96 $108.92 S52.96 $52.95 $267.79 Rockj' Mountain Power Electricity $87.81 $78.60 $25.69 SI.194.33 $1,796.82 $45.39 $3,228.64 Roto Rooter Portable Toilet $130.00 $130.00 Rural Water Association of Utali Member Dues $793.00 $793.00 Sam's Club Late Fee SI 7.64 $17.64 Secure Instant Payments Monthly Credit/Online Processing $14.57 $14.57 $14.56 $43.70 The Clean Spot Park Reslroom Supplies $77.15 $77.15 Thomas Petroleum Fuel for City Vehicles s $54.99 $54.98 $54.98 $54.98 $219.93 21 iTodd Rasmussen Newsletter Deliveiy $I30.00| $130.00 22!vcrizon Wireless Monthly City Cell Phones $21.92; $21.92 $21.94 $65.78 23 Xerox Corpoiation Monthly Copier Usage Fee S20.9gl $20.98 24 i i 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 \ 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 145 146 Page 1 SiibTotals $1,207.95 $45.89 $635.20 $25.69 1,371.79 $2,927.76 $74.3.55 $6,957.83 River Heights City Financial Summary March 31,2019 02/28/19 03/31/19 Net Change % of Total General Fund 165,106.95 179,941.03 14,834.08 10.14% Capital Projects Fund 101,441.45 131,309.38 29,867.93 7.40% Water Fund 572,469.11 583,680.81 11,211.70 32.90% Sewer Fund 875,215.65 879,023.57 3,807.92 49.55% Total Cash Balance 1,714,233.16 1,773,954.79 59,721.63 100.00% %0f Unexpended Budget % Of Time YTD Actual Annual Budget Budget Incurred Incurred General Fund Revenue 611,203.21 757,030.00 145,826.79 80.74% 75.07% Expenditures Administrative 101,716.74 162,050.00 60,333.26 62.77% 75.07% Office 10,748.94 17,120.00 6,371.06 62.79% 75.07% Community Affairs 8,919.16 18,400.00 9,480.84 48.47% 75.07% Planning & Zoning 2,789.81 8,470.00 5,680.19 32.94% 75.07% Pubiic Safety 75,366.00 86,400.00 11,034.00 87.23% 75.07% Roads 66,518.78 104,000.00 37,481.22 63.96% 75.07% Parks & Recreation 40,943.75 90,800.00 49,856.25 45.09% 75.07% Sanitation 127,333.19 150,000.00 22,666.81 84.89% 75.07% TransferTo CP Fund 120,000.00 120,000.00 - 100.00% Total Expenditures 554,336.37 757,240.00 202,903.63 73.20% 75.07% Net Revenue Over Expenditures 56,866.84 (210.00) (57,076.84) Capital Projects Fund Revenue 1,487.68 400.00 (1,087.68) 75.07% Reimbursement Income 30,000.00 - (30,000.00) Transfer From Generai Fund 120,000.00 120,000.00 - Expenditures Administrative 130,000.00 130,000.00 75.07% Parks & Recreation 152,750.00 152,750.00 75.07% Roads 283,028.42 757,750.00 474,721.58 75.07% - - - 75.07% Total Expenditures 283,028.42 1,040,500.00 757,471.58 75.07% Net Revenue Over Expenditures (131,540.74) (920,100.00) (788,559.26) Water Fund Revenue 281,892.01 346,130.00 64,237.99 81.44% 75.07% Expenditures 156,964.81 272,250.00 115,285.19 57.65% 75.07% Net Revenue Over Expenditures 124,927.20 73,880.00 (51,047.20) Sewer Fund Revenue 218,766.60 249,500.00 30,733.40 87.68% 75.07% Expenditures 204,186.24 310,250.00 106,063.76 65.81% 75.07% Net Revenue Over Expenditures 14,580.36 (60,750.00) (75,330.36)  Ordinance 1-2019 AN ORDINANCE TO CREATE A FENCE SECTION IN THE RIVER HEIGHTS CITY CODE - The River Heights City Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on Tuesday, April 2, 2019, after which, the River Heights City Council adopted the following changes to the River Heights City Code. 10-12-3: FENCE REGULATIONS CerPfiokS' A. Fences and Walls Maximum Height (from sidewalk or road grade) 1. Front Yard: 4 feet 2. Side Yard, Interior Lot: 6 feet 4 ^ 3. Side Yard on a Street (except corner lot): 4 feet or.-^4e€t.90% transparent .> ^ 4. Side Yard on a Street (corner lot): 4 feet orf6 feet 90% tr^parent^ 5. Rear Yard: 6 feet KKvfr' 6. Rear Yard on a Street (except corner lot): 4 feet oi^6 feet 90% transparent 7. Rear Yard on a Street (corner lot): 4 feet orf6 feet 90% transparent B. No Permit Required: The Citv does not issue permits for fences. HOWEVER,fences built outside city code regulations will be brought into compliance at the owners' expense. C. Replacement of a Fence: When replacing an existing fence, the new fence must be brought into compliance with the current citv code. D. No Chain Link: Chain link is not allowed in the front yard, side yards on a street, and rear yards on a street. Corner Lots: When the rear yard of a corner lot is adjacent to the front yard of a neighboring lot, a 6 foot (6') fence is allowed in the part of the corner lot's rear and side yard that is adjacent to the neighboring lot's front-yard setback area foot or. 6 feet— Iransparent rrn'iirrrl Viffthtfi setback). All fences on corner lots shall comply with 10- 13-15: Clear View of Intersecting Streets shown in the following figure. I tnaruMFOctKKKT* enTRWEPworr anorKurmwBn anoTiux RXSieCHT nffiMTnffl KUTiin R»rTM) 4nor 4norUK 4netUK RMCSHBEHr RKiioea NfffiXTYSUV mmriMD u 10-2-1: DEFINITIONS Transparent Fence: Fence design and construction shall be 90% visually and physically open to allow a minimallv'obstructed view of sidewalks and streets. 10-3-4:6 Requirements: Zoning Clearance Permit:... required for the following: Or. Foncos in tho required setbacks; 10-12-2:A Remove "Fences and Walls" section of Table 2, Including note 3, figure 10-1-2-2, and "The city will evaluate the proposed fence material and determine if the ..." Adopted and effective this 11'^ day of April 2019. Todd A. Rasmussen, Mayor Attest: Sheila Llnd, Recorder Underlined verbiage Is new to the existing ordinance. ^ Legend _che :i2 ounty ^ Frontera Canal Trail - Ta-. V Phase 1 Phase 2 Other Trails To be built Paved Pathway Bike Lane Unpaved Pathway 5i5r/,« '-<.r"~TgT T*?^ UDOTRoutes parks Ownership Bounds •< e t\j|er Heights hi Letter T )late  m. '1 r  The Impact of Trails on House Prices in Ogden, Utah Matthew Gnagey Therese Grijalva EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Convenient and local access to open green space is highly valued in communities of individuals who participate in natural resource outdoor recreation. Understanding.the value outdoor recreation communities place on access to open space is critical for informing policy decisions on land use including zoning and other restrictions, government open space purchases, and open space access points such as trailheads. In order to evaluate the benefits of increasing access to trails, this research estimates the value individuals place on trailheads in Ogden, Utah throu^ their housing choices. The value of trailheads are estimated using the premium people are willing to pay for living in a house that is closer to trailheads. This premium is disentangled from neighborhood and house characteristics, elevation, and straight-line distance to the mountains. Purpose of the Research Study The purpose of this paper is to analyze the impact of trail access on property values in Ogden,Utah. Outdoor recreation communities have explicit objectives of promoting, enhancing, and maintaining access to outdoor recreation. One way to meet their objectives is by adding and improving trail access points, where such projects compete for funds dedicated to any number of projects to enhance outdoor recreation or public green space in the community. Estimating the value of this accessibility is therefore critical for policymakers to justify these expenses. Method of Data Gathering The study uses 2,711 house sales for the years 2014-2016, but additional data going back to 1999 with a total of 29,537 sales is used to understand changing values overtime. Travel time is calculated from each house to trailheads around the city using google maps API. The effect of trail access is separated from proximity to public open space by controlling for distance to the mountains, elevation, and whether there is a view of the mountains. Additional house and neighborhood characteristic are also included in the models. The statistical technique used is the hedonic pricing method. Hedonic pricing is used to identify how much each attribute of a good contributes to the market price ofthat good. Through statistical methods, researchers are able to isolate what a typical resident is willing to pay for an additional bathroom, an additional square foot of house, a minute closer drive to a trailhead, etc. An analogy can be made with grocery store purchases. Suppose researchers new what thousands of consumers spent at a grocery store and what items they purchased, but they did not have an itemized receipt for each consumer. Using statistical methods,researchers could take these totals and the items purchased and identify the price of a box of cereal. Using this technique, the valuations for trail access in general as well as for specific trailheads in different areas ofthe city are estimated. Spatial statistical techniques in the hedonic model,such as putting in a dummy variable for each neighborhood, control for spatial dependency in property values and correct for potentially spatially correlated omitted variables. Overview of Findings The main finding is a large, significant, positive values for proximity to trailheads in Ogden, Utah. Each minute drive closer to a trailhead is associated with a 1.4% to 1.9% increase in house price. Using the average house price in the city of$165,000,one minute closer to a trailhead corresponds to between a $2,310 and $3,135 value. Looking back from 1999,there is an initial premium of0.5%,($825 for an average priced house)which has increased annually by 0.07%($115 for an average priced house). Interestingly, trailheads in different areas of the city have different price gradients. Spatial models identify these regions throughout the city which have different valuations,suggesting the value of proximity to trailheads has a greater impact on house prices in certain neighborhoods within the city. This also may suggest outdoor enthusiasts are self-selecting into certain neighborhoods within the city. Recommendations Large valuations ofthe accessibility of trails, particularly considering the growth in this valuation over time, provides justification for substantial expenditures on continuing to improve and create new trail access points. However, an important caveat is that it is critical to conduct future research examining the long-term demographic changes in Ogden and changes in demand that may affect the valuations of trailheads. For example, increased congestion, as more outdoor enthusiasts move to Ogden, may negatively affect trail values. Furthermore, increased property values associated with improving the outdoor recreation accessibility may unintentionally price certain populations out of neighborhoods.  Cache County Attorney ames M.-Swink Barbara K. Lachmar Jacob C. Gordon Cache County Attorney Daniel V. Major Aaron M. Jossie Tony C.Baird Lee Edwards ChiefDeputy Griffin M.Hazard Deputy County Attorneys Spencer D.Walsh ChiefProsecutor Terryl Warner 199 North Main Street Jenny Nielsen Logan, Utah 84321 Sara Owen (435)755-1860 Tonya Ryan Fax:(435)755-1969 or(435)755-1970 Victim Advocates E-mail:(first initialj(last tiamc)@cacheattomey.org January 15,2019 This Document is developed in order to provide Cache County residents.and others a clear understanding of Utah-specific legislation and case law regarding the legal impact and ramifications ofpublic recreation on private lands. Re: Limitations on Landowner Liability Relating to Recreational Use . ■ The Utah State Legislature has enacted in Utah Code Title 57, Chapter 14, provisions that limit landowner liability when private property is used by the public without charging a fee for recreational purposes. See Utah Code Ann, §§ 57-14-101 to -401. Utah Code Ann. § 57-14-102 states as follows: ^^Recreationalpurpose"includes, but is not limited to, any ofthefollowing or any ' ■ combination thereof: hunting;fishing; swimming;skiing; snqwshqeing; camping;picnicking; hiking;studying nature; wgterskiing; engaging in water sports; engaging in equestrian activities; using boats; mountain biking; riding narrow gauge rail cars on a narrow gauge • track that does not exceed 24 inch gauge; using off-highway vehicles or recreational vehicles; viewing or enjoying historical, archaeological, scenic, or scientific sites; aircraft operations; • .and equestrian activity, skateboarding, skydiving, paragliding, hang gliding, roller skating, ice skating,.walldng, running,jogging, bike riding, or in-line skating. .• Utah Courts have addressed the application of the Limitations on Landowner Liability - Act. The Utah Supreme Court considered the background ofthese statutes and found that the • purpose ofthe provisions that specifically limit the common law liability of a landowner who "directly or indirectly invites or permits" non-paying recreational use of its land to any such recreational users is "to promote the opening ofprivate lands to public recreational use." Tlie Utah Supreme Court held that: "before,a landowner could qualify for the limitations on common law liability, it mustshow that it has "made[its]property available to at least some members ofthe general publicfor recreational purposes."  Golding V. Ashley Cent. Irxigation Co., 793 P.2d 897,900(Utah Sup.Ct. 1990) citing Crawford v. Tilley, 780 P.2d 1248(Utah Sup.Ct. 1989). Both the Golding case and the Crawford case held that the landowner was not able to take advantage.of the liihitation on liability provisions because they had not opened their property to the public for a recreational use. There are no other appellate cases in Utah that iinpose liability on a property owner that allows a recreational use if they have complied with the provisions of the Limitations on Landowner Liability Act. The Limitations on Liability provisions ofthe Utah Code provides that if an owner of land who either directly or indirectly invites or permits without charge, any person to use the owner's land for any recreational purpose, the owner does not: make any representation or extend any assurance that the land is safe for any purpose; confer upon the>person the legal status of an invitee or licensee to whom a duty of care is owed; assume responsibility for or incur liability for any injury to persons or property caused by an act or omission ofthe person or any otlier person who enters upon the land; or owe any duty to curtail the owner's use of the land during its use for recreational purposes. . . In conclusion, a landowner that opens his or her land to the public for recreational . purposes,including public trails, receives more protections from potential tort liability. Lee Edwar County Attorney lache County f - ^ Average Price pd; 1 I i Average.Price All (Non-Trails+" Average Price psf '2015 Assessor Data (psf): Trailheads+Parks) (Trails+Trgiiheads+parks). Recreatipn Bump ! 1 • . . ... Commercial Properties 38.4 44.2 25.2 iResidentioi.Propeffies: . 23, ■ 22'.3 ■ , '■ 25.5 ■ ■ ■ ^ ■ m Commercial + Residential 24.1 24.3 25.5 .,r [All Propertied ^ ' \:23:59 r ' ■ .; >;24^; ^ v..  4^ign>*i;r«iA.. t tnr i PARK ACTIVE ADULT lir — J^: —V.V Yli .' /M': u i T -jM a Co,S®0 CowH"'^ Oj^rcid- more, R)<" ci UR- V Lt^- SVi^oof t, U,oopmt( lUikr