City Council

River Heights City COUNCIL MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, May 4, 2021 Notice is hereby given that the River Heights City Council will hold its regular council meeting beginning at 6:30 p.m., anchored from the River Heights City Office Building at 520 S 500 E. The meeting will be held through Zoom. Those wishing to provide comment on any of the agenda items or other topics can do so by email to office@riverheights.org (by noon on the date of the meeting). Adoption of Previous Minutes and Agenda Reports and Approval of Payments(Mayor, Council, Staff) Public Comment Sheriff's Report Ranked Choice Voting Presentation by County Clerk Jess Bradfield Possible Adoption of a Resolution Requesting Inclusion of River Heights City, Utah In the Municipal Alternate Voting Methods Pilot Project Possible Adoption of a Resolution Approving an Agreement with Cache County for the 2021 Municipal Election Continued Discussion Concerning Water Connections for County Residents Discuss an Ordinance for Supplying Water to County Residents 2021-22 Budget Discussion Adjourn To join the Zoom meeting: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84706332838 Dial: 1 346 248 7799, Meeting ID: 847 0633 2838 Posted this day of May 2021 Sheila Lind, Recor^r Attachments for this meeting and previous meeting minutes can be found on the State's Public Notice Website (pmn.utah.gov). In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations(including auxiliary 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 8c Fax (435) 752-2646  River Heights City 3 Council Meeting 4 May 4, 2021 5 6 7 Present: Mayor Todd Rasmussen 8 Council members: Doug Clausen, electronic 9 Sharlie Gallup 10 Nancy Huntly 11 Chris Milbank 12 Blake Wright 13 14 Recorder Sheila Lind 15 Finance Director Cliff Grover, electronic 16 Treasurer Wendy Wilker, electronic 17 18 Excused: Public Works Director Clayten Nelson 19 20 Others Present: Rockie Ricks, Vern Fielding, Lt. Bartchi, Heather 21 Lehnig, Bob Ellis, Rod Ellis, Mary and Rob Johnson, Mary Kate Morley, Rita Minkler, Jason Thompson 24 Present Electronically: Jess Bradfield, Cascio Family, 25 26 The following motions were made during the meeting: 27 28 Motion #1 29 Councilmember Wright moved to "adopt the minutes of the council meeting of April 20, 2021 and 30 the evening's agenda as edited." Councilmember Milbank seconded the motion, which passed with 31 Clausen, Gallup, Huntly, Milbank, and Wright in favor. No one opposed. 32 33 Motion #2 34 Councilmember Gallup moved to "pay the bills as listed." Councilmember Milbank seconded the 35 motion, which passed with Clausen, Gallup, Huntly, Milbank, and Wright in favor. No one opposed. 36 37 Motion #3 38 Councilmember Milbank moved to "adopt Resolution 3-2021, A Resolution Requesting Inclusion of 39 River Heights City in the Municipal Alternate Voting Methods Pilot Project." Councilmember Huntly 40 seconded the motion, which passed with Clausen, Gallup, Huntly and Milbank in favor. Wright opposed. 41 42 Motion #4 43 Councilmember Wright moved to "adopt Resolution 2-2021, A Resolution Approving an Agreement with Cache County for the 2021 Municipal Election." Councilmember Milbank seconded the motion, which passed with Clausen, Gallup, Huntly, Milbank, and Wright in favor. No one opposed. Hulghsti 618^ MuyUngj 520 South 500 East River Heights, Utah 84321 Phone & Fax (435)752-2646 46 47 48 Proceedings of the Meeting: 49 50 The River Heights City Council met at 6:30 p.m. In the Ervin R. Crosbie Council Chambers in the 51 River Heights City Building on Tuesday, May 4, 2021 for their regular council meeting. 52 Mayor Rasmussen announced it was the first meeting to use the video-recording set up. 53 Adoption of Previous Minutes and Agenda: Minutes for the April 20, 2021 meeting were 54 reviewed. Mayor Rasmussen stated the two agenda items regarding water to county residents will not be 55 discussed at the evening's meeting. 56 Councllmember Wright moved to "adopt the minutes of the council meeting of April 20,2021 57 and the evening's agenda as edited." Councllmember Milbank seconded the motion, which passed with 58 Clausen, Gallup, Huntly, Milbank, and Wright in favor. No one opposed. 59 Reports and Approval of Pavments(Mavor. Council. Staff): 60 Public Works Director Nelson was absent. 61 FDGrover 62 • He has received everyone's budgets and will put them together and send them back out in the 63 next few days for review. 64 Treasurer Wilker 65 • She presented and answered questions regarding the list of bills to be paid. 66 Councllmember Gallup moved to "pay the bills as listed." Councllmember Milbank 67 seconded the motion, which passed with Clausen, Gallup, Huntly, Milbank, and Wright In favor. 68 No one opposed. 69 Sheriffs Report: Lt. Bartchi (filling in for Sheriff Jensen) gave a general briefing on the contract 70 between the city and sheriffs office. They are asking for an increase in their hours to 278, but will only 71 charge the city for 238 hours. They have already doubled the contract hours this year. They always want 72 to over perform at 150%. Last year they responded to 240 calls. They are getting tougher on DDIs and 73 predators. Most of the calls they respond to are citizen assists. 74 Mayor Rasmussen asked about animal control and informed that there are many dogs in the park, 75 but no citations being given out. Lt. Bartchi said the animal control officers seem to spend most of their 76 hours in reactive calls. Mayor Rasmussen said they are seen in River Heights sitting in their cars. Lt. 77 Bartchi said they have had some conversations with them about it. 78 Mayor Rasmussen said he emailed an explanation of how the beer tax works to each of the 79 council members. 80 Councilmember Gallup 81 • The Ambassadors are very busy organizing their summer activities. 82 Councilmember Huntly 83 • She informed the group that Councilmember Clausen has contacted a real estate person who is 84 willing to give us a friendly cost estimate on the Old Church. 85 Councilmember Milbank 86 • He informed that Councilmember Wright will meet with Christopher Sands to discuss the park 87 contract. 88 • He talked with a person from the West Conway Church to find out more about them. They are 89 based out of Texas and said they are willing to put In a lot of money to upgrade Old Church. 90 Mayor Rasmussen is working on the RFP restrictions. Other cbuncilmembers were asked to give River Heights City Council Meeting,5/4/21 r' their RFP suggestions to the mayor. He will combine them Into a final RFP to put out for one of two options: A long term lease or purchasing the property. 93 Councilmember Wright didn't have anything to report. 94 Ranked Choice Voting fRCV) Presentation bv County Clerk Jess Bradfield: Mr. Bradfield explained 95 that he was initially against RCV because he wasn't sure the County had the knowledge to run this type of 96 election. They have since hired staff who are very capable and experienced. Utah County ran the RCV 97 pilot program during their 2019 election and it seemed to go well. Some pros to RCV are: Cost savings, 98 due to no primary and being able to rank the candidates. The one con is the limited amount of time for "99 voter education on the program before the actual election. He explained they will be using the universal 100 tabulator, which is certified through the state, and is able to run this type of election efficiently. 101 Mayor Rasmussen asked If there has been any pushback from candidates for the cost to run a 102 campaign up until November. Mr. Bradfield said the extended amount of time for campaigning could play 103 in a candidates favor if they use it to get to know more of their constituents. 104 Rockie Ricks asked how the ballots are scored. Mr. Bradfield explained how the votes are 105 tabulated: The candidate with the majority votes is chosen. If there is no candidate with a majority, they 106 remove the candidate with the lowest votes. Ballots with that candidate as the number one pick are 107 added back into the count using their second choice candidate. If there still is not a majority vote at that 108 point, the next candidate with the lowest votes is removed and alternate votes distributed again...and so 109 on until a majority winner is chosen. 110 Councilmember Gallup asked If Utah County encountered any problems the year they ran the RCV 111 election. Mr. Bradfield said Utah County is doing it this way again because it worked well for them. 112 Mr. Bradfield pointed out that by going with RCV and having the county run the city's election this ; year, it would ease the workload for the city recorder. He is very confident in his staff to run a vote-by- Vi4 mail election and the RCV program. 115 Recorder Lind asked for clarification that the cost would be near $2,718, rather than $5,436 116 because there will only be one election. Mr. Bradfield affirmed this was true. He explained the cost 117 analysis and said the city can save money by encouraging voters to use drop boxes for their ballots, rather 118 than mailing them back. The final bill will be tabulated by the true cost to the County. They are not in it 119 to make money. 120 Councilmember Clausen felt the City should try RCV. He said it seemed more fair to the 121 candidates. 122 Councilmember Wright wished for more information, however,felt supportive based on what he 123 knew so far. 124 Councilmember Gallup wished she could get feedback from the voting public in Utah County. 125 Councilmember Huntly didn't think RCV would make much difference compared to how the city 126 has been tabulating their results in the past. She has heard positive comments about RCV and felt it 127 would be a good idea to try it. 128 Councilmember Milbank liked that it gave candidates more time to make themselves known and it 129 will save the city money to not have a primary. _130 Possible Adoption of a Resolution Requesting Inclusion of River Heights Citv. Utah in the Municipal 131 Alternate Voting Methods Pilot Project: 132 Councilmember Miibank moved to "adopt Resolution 3-2021, A Resolution Requesting Inclusion 133 of River Heights City in the Municipal Alternate Voting Methods Pilot Project." Councilmember Huntly 134 seconded the motion, which passed with Clausen, Gallup, Huntly and Miibank in favor. Wright opposed. 1 JO Councilmember Wright explained he was representing those residents who may be against. River Heights City Council Meeting,5/4/21 3 137 Public Comment: Vern Fielding, real estate agent representing the Ellis and Demars properties, 138 read a letter submitted by Brian Lundahl, in support of high density development of the properties. He 139 then read a letter from the Ellis family, requesting 10 units per acre. Mayor Rasmussen read the 140 signatures. Mr. Fielding finished by reading a letter from Howard Demars, requesting higher density and 141 giving examples of possibilities. 142 Jason Thompson, a resident in the Riverdaie area, said he will bring signatures at the public 143 hearing when the code changes are discussed. He is not supportive of high density housing. The people 144 he has talked to are also not supportive. He discussed some of the problems incurred by current 145 apartments in the area. He explained, the residents in the area are not against development, but they are 146 against 10 units to the acre. He encouraged council members to remember what the people of River 147 Heights really want. He hopes it isn't just a win for the developers. 148 Rod Ellis would like to see their property stay in River Heights. He felt it would be a good idea for 149 the councii and commission to read the judge's decision on the Lundahi/Davis disconnection litigation. He 150 felt the developer they have now. Is willing to develop the property in a way that is pleasant for all the 151 residents. If they end up taking their property to Logan to get what they want,they would need to bring 152 all the other residents with them, which isn't their preference. 153 Bob Ellis felt the biggest concern in the matter is that landowners should be able to do what they 154 want with their property. Another big issue is the cost of getting sewer services to the area, which cost 155 would be born by the developer, at a benefit to the city. If the roads were developed a fire engine would 156 have an easier time getting access. 157 Mayor Rasmussen gave thanks for their comments. He hoped people will be educated and that 158 the council will consider all the comments so they can make the best decision possible. Their mandate is 159 to vote for a plan that is best for the city's future, not just today. 160 Possible Adoption of a Resolution Approving an Agreement with Cache County for the 2021 161 Municipal Election: Councllmember Wright moved to "adopt Resolution 2-2021, A Resolution Approving 162 an Agreement with Cache County for the 2021 Municipal Election." Councllmember Mllbank seconded 163 the motion, which passed with Clausen, Gallup, Huntly, Mllbank, and Wright in favor. No one opposed. 164 Continued Discussion Concerning Water Connections for County Residents: Discussion canceled. 165 Discuss an Ordinance for Supplying Water to County Residents: Discussion canceled. 166 Budget Discussion: Mayor Rasmussen discussed the list of capital projects. Councllmember 167 Clausen reminded that some of the lower ranking projects were bumped higher on the list. He asked for 168 opinions on the 500 East water and road projects ($40,000 and $100,000) and if they really wanted to 169 eliminate the $250,000 for razing the Old Church since they don't know yet what the outcome will be. If 170 they want to leave it on the list, the 500 East projects will drop off. 171 Mayor Rasmussen discussed how he figured the top 10, which was based off the council's decision 172 to spend $800,000 in the next year. He asked if they should pull the shop money out of the intended 173 $800,000 since impact fees can't be spent on other projects. 174 Discussion was held on the 500 East road project(between 400 South and RH Blvd) 175 Councllmember Wright would not vote for piping the canal and adding a sidewalk. He likes the country 176 feel of this block. Councllmember Clausen felt they could do a minimal road improvement by scraping off 177 the top and re-asphalting. Councllmember Huntly felt sidewalks should be considered, however, there 178 isn't much room on the west side. It seems property owners have encroached on the right of way. The 179 east side has the canal which is very pretty. Mayor agreed it may not be In the city's best interest to 180 spend the money to improve certain areas. They all agreed they should look at and consider the options 181 for this section carefully. River Heights City Council Meeting, 5/4/21  Councilmember Wright was curious how others felt about the installation of a sidewalk on 400 South (between 400 and 600 East). Do they think it should be placed on the back of curb or does it need a 184 park strip, which will cut into personal property by quite a bit? He reminded that 400 South will one day 185 go from 400 East to the top of Windsor Drive. The other properties on this road have a park strip, which is 186 a safer way to go. Mayor Rasmussen said there are a lot of nice mature trees along this section of road. 187 He thought the residents should have a heads up to consider their landscaping over the next few years 188 before a sidewalk was installed. Mr. Wright suggested looking at property lines. There may be instances 189 where they would need to use eminent domain and he's not sure the city wants to do that. 190 Councilmember Gallup didn't feel a park strip was needed for this block. Mayor Rasmussen 191 cautioned them to be careful about following the city ordinances which have been adopted and passed. If 192 they don't they run the risk of managing the city capriciously. If the street is labeled as a collector (which 193 requires a park strip), but the residents don't want one, the council should stand by the city plan. 194 Councilmember Huntly agreed but was worried about how close the sidewalk would be to the 195 front doors of the homes. There are also social aspect costs to consider. 196 Councilmember Milbank also agreed they need to consider what makes sense with particular 197 properties. 198 Councilmember Clausen suggested talking to residents soon if the city is going to plan for the 199 sidewalk in the next year. Mayor Rasmussen pointed out the ranking for the sidewalk is quite low on the 200 list. Councilmember Wright said he would reconsider the sidewalk ranking if other projects drop off the 201 list, if it is placed on back of curb. Mr. Clausen pointed out, if they put projects out for bid and aren't 202 happy with any their receive, they can reject them and re-prioritize the list. FD Grover suggested 203 revisiting the list monthly to see if they need to adjust. Councilmember Huntly agreed to revisit the 400 South sidewalk. Mayor Rasmussen suggested looking into it more and wondered if they should add some money to the budget for research. FD Grover 206 suggested adjusting the budget to reflect the research, with a deadline date on It. He suggested 207 budgeting for it as an overhead expense in roads, rather than capital projects. They decided to pull the 208 500 East road and water line projects and add money for 400 South sidewalk planning. 209 Councilmember Wright suggested this would be a good time to clean up the property lines on 400 210 South, which would require the help of the city engineer. 211 Mayor Rasmussen suggested not adding the sidewalk to the project list yet; it could be added 212 later, after the research is completed. 213 Councilmember Huntly felt the 400 East sidewalk,from the bridge to the south is a much more 214 dangerous situation. Mayor Rasmussen said he discussed it with the city attorney (since this is a county 215 road). He was informed that the county owns to the edge of the asphalt and the city is responsible for the 216 sidewalk. If the city wanted to do something different with the sidewalk, they would request permission 217 from the county to do work in their right-of-way. 218 They added $5,000 to the roads budget for 400 South research, in the current year. Mayor 219 Rasmussen will leave the 500 East projects on the list, but not to be considered for the coming year. He 220 didn't want to take them off and have them forgotten. The council will revisit the projects each month to 221 see if adjustments need to be made. 222 Mayor Rasmussen and FD Grover will pull all the budget Information together. At the next 223 meeting the council will hold a hearing to adopt the tentative budget. Recorder Lind requested the drafts 224 by Monday,the 10*^ to go out with the noticing. 225 The meeting adjourned at 8:50 p.m. River Heights City Council Meeting, 5/4/21  River Heights City Bills To Be Paid May 4, 2021 Payee Description Admin. P&Z Parks/Rec Pub. Safety Com. AIT. Roads Water Sewer Total 1 Bennett's Glass of Logan, LLC Glass installed at old school $144.00 $144.00 2 City of Logan Waste, 911, Sewer $14,713.31 ^—$2,031.00 $11,351.00 $28,095.31 3 Comcast Monthly Internet $28.24 $28.23 $28.22 $84.69 4 Dominion Energy Gas $53.77 $1,643.28 $58.90 $279.47 $58.90 $2,094.32 5 Gabriel Rasmussen Election Flyer Delivery $130.00 $130.00 6 International Institute of Municipal Clerk Annual Membership Recorder $175.00 $175.00 7 JoDean Bailey Refund Pavilion Rental and Deposit $75.00 $75.00 8 Johnson Controls School Air Filter Dryer/Pneumatic System $1,478.86 $1,478.86 9 Logan City Water Consumption $238.52 $238.52 10 NAPA Auto Parts Fix Flat Tire Repair/Reducer Sleeve $28.89 $28.88 $28.88 $86.65 11 Roto Rooter Soccer Toilet $130.00 $130.00 12 Rural Water Association of Utah Annual Dues $817.00 $817.00 13 Secure Instant Payments Monthly Billing $22.69 $22.68 $22.68 $68.05 14 South Fork Hardware Sprayer $12.00 $12.00 $12.00 $11.98 $47.98 15 Thomas Petroleum Fuel for City Vehicles $19.53 $19.54 $19.54 $19.54 $78.15 16 $0.00 17 $0.00 18 $0.00 19 $0.00 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 Page 1 SubTotals $16,745.87 $1,879.81 $2,031.00 $119.33 $1,446.32 $11,521.20 $33,743.53 Page 1 Total Amount to 1 I $33,743.53 Rod Ellis Rita Ellis Minkler 1115 Windsor Dr 626 East 500 South River Heights. UT 84321 River Heights, UT 84321 And other RIverdale area landowners, April 29,2021 To: Mayor Rasmussen, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission 520 South 500 East River Heights, Utah 84321 RE: RIverdale Area Development As RIverdale landowners, we respectfully request a density often units per acre (via PUD or otherwise) with consideration of the following items: • SEWER - This area is serviced by Individual septic systems, which Is unsustainable due to Increased health standards, high water table, the Logan River and one of River Heights own culinary wells. Water contamination, both above and below ground, is an Increasing risk. Mlllville City is currently dealing with.the repercussions of a similar problem. • OPEN SPACE - The river frontage, mature tree canopy and wildlife make it truiy one of Cache Vaileys natural treasures. Cluster building and higher density allow the developer resources to provide trails and parks and preserve this beautiful land for use by current residents as well as benefit future generations. A single family development would eliminate most open space and all public access to the river. • GENERAL PLAN - in 2009,the city recognized these Issues and proposed a mixed-use zone In the general plan, providing for commercial space/parking on the ground level and residential housing above. As a result of this action, we as landowners have since been assessed much higher property taxes. • LOCATION - It is the best possible location for higher density residential housing. The vast majority of River Heights citizens will be largely unaffected. It Is close to other major streets and would create much less traffic through River Heights than other potential locations. • MARKET CONDITIONS - Retail commercial Is not as viable In today's market, however, the need for affordable housing Is greater than ever. The m'lxed-use zone allows ground level, garage parking as an accessory use, reducing outdoor asphalt parking lots and allowing for more public open space. To advocate for low density, large lots while In the midst of an unprecedented extreme housing shortage could be considered unwise. • TIMING - These issues are Imminent and must be addressed. If procrastinated, the problems and associated cost of the required infrastructure will only Increase. Who should pay the cost? River Heights City and Its residents would enjoy the future open space and beautiful setting. This could only be accomplished with a large assessment against each household. However,this is not likely. A developer can and will pay, but only when it is profitable. Low density in RIverdale Is not profitable. Ten units per acre density are required to adequately resolve the Issues above.  We respectfully request a density of ten units per acre, whether PUD or otherwise, be approved to resolve the above mentioned issues. Respectfully, The Ellis Family The Demars Family Printed Name Sigoatuw..^ _ ^^ Printed Name Signature orinSQ -Zy '^6hf://h CC: DocuSign Envelope ID: BA38BEED-8027-4D57-B66B-442D754D1E2F We respectfully request a density of ten units per acre, whether PUD or otherwise, be approved to resolve the above mentioned issues. Respectfully, The Ellis Family The Demars Family The Lundahl Family Printed Name Signature Printed Name Signature vA icr LiI -DocuSlgned by: Card Demars -05B6D3D3B01747F.,. DocuSigned by: Carrie Stone ■2E89757768C2460.. —DocuStgned by: Howard Demars felA/A/l diMaJn -1B5D2E81B2Fe4E6... V—"DocuSigned by: Mary Seager 5FC5026564E044E... ^□ocuSigned by: Ron Demars -53D36E41DF2E4E1... -DocuSignedby: Marlene Hansen E1CB0B9[>62Oe417.. 5/6/2021 LundahlLettertoRH.jpg To: Mayor Rasmussen, City Council and Planning & Zoning Commission 520 South 500 East River Heights, Utah 84321 Subject: Support of Riverdaie Area Development Our neighbors Eiils and Demars are trying to sell their land at fair market value allowing current muitluse zoning to take effect. This project would have huge benefits and little to no negative impacts towards the city of River Heights. My name is Bryan Lundahi, representative of the Lundahi family properties in Riverdaie. i grew up in the River Heights lower area. 1 have been an active land-user to this area for 53 years. I have utilized this land, Irrigated and farmed it throughout my life and have found it to be ifrustrating at best because of the poor farming resources. The best use of this land Is high-density living space. I feel strongly that River Heights ought to consult and continue with the developer plans as it will be better for the city in the long run. When my father got to retirement age, he wanted to sell his property to develop it for the use of a retirement center similar to what is seen at Cobblestone. When first proposed. River Heights was sounding fairly promising but then neighboring members were not supportive. He and his neighbor, Lynn Davis, tried several different opportunities and were continually denied by River Heights time after time for any type of development on their prime land for development. Hence, River Heights lost the opportunity of the Marriott hotel, Conservice, Driver's License division. Law Office building. Main Street Retail property, and the Palis apartment. Ail of which could have been in River Heights, had they supported the land owners Jim Lundahi and Lynn Davis along with the developer. Huge loss by River Heights City. Another example of lost opportunity is the Chug property which Providence City was happy to accommodate the development happening now. Here we are with another opportunity to sell to a very reputable developer who will do a fine job to develop the land. River Heights needs to consider citizenship of all members, nptjust a handful of the citizens. The sale of the property to Sky Properties has been a huge benefit to the Lundahi/Davis families and we hope for the same for the Ellis and Demars family properties. You have been placed with another great opportunity and 1 highly suggest you approve the projects proposed by this developer. Don't let history repeat Itself or River Heights City will be left wondering why they made another bad decision. Sincerely, Bryan Lundahi 05/04/2021 httpsy/mall.google.com/maiI/u/0/?tab=rm&ogbI#inbox/QgrcJHtjBQMWKgCPGPDhXXnhzKsCTjDRxLL?pro]ector=1&messagePartld=0.2 1/1 May 4,2021 Mayor Todd Rasmussen, City Council, and Planning and Zoning Commission 520 South 500 East River Heights, UT 84321 Dear Mayor Rasmussen, City Council Members,and Planning Commissioners, r would like to introduce myself and talk to you briefly about the land in the Riverdale area ofRiver Heights that is owned by my late mother's trust, of which I and my brother, Ronald Demars, are co-trustees. The property was bought by my grandfather, Howard S. Griffin, over sixty years ago. He used it for agricultural purposes such as growing com,growing grass for baling hay, and also raising steers to provide meat for the family. I grew up just across the river from the Riverdale area on 300 South in Logan.I have many good memories of being on that land with my grandfather. My grandfather died in 1983, and very little has been done with the property since then. I was a member ofthe research faculty in the USU Physics Department for over 20 years before moving to the Salt Lake area to take up a career as a college teacher. Managing and selling real estate is something I'm not particularly comfortable doing. However, when my mother, Mary Lorraine Demars, died in 2007, my brother and I found ourselves responsible for the management and disposition of her estate. We have kept the Riverdale property in her tmst for fourteen years in the hope that the real estate market would improve and the property would grow in value. Now that it has, we.are saddened to sell a part of our history, but we understand our legal and moral obligation as trustees to provide my mother's many heirs with their inheritance. Ron and I understand that the sale and development ofthe property is a concern to the local residents who live next to the property. I would be concerned too ifsuch a major change was about to occur in my neighborhood. Naturally, Ron and I want to sell the property for a high price, so we can send checks to the heirs that make them feel like the fourteen-year wait was worth it. At the same time, we are cognizant ofthe fears that local residents might have regarding how their lifestyle will change. That also matters to us. Together with the Ellis family of River Heights, we ask to be allowed to build up to 10 units per acre on our combined land. A managed community of very high-end units at this density could be profitable enough to interest a developer. It could also be designed and maintained in such a way that it would have less of an impact on the everyday experience of the local residents than a subdivision oflower density would have. A subdivision would result in a patchwork of houses and driveways and fence lines. The units in a "planned unit development" would be clustered toward the center ofthe property, allowing for a broad border of well-maintained landscaping all around and helping to assure the privacy oflocal residents. A subdivision would result in the riverbank being divided up between the lots of multiple homeowners. This would result in imeven maintenance of the riverbank, obstacles to the free movement of wildlife(fence lines, intimidating pets), and the inability of other residents ofRiver Heights to access the river. In a "planned imit development", one person (the manager) would be responsible for maintaining the bank, wildlife would move freely, and a walkway and perhaps other amenities could be put in place to allow River Heists residents to enjoy the natural beauty (like I did every summer as a kid). To be profitable to a developer, the units in a "planned unit development" would necessarily be of high quality. They would offer a comfortable living opportunity in a beautiful location for those who could afford to live there, such as young professional couples and retirees looking to downsize. I believe that such occupants would naturally share with the local residents the desire to maintain the peace and tranquility ofthe area. I believe it is also true that a "planned unit development" could offer the city and local residents a degree ofinput into the details ofthe development process that would not be available for a subdivision. The developer of a subdivision would divide the land up into as many building lots as possible, while allowing for zoning requirements and necessary roadways. The developer ofa "planned imit development" would have more flexibility regarding the exact location of structures as well as the appearance ofstructures (height, style, color) and the placement of landscaping (trees, hedges, etc.). The city could work with the developer in creating an aesthetically-appealing conummity that would fit naturally into the surroundings. For these reasons and others, I believe that a "planned unit development" with a modest number(10) of units would be the best solution for the development of our property, not only for us but for the current residents of the area. I hope that this will remain an option for the future. Respectfully, Howard Griffin Demars 801-641-2334 howarddemars@comcast.net INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN CACHE COUNTY AND RIVER HEIGHTS aTY FOR THE ADMINISTRATION OF 2021 MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS -This interlocal agreement(this "Agreement")is.made and entered into by Cache County, apolitical subdivision ofthe State of Utah (the"COUNTY"),and River Heights City, a municipality and political subdivision ofthe State ofUtah(Ae "CITY"),referred to collectively herein as the Parties and each individually herein as a Party. .WHEREAS,underthe provisions ofthe Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13., Utah Code(the "Act"), political subdivisions ofthe State of Utah are authorized to enter into written agreements with one another forjoint or cooperative action; and WHEREAS,the Parties.are political subdivisions of the State ofUtah and desire to work- through cooperative action under the Act to benefit the residents of both the COUNTY and the CITY; and WHEREAS,the Parties desire to successfully conduct the 2021 CITY Municipal Primary (August 10)and General(November 2)Elections (collectively the"2021 CITY Municipal Elections"); and WHEREAS,it is to the mutual benefit ofthe Parties to enter into an agreement providing for theirjoint efforts to administer the 2021 CITY Municipal Elections. NOW,THEREFORE,the Parties do mutually agree, pursuant to the terras and provisions ofdie Act,as follows: Section 1. EFFECTIVE DATE This Agreement will become effective and enter into force within the meaning of the Act upon(a)approval by resolution ofthe governing body ofeach re.spective Party,(b)execution by a duly authorized official ofeach respective.Party,(c)subniission to and approval as to form by an authorized attorney of each respective Party, as required by Utah Code section 11-13-202.5, and(d)filing in the official records ofeach party. Section 2. DURATION The term ofthis Agreement is from theeffective date until the completion ofthe Parties' responsibilities associated with the 2021 CITY Municipal Elections or until terminated but is no longer than 1 year from the effective date ofthis Agreement. This Agreement will not become effective until it has been reviewed and approved as to form md compatibility with the laws of the State ofUtah by the Cache County Attorney and the attomey for CITY.Prior to becoming effective, this Agreement must be filed with the person who keeps the records ofeach ofthe respective Parties. Section 3, ADMINISTRATION OF AGREEMENT By entering this Agreement,the Parties do not intend to establish a separate legal entity. The Parties agree that, pursuant to Utah Code section 11-13-207,the COUNTY,by and through 1 the Cache County Clerk/Auditor Elections Office, shall act as the administrator of this Agreement. The Parties further agree that this Agreement does not anticipate nor provide for any organizational changes in the Parties. The Parties agree that the Cache County Clerk/Auditor Elections Office will keep all books and records in such form and manner as the COUNTY shall specify and further agree that those books and records will be open for examination by the Parties at all reasonable times. The Parties agree that they will not jointly acquire, hold, or dispose ofreal or personal property under this Agreement during thisjoint undertaking.In the performance of obligations under this Agreement, no agent, employee,officer, or elected official of the GITY or the COUNTY is or will be deemed to be an^ agent, employee, officer, or elected official ofthe other Party. In the exercise of their obligations under this Agreement, the Parties shall comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws governing elections, including the Utah Election Code, Utah Code Aim.§ 20A-1-101 etseq. Section 4.PURPOSES This Agreement is entered into between the-Parties for the purpose of administering the 2021 CITY Municipal Elections. This Agreement contemplates basic,traditional primary and general elections(including rank choice voting when applicable). All other election-related services, including but not limited to services for special elections or elections for subsequent years, will need to be agreed to in a separate writing signed by the Parties. Section 5. RESPONSIBILITIES The Parties agree to fulfill their respective responsibilities set forth in.Exhibit A,which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, for the 2021 CITY Municipal Elections. The CITY agrees to pay to the COUNTY the cost of the COUNTY'S administration ofthe 2021 CITY Municipal Elections. A table itemizing various election costs and an estimate ofthe total anticipated cost for the CITY is contained in Exhibit B, which is attached hereto. The CITY agrees to pay to the COUNTY the actual cost ofadministering the 2021 CITY Municipal Elections within 30 days ofreceiving an invoice from the COUNTY. Section 6. METHOD OF TERMINATION This Agreement will automatically temiinate at the end ofthe term set forth in Section 2 ofthis Agreement.Prior to the automatic termination of the Agreement at the end ofthe term set forth in Section 2, either Party may terminate the Agreement sixty days after providing written notice oftermination to tlie Party. Ifthe Agreement is terminated prior to the end of the term set forth,in Section 2, the CITY will be responsible for any costs incurred through the time of termination and any costs not then incurred but which are contemplated herein and irreversible at the time oftermination,such as return mailing costs. Section 7.INDEMNIFICATION Each Party agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other for damages, claims, suits, and actions arising out of negligent or intentional errors or omissions ofits own officials or employees made in connection with this Agreement. The Parties agree that their obligations to  indemnify are limited to the dollar amounts set forth in the Governmental Immunity Act,Utah Code section 63G-7-604. '1 Section 8. AMENDMENTS This Agreement may not be amended,changed, modified, or altered except by an instrument in writing that is(a)approved by resolution ofthe governing body of each respective Party,,(b)executed by a duly authorized official of each respective Party,(c)submitted to and ^proved by an authorized attorney ofeach respective Party, as required by Utah Code section 11-13-202.5, and(d)filed in the official records ofeach party. Section 9.SEVERABIUTY If any term or provision ofthis Agreement or the application thereof shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable,the remainder ofthis Agreement, or the application of such term or provision to circumstances other than those with respect to which it is invalid or unenforceable, will not be affected thereby and will be enforced to the extent permitted by law. To the extent permitted by applicable law,the Parties hereby waive any provision oflaw which would render any ofthe terms ofthis Agreement unenforceable. Section 10. NO PRESUMPTION If any provision.ofthis Agreement requires judicial interpretation,the court interpreting or construing the same shall not apply a presumption that the terms hereof are to be more strictly construed against the drafting party by reason ofthe rule of construction that a document is to be construed more strictly against the person who prep^ed it, it being acknowledged that each Party has participated in the preparation hereof. Section 11. HEADINGS Headings herein are for convenience ofreference only and may not be considered any interpretation ofthe Agreement. Section 12. NOTICES All notices, demands, and other communications given by a Party under this Agreement must be in writing and will be deemed to have been properly given ifdelivered by hand or by certified mail, return receipt requested and postage paid,to the other.Party at the address ofthe CITY Mayor or COUNTY Executive, as applicable, or to such other addresses as may be designated by notice given hereunder. Section 13. ASSIGNMENT Neither Party may assign thisAgreement or any part ofit without prior written consent of the other Party. No assignment shall relieve the original Parties fiom any liability hereunder. Section 14. GOVERNING LAW This Agreement will be governed by the laws ofthe State ofUtah. 3  IN -WITNESS WHEREOF,the Parties execute this Agreement pursuant to resolutions duly and lawfully passed on the dates listed below: CACHE COUNTY Authorized by Resolution 2-2021,passed on the 4th day of May 2021, David N.Zook, County Executive ATTEST: Jess W.Bradfield, Cache County Clerk/Auditor APPROVED AS TO FORM AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF UTAH: John D.Luthy, Chief Civil Deputy County Attorney axY Authorized by Resolution No.2-2021, passed on the 4*'' day of May 2021. Todd Rasmussen, Mayor ATTEST: Sheila Lind, Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM AND COMPATIBILITY WITH THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF UTAH Jonathan Jenkins, Attorney for CITY  Exhibit A 2021 Municipal Elections. Scope of Work for Election Services Services the City will provide include, but are not limited to: • All administrative functions related to candidate filings; •• AH administrative functions related to financial disclosures required by state and/or city code; • Publishing public notices required by law, although the City may work with the County to publish notices jointly with otherjurisdictions; .Informing candidates and the public of legal requirements governing cwdidates and campaigns; ..• Examining,proofing,:and providing final approval for all ballots and election programing; '• :Posting on the City website a link to or copy ofthe location ofthe county-owned ballot drop boxes and the official election results reported on the County Electioas web page; • Posting on the City website a link to the County website for signing up for ballot alert texts; • Displaying election results only in the format provided by the County and not changing the form or format of, or otherwise altering,the election results as reported by the County; and • Canvasing the final elections results. Annexations or other boundary changes impacting die administration of election must be submitted to the County by June 1,2021. Annexation or other boundary changes submitted after June 1 will not be incorporated info the elections. The City acknowledges that this Agreement relates to a munic^al ballot and election and, as required by state statute, the City Clerk^ecorder is the Election Officer. The City will provide the County Clerk with information, decisions, and resolutions and will take appropriate actions required for the conduct ofthe election in a timely manner. The City agrees to consolidate all elections administration functions and decisions in die office ofthe County Clerk to ensure the successful conduct ofmultiple, simultaneous municipal elections. "In a consolidated election, decisions made by the County regarding resources, procedures, andpolicies will be based upon providing the same scope and level ofservice to all the participating jurisdictions, and the City recogni^ that such decisions, made for the benefit of the whole, may not be subject to review by the City. Exhibit A page 1  Services the County will perform for the City include, but are not limited to: Ballot layout and design; Ballot printing; Ballot mailings; Initial payment ofretum postage; Ballot processing; Printing optical scan ballots; Programing and testing of voting equipment; Programing of electronic voter register; Poll worker recruitment, training, and supervision; Compensating vote center poll workers; Delivery of supplies and equipment; Tabulation and reporting of election results on the County's website; Provisional ballot verification; Updating the voter history database; Conducting audits (as required); Conducting recounts(as required); Election day administrative support; . , Operation ofCounty-wide vote centers; Election security; Ballot drop box services,including maintaining, locking, and unlocking boxes,and collecting ballots; and Providing the final report of official election results, althou^ the City is responsible to canvass its municipal election on the date designated by ihe County in accordance with the County's final report of official election results. The County will provide a good faith estimate for budgeting puiposes. Election costs are based upon the offices scheduled for election, the anticipated number ofvoters, and the number ofjurisdictions participating. The City will be invoiced for the lesser ofits share ofthe actual costs ofthe elections or the cost estimated in Exhibit B. In the event of a state or county special election being held in conjunction with a municipal election,the scope ofservices and associated costs, and die method ofcalculating those costs, will not change. Exhibit A page 2  Exhibit B 2021 Municipal Elections Cost Breakdown Table and Election Cost Estimate for River Heights City The expenses below are associated with administering the municipal election and are not entirely inclusive of all potential costs: ELECTION COSTS 11-14" Ballot $0.28 Per mailing to voter Insertion ■ $0.30 Per mailing to voter Outgoing Envelope $0.24 Per mailing to voter Reply Envelope $0.20 Per mailing to voter Voter Instruction Sheet $0.10 Per mailing to voter Database Export $0.04 Per mailing to voter Postage Outgoing $0.38 Per mailing to voter ' f (subject to USPS pttdng atlima dpostage) Postage Incoming $0.38 Per piece mailed to clerk (subject to USPSpndttgat Owe ofpostage) Postage Undeliverable $0.38 Per piece mailed to clerk Election Supplies $0.01 Per vote cast Poll Worker/ Staff Wages $0.09 Per vote cast This following projected cost estimate assumes a 30% voter turnout for your city. The final invoice amount will be based ori actual costs. Election Registered Voters Cost Primary 1,394 $2,718.30 General 1,394 $2,718.30 Estimated Cost as of April 28, 2021, $5,436.60 Average cost per voter $1.95 Huntly Mllbank Gallup Clausen Wright Ranking Project Sponsor Cost Start Date Finish 28 9 8 27 9 16.2 Raze Old Church 250,000 1 2 1 26 1 6.2 Stewart Hill Park Milbank, Wright 200,000 Apr-21 Jul-22 23 1 10 1 10 9 New Shop Doug Clausen 120,000 2 5 4 2 4 3.4 Upgrade Lower Well Doug Clausen 100,000 20 0 7 7 0 6.8 500 East Road Surface 100,000 Upgrade Water Line Lower Weii to 3 6 5 3 0 3.4 River Heights Blvd Doug Clausen 90,000 Sidewalk and Park Strip 400 South 27 14 18 15 13 17.4 (600 East to 500 East) 70,000 400 South Sidwalk Right of Way 26 13 17 16 12 16.8 Acquisition 65,000 8 7 13 18 2 9.6 Sidewalk Repairs City-wide Todd Rasmussen 50,000 Sidwalk and Park Strip 400 South 25 0 19 17 14 15 (500 East to 400 East) 45,000 9 8 6 6 0 5.8 500 East Water Line Upgrade Doug Clausen 40,000 4 0 14 4 7 5.8 Road Seal Nancy Huntly 40,000 12 0 9 8 8 7.4 New Truck Doug Clausen 35,000 Sidewalk River Heights Blvd to 800 21 15 25 25 0 17.2 East 30,000 400 East Handrail and Sidewalk 10 0 42 9 0 12.2 improvement 30,000 Sidewalk 400 East(400 South to 24 0 20 19 0 12.6 500 South) 25,000 Sidewalk 500 East (River Heights 19 0 26 20 0 13 Blvd to 400 South) 20,000 Sidewalk 400 East(400 South to 14 0 24 21 0 11.8 River Heights Blvd) 20,000  Sidewalk 600 South (400 East to 11 0 23 22 0 11.2 Summerwild) 18,000 Sidewalk 500 East(630 South to 13 0 21 23 0 11.4 700 South West side) 16,000 22 3 3 12 6 9.2 Lower Well Property Aquisitlon Todd Rasmussen 15,000 7 11 2 11 5 7.2 Old School Stair Repair and Ramp Todd Rasmussen 12,000 Sidewalk 500 East (Complete 18 0 22 24 0 12.8 sidewalk on East side of 500 East) 12,000 Water Meters (stock to replace 15 10 16 5 11 11.4 aging meters) 10,000 Blake Wright, Todd 16 4 15 10 3 9.6 Master Plan City Square Rasmussen 10,000 5 12 11 13 15 11.2 Pedestrian Crossing Paint 5,000 6 0 27 14 0 9.4 Sidewalk Identified by Paint Todd Rasmussen 1,200 7 0 28 14 0 9.8 Sidewalk Identified by Paint Todd Rasmussen 1,200 Tota of All Projects 1,430,400 (Average Ranking of 813,000 Total with Meters 823,000