City Council Minutes

Thursday, February 20,2003



ST. GEORGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
FEBRUARY 20, 2003, 4:00 P.M.
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

PRESENT:
Mayor Daniel McArthur
Council Member Suzanne Allen
Council Member Sharon Isom
Council Member Rod Orton
Council Member Bob Whatcott
Council Member Larry Gardner
City Attorney Shawn Guzman
City Recorder Gay Cragun

EXCUSED:
City Manager Gary Esplin

OPENING:
Mayor McArthur called the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance. The pledge of allegiance was led by Scout Cheyenne Shumway, and the invocation was offered by Fay Reber.

VIDEO UPDATE:
Marc Mortensen presented a video update featuring the Parks Division, the Water and Energy Services Department, the bike patrol, and SunTran.

Mayor McArthur invited several Scouts in the audience to introduce themselves.

Cliff Parry and Wayne Preston, representing the Elks Lodge, presented Police Chief Marlon Stratton and Fire Chief Robert Stoker with plaques for their assistance with the Shop-With-A-Cop program.

TABLE ITEMS:
Mayor McArthur announced that item 2B, an award of bid for construction of the Canyons maintenance facility, and Item 6A5, a request for a beer license for the Red Sands Market were tabled from the agenda.

AWARD OF BID:
Consider award of bid for the City?s annual crack seal project.

Purchasing Agent Sue Swensen advised that six bids were received ranging from $44,725 to $100,000. She recommended award of the low bid to Holbrook Asphalt in the amount of $44,725.

A motion was made by Council Member Isom and seconded by Council Member Orton to award the bid to Holbrook Asphalt in the amount of $44,725. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and al voted aye. The motion carried.

AWARD OF BID:
Consider award of bid for construction of the Canyons maintenance facility.
This item was tabled.

AWARD OF BID:
Consider award of bid for color digital orthophotography.

Purchasing Agent Sue Swensen advised that five bids were received. She recommended award to the low bidder, Sanborn Map Company, in the amount of $35,913.

A motion was made by Council Member Gardner and seconded by Council Member Orton to award the bid to the low bidder, Sanborn Map Company, in the amount of $35,913.

Purchasing Agent Sue Swensen explained that the bid is for aerial photography.

GIS Technician Dave Evans explained that the City has not updated its aerial photography for four years. The photography will be used as a backdrop for maps, and will be made available to engineering companies in the City for planning purposes. He advised that Sanborn Map Company is the oldest map company in the United States and has been in business since the 1800s.

Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.



St. George City Council Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page Two

AWARD OF BID:
Consider award of bid for asbestos abatement at the Community Arts Building.

Purchasing Agent Sue Swensen advised that four bids were received. She recommended award to the low bidder, Eagle Environmental, in the amount of $37,694. A variance was received from the State.

A motion was made by Council Member Orton and seconded by Council Member Whatcott to award the bid to the low bidder, Eagle Environmental, in the amount of $37,694. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

RESOLUTION:
Consider approval of a resolution amending the Agreement for Residential Waste Collection with the Washington County Solid Waste District by eliminating manual collection of plastic bags, bundles and manual containers.

Mayor McArthur advised that the City Council would hear input on this matter, but a decision would be postponed for two weeks.

Council Member Orton inquired of Fay Reber, attorney for the Solid Waste District, if all the other communities had approved the resolution.

Mr. Reber responded that thus far every community has approved it or is favorably considering it except for Springdale, which has special problems. Mr. Reber explained
that there is six years left under the current contract with Red Rock Waste for collection and disposal of residential waste within the County. The contract accommodates semi-automated and manual collection service. If a resident has additional waste, he or she can place it in bags or manual containers. However, this is not the most efficient manner to collect waste and results in additional expense to the contractor in time and manpower. The Solid Waste District entered into an amended agreement with the contractor which gives the cities the option of doing away with manual collection by providing a second automated container at no additional cost. The cities have a choice of whether or not they want to continue with the present service or elect to go with the new automated service. Once a city elects to go with the new automated service, all a citizen has to do is call the Solid Waste District and request a second container. A third container is available at an additional charge of $3 a month. The idea of the new proposal is to eliminate plastic bags. Once a city elects to go with the automated service, it cannot go back as the District will have to spend a lot to buy the second containers. This amendment will hold for the remaining six years of the contract period. There is no need to make a decision right now, as the City can make the election to change to fully automated service at any time. Additionally, for a four to five week period in November and December when the leaves fall, an unlimited number of plastic bags will still be picked up, and for two weeks during Christmas they will be picked up as well. As always, if a citizen has additional waste, it can be hauled to the landfill and deposited there at no charge. Mr. Reber advised that Red Rock requests in increase in their contract each year, and by implementation of this new program they would be hard-pressed to substantiate a need for an additional increase if this new program is adopted. He explained that the proposed resolution approves the amended contract with Red Rock, and also approves the amended agreement between the City and the Solid Waste District.

Council Member Allen inquired if there was a time line for implementation.

Mr. Reber replied that it was originally thought all the cities would be on board by March 1, but realistically a phase-in method works best. Once the program is adopted, there will be a transitional phase of 60 days during which time the contractor will still pick up bags and bundles.

A motion was made by Council Member Orton and seconded by Council Member Gardner to table the matter for two weeks. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

ORDINANCE:
Consider approval of an ordinance changing the name of the Water and Power Board to the Water and Energy Services Board.

Council Member Whatcott advised that the Water and Power Board consists of Chairman Ross Hurst, and members Marge Shakespeare, Craig Hammer, Brad Rich, and Max Rose. He serves as the City Council liaison on the Water and Power Board. He then made a motion to approve the ordinance. The motion was seconded by Council Member Orton. Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:


St. George City Council Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page Three

Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Isom - aye
Council Member Allen - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

RESOLUTION:
Consider approval of a resolution authorizing the issuance of up to $4,000,000 principal amount of sewer revenue bonds, and related matters.

Jason Burningham, representing Lewis Young, and Richard Scott, representing Chapman & Cutler, explained that the resolution sets out the parameters of the refunding. They will return to advise the City Council once the bond insurance, ratings, and interest rates are confirmed. The actual principal will be lower than what is being adopted tonight. Interest will be locked in on March 11 with a closing scheduled for the first of April. Refunding savings on the water bond issue will be over one million dollars, with savings on the sewer bond refunding of around $160,000-$170,000. Associated with this action will be a 30 day public comment period.

A motion was made by Council Member Isom and seconded by Council Member Allen to approve the resolution. Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Isom - aye
Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Orton - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

RESOLUTION:
Consider approval of a resolution authorizing the issuance of up to $13,500,000 principal amount of water revenue bonds, and related matters.

A motion was made by Council Member Isom and seconded bey Council Member Orton to approve the resolution. Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Isom - aye
Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Allen - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

Mayor McArthur invited several Scouts in the audience to introduce themselves.

Council Member Whatcott left the stand.

PUBLIC HEARING:
Public hearing to consider amendments to the Subdivision Ordinance.

City Engineer Dave Demas explained that changes to the Subdivision Ordinance have been made to hopefully streamline the development review process. He then reviewed the proposed changes to the ordinance.

Council Member Whatcott returned to the stand.

In response to concerns of developers of the Ft. Pearce Industrial Park, Mr. Demas commented he did not see any problem in removing Section 5 of Chapter 2 from the ordinance so that it could be discussed in greater detail, and approve the remainder of the ordinance.

Deputy City Attorney Ron Read advised that the proposed Subdivision Ordinance has been unanimously recommended for approval by the Subdivision Committee.

Council Member Gardner commented that the developers of the Ft. Pearce Industrial Park are not against the ordinance per se, but they would like to meet with staff to see if any of the provisions of Section 5, Chapter 2 need to be revised.


St. George City Council Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page Four

Deputy City Attorney Ron Read advised a meeting could be scheduled with the developers and a revision to Section 5, Chapter 2 could be ready for the City Council meeting of March 6.

Mayor McArthur opened the public hearing.

Don Leavitt, representing School and Institutional Trust Lands, commented he felt a meeting would be beneficial so as not to set up future development for problems with the ordinance.

There being no further public comment, Mayor McArthur closed the public hearing.

Deputy City Attorney Ron Read suggested that if the ordinance is adopted, wording be added to the motion that enforcement provisions will not apply to Section 5, Chapter 2 until changes to the ordinance have been worked out.

A motion was made by Council Member Isom and seconded by Council Member Allen to approve the Subdivision Ordinance, removing Section 5, Chapter 2, with the understanding that enforcement provisions will not apply to this section until changes to the ordinance have been worked out. Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Isom - aye
Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Gardner - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

Council Member Whatcott left the stand.

PUBLIC HEARING/AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 5-5, Fences/Walls on Controlled Access Streets.

Associate Planner Mark Bradley advised that the purpose of the ordinance is for clarification, as many walls are becoming too high throughout the community. The proposed ordinance addresses fences in a rear yard area adjacent to a public street which shall not exceed 6' in height. The Planning Commission unanimously recommends approval.

Mayor McArthur opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, he closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Council Member Allen and seconded by Council Member Orton to approve the ordinance.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman suggested that the motion include the addition of wording to the ordinance prohibiting a fence, wall, or retaining wall, or combination of fence on top of a retaining wall, to exceed 6' in height. Council Members Allen and Orton agreed to this additional wording. Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Isom - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARING/AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 3-10, to limit the size of accessory buildings to 25% of the rear lot area unless a conditional use permit is approved for a larger building.

Associate Planner Mark Bradley advised the proposed ordinance is for clarification and consistency in all residential zoned, including RE zones.

Council Member Whatcott returned to the stand.

Mayor McArthur opened the public hearing.


St. George City Council Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page Five

Glen Bundy expressed concern that the City was making too many building regulations.

There being no further public comment, Mayor McArthur closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Council Member Orton and seconded by Council Member Isom to approve the ordinance. Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Isom - aye
Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Allen - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARING/AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to consider an amendment to the Zoning Ordinance, Section 3-9, to allow public transit shelters to be located within the setback area adjacent to a public street subject to approval of the Planning Commission.

Associate Planner Mark Bradley advised that the proposed ordinance is to allow a transit shelter to be located within a setback area adjacent to the public street.

Council Member Gardner commented that there are some places where a transit structure could be a concern if, for instance, it was located in the wrong place in front of a business.

Public Works Director Larry Bulloch replied that initially they will be located at more popular locations along major routes where there is adequate space. They would not be located in front of someone?s residence unless the neighborhood and property owner desired it. There are 67 bus stops, and while the City can not afford to locate a transit structure at all of them, all those that merit one will eventually have one. It is proposed to do eight to ten this year.

Council Member Gardner inquired if the City was going to be sensitive to business owners, as a transit structure may impact their visibility.

Mr. Bulloch replied that the City would contact every property owner where a transit shelter was proposed to be placed.

Mayor McArthur suggested that this language be added to the ordinance.

Mayor McArthur opened the public hearing. There being no public comment, he closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Council Member Isom to approve the ordinance subject to approval of the Planning Commission, City Council, and property owner. The motion was seconded by Council Member Allen.

City Attorney Guzman inquired if the property owner would have veto power over a shelter being placed on his or her property.

Mayor McArthur clarified the Council?s intent is to make sure there has been a discussion with the property owner.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman suggested that a policy be developed to ensure that adjacent property owners are contacted to receive their input.

Council Members Isom and Allen agreed to change the motion to include creation of a policy to contact property owners for their input concerning placement of a transit shelter adjacent to their property.

Council Member Gardner inquired if the City would have the ability to locate a transit shelter on property against the wishes of an adjacent property owner.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman replied that the City Council could find that there are safety or other overriding concerns which would require placement of a shelter in a specific location, or not.

Council Member Whatcott expressed concern that perhaps the City was going too far by overriding what a resident wants in his or her residential neighborhood.


St. George City Council Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page Six

Council Member Gardner commented he was supportive of placing shelters in appropriate places, but a property owner?s rights should be superior to those of the City.

Mr. Bulloch commented that the City does not want to adversely place any bus stop, as the purpose of the service is to serve the community.

Council Member Gardner made a motion to approve the ordinance, based on the premise that the parties would work on a cooperative basis with each other, and with joint approval of the property owner and City. The motion was seconded by Council Member Orton. Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Isom - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

Council Member Whatcott suggested that any landscaping around transit shelters be self-contained.

Mr. Bulloch replied that any existing landscaping will be restored to an equal or better condition if it is disturbed in order to locate a transit shelter.

Council Member Allen was excused from the meeting.

PUBLIC HEARING/ZONE CHANGE/ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to consider a zone change request from C-2 to C-3 for 0.4 acre located at the northeast corner of Tabernacle Street and 800 East intersection. Bill Telford, applicant.

Associate Planner Mark Bradley explained that the property in question is zoned C-2 which does not permit student housing.

Council Member Whatcott inquired why R-3 or R-4 zoning was not being considered instead.

Mr. Bradley explained that with commercial zoning, the City can waive the parking in the front setback area as long as there is an 8' landscaped area. Covered parking can also be waived if within a 1500' radius of the college. R-3 or R-4 zoning would require a 25' setback which would cut into the parking.

Council Member Orton commented that if the zone were changed to C-3, any C-3 use could be built on the property, not just student housing.

Council Member Whatcott suggested that student housing be allowed in a C-2 zone with a conditional use permit.

Mr. Bradley replied that the applicant?s request is the most appropriate use of the location because of the need, and the project could not be zoned PD as it also requires an additional setback. An amendment to the ordinance would be required to allow a conditional use permit in an overlay area in a commercial zone

Mayor McArthur advised that the proposed C-3 zone is adjacent to an existing C-3 zone.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman advised that once a zone is changed, the owner may do whatever is allowed within that zone.

Mayor McArthur opened the public hearing.

Bill Telford, applicant, advised he was purchasing the Campus Villas subject to being able to put more units on the property. He would like to add two tri-plexes to match the existing units.

Byron McLeese stated that he had no objection to the project, but his concern was with parking. The City?s parking ordinance is adequate, but needs to be enforced. He advised that occupancy requirements are not being enforced.




St. George City Council Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page Seven

Mr. Telford replied that his application for a zone change accommodates more parking than other options. The City?s new parking ordinance requires one parking space per student, and his project will totally comply.

There being no further public comment, Mayor McArthur closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott and seconded by Council Member Gardner to approve the zone change request by ordinance. Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Isom - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

PUBLIC HEARING/ZONE CHANGE/ORDINANCE:
Public hearing to consider a zone change request from A-20 and A-1 to R-1-10 for 61.79 acres located east of River Road and south of 2450 South. Jerry Riggs, applicant.

Associate Planner Mark Bradley explained that the request is consistent with the General Plan. Low density residential zoning consists of 2.6 to 3.2 dwelling units per acre.

Mayor McArthur opened the public hearing.

Russell Riggs, applicant, explained that this property was annexed into the City in 1982 with R-1-10 zoning. It was later rezoned to comply with future planning. The City now indicates that it would like to increase density gradually from River Road east. In 1986 some of the property owners in the area wanted to develop so they generated $186,000 to purchase water pipe and pay for labor. They did this with the understanding that sometime down the road this investment would pay off, and they are now looking for the pay-off by requesting R-1-10 zoning. R-1-10 zoning will help address some issues, including providing more flexibility to adapt to the irrigation line running east and west across the property, to intersections, and to the way the property lays out. The requested zoning complies with the General Plan.

Mayor McArthur inquired of Mr. Riggs if the lay-out of his development would address some of the problems with property near Will Powell having to do with circulation and access.

Mr. Riggs replied that while he knows he is not bound to do so, he would be more than happy to address these concerns in the lay-out of the development.

Glen Bundy expressed concern with rezoning of a large parcel to R-1-10.

Associate Planner Mark Bradley advised that the Planning Commission recommended approval, and notice of this hearing was sent to all property owners within 500 feet of the property in question.

There being no further public comment, Mayor McArthur closed the public hearing.

A motion was made by Council Member Orton and seconded by Council Member Isom to approve the zone change by ordinance. Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Isom - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Gardner - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

RESOLUTION:
Consider approval of a resolution authorizing the issuance and providing for the sale of $992,602.73 City of St. George, Utah, Special Assessment Bonds, Series 2003A (Special Improvement District No. 99-1) (the ?Series 2003A Bonds?), fixing the interest rates to be borne thereby, prescribing the form of Series 2003A bonds, maturity and denomination of said Series 2003A bonds;


St. George City Council Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page Eight

reaffirming the creation of a guaranty fund as provided by statute; and related matters.

Mayor McArthur advised that the correct amount of the bond issuance is approximately $989,000.

A motion was made by Council Member Gardner and seconded by Council Member Isom to approve the resolution in the corrected amount. Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Isom - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Orton - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

RESOLUTION:
Consider approval of a resolution abandoning a public utilities easement between Lots 29 and 30 of the Stone Cliff Subdivision, Phase 1.

Public Works Director Larry Bulloch explained that the property owner wishes to build a residence on the two lots. The request has been reviewed and approved by staff and the JUC.

A motion was made by Council Member Gardner and seconded by Council Member Orton to approve the resolution. Mayor McArthur called for a roll call vote, as follows:

Council Member Gardner - aye
Council Member Orton - aye
Council Member Whatcott - aye
Council Member Isom - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

Mayor McArthur called for a short break.

SET PUBLIC HEARING:
Associate Planner Mark Bradley advised that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held February 11, 2003, recommended that a public hearing be scheduled for March 20, 2003 at 5:00 p.m. to consider a request for a zone change from C-2 to PD Commercial on 1.49 acres for storage units to be located east of River Road between Settlers RV and the East Black Ridge. Verden Hannig is the applicant.

A motion was made by Council Member Isom and seconded by Council Member Orton to schedule the public hearing as recommended by the Planning Commission. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

FINAL PLATS:
Associate Planner Mark Bradley advised that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held February 11, 2003, recommended approval of the final plat for The Knolls at Little Valley Phase 2, recognizing a site distance line and note will be added to the mylar and the 80' public right-of-way has not been officially named Horseman Park Road. Ed Burgess is the applicant. The Planning Commission also recommended approval of the final plat for Royal Creek. Dan Steurer is the applicant.

A motion was made by Council Member Orton and seconded by Council Member Whatcott to approve the final plats and authorize the Mayor to sign them. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

FINAL PLAT:
Council Member Isom declared a possible conflict of interest as her office is handling the title work for Cotton Springs Phase I.

Associate Planner Mark Bradley explained that the Planning Commission, at its meeting held February 11, 2003 recommended approval of the final plat for Cotton Springs Phase I. George Badger is the applicant.

Council Member Isom advised that the original deed will be in her office tomorrow to clear up any ownership issues.



St. George City Council Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page Nine


City Attorney Shawn Guzman explained that before final plat approval a title report is needed showing title to the property, and a copy of this has been provided to him.

Gary Kuhlmann, representing the applicant, explained that at the City Council meeting where the preliminary plat was approved, the City Council indicated that before the final plat was approved they would like the applicant to contact Cotton Manor one more time in an effort to resolve the homeowners association issue. His client was willing to do so. Cotton Manor indicated they would set a meeting for March 1 to discuss the matter, and indications look favorable. His client, however, cannot wait until March 1 for a resolution of the matter and desires to move forward with his project. His client has provided Cotton Manor with a copy of the expansion and supplemental declaration to join Cotton Manor. Mr. Kuhlmann requested approval of the request conditioned on the ownership interest being recorded, and either the signed agreement from Cotton Manor will be obtained on March 1, or his client will submit his own CC&Rs. This is an equitable solution and would allow his client to move forward.

A motion was made by Council Member Gardner to approve the final plat under the stipulations outlined by Mr. Kuhlmann.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman commented that the stipulations outlined by Mr. Kuhlmann are already required before a plat can be signed off and recorded.

The motion was seconded by Council Member Orton. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

HILLSIDE DEVELOPMENT PERMIT:
Associate Planner Mark Bradley explained that this matter was heard by the Planning Commission on January 14, and tabled by the City Council at its January 23 meeting so the applicant could be present. The applicant is requesting a hillside development permit for Upper Twin Lakes Road which is between the old tunnel road and Red Rock Road north of Highland Drive. The Hillside Review Board recommended approval recognizing the proposed cut along the applicant?s hillside violates the 40% slope non-disturbance requirement because of the road dedication alignment, and would first recommend a realignment of the road so as to avoid cut of the virgin lava hillside, with the following conditions:

1. The applicant?s soils-geotechnical engineer review the recommendations contained in the July 25, 1994 preliminary geotechnical report and acknowledge in writing that they are applicable. Additionally, some fill has been placed within the proposed roadway alignment that is not in compliance with the 1994 report. The undocumented fill placement must be addressed in writing by a soils-geotechnical Engineer.

2. The proposed right-of-way alignment at Twin Lakes and Red Rock Road be worked out as far as location with the adjacent property owner (Ruesch).

3. The mitigation of the proposed cuts and fill be addressed by removing all 2' x 2' lava rocks within the proposed right-of-way, including the hillside cut area, and stack them along the upper road (Middleton Drive) to cover up existing scars.

4. A request by the applicant for Middleton Drive closure be made to the appropriate body.

5. A restoration bond is required by the Hillside Ordinance and must be in place before construction on the roadway.

6. Grading permit fees are required prior to commencing construction on the roadway.

The Planning Commission recommended approval of the request subject to the conditions recommended by the Hillside Review Board, and with the stipulation that the details of the City?s involvement be refined and clarified by the City Council in writing prior to commencing any work on the site.

Council Member Orton inquired about the road closure and a time period for its reopening.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman replied that Engineering staff feels 60 days between the time the Middleton access is cut off and another access provided is ample time to complete the construction.

St. George City Council Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page Ten

Ronald Stout, applicant, stated he did not have a problem with the 60 day time period, but this was in the City?s hands. He stated he did not receive the requested information as a result of the meeting on site in July, and he has not received a response to his inquiry about a resolution of the matter. The bottom portion of the road has been rough graded without a permit, but drainage on the lower part cannot be resolved until what is done above is decided. He commented that 60 days is not a problem as far as the earthwork. At the July meeting on site, the City said that the intersections at Highland Drive, Twin Lakes road, and Red Rock Road would be its responsibility.

Marc Mortensen commented that there has never been an agreement to this effect.

Mr. Stout stated that at the July meeting the City said it would be responsible for the intersections, and is already responsible for them as part of that area consists of a prescriptive easement.

Council Member Gardner commented his recollection of the July meeting was to try and decide how much the City would do, and how much Mr. Stout would do, and the level of participation the City should be involved in. While he did not recall the details, part of the solution agreed to was that the City would take as its portion of the project the intersection, but he did not remember if it was two or three intersections.

Mr. Stout explained that one of the things talked about in the July meeting was the City?s responsibility for 100% of certain things, and it would not be prudent for the Stouts to stand back and let the City do the earthwork and drainage to allow the Stouts to do construction on the whole site, and the City would figure up the cost. Part of the cost was asphalt from the Twin Lakes Club House to the old tunnel road, and if chip seal could be done, fine. If not, then it would be asphalted. The City was going to come up with its percentage of the drainage work and get back to him and then give him the financial backing on these things and let him build the whole road.

Mayor McArthur stated his recollection of the discussion at the July meeting was that the City would be willing to buy the materials, for instance pipe, etc., and then the Stouts would install it to where it goes under the freeway.

Mr. Stout stated it was decided that the City would come up with a dollar figure for its percentage of the project.

Marc Mortensen advised that the figure the City has come up with is $15,000 for the drainage.

Mr. Stout advised that the City was also going to come up with a figure to rebuild the intersections 100% and then put that number in to the total. He advised he still does not have a permit for the lower portion of the road, and this needs to be resolved. Another issue to be resolved is the right-of-way and the need for it to be signed off by the adjacent property owner. The lower portion of the road had to be redesigned to take the adjacent property owner off the mylar for the road dedication.

Project Engineer Roger Bundy explained that the issue before the Council today is the hillside development permit from the tunnel road to old Red Rock Road, and the previous understanding is for the portion from the tunnel down. What might happen up to Red Rock Road was discussed and if Mr. Stout wants to build the road from the tunnel road to Red Rock Road, this would be his responsibility to do so, as is the hillside development permit. There was discussion about the City participating in the lower portion of the road, but if the City is going to participate in the Upper Twin Lakes Road hillside development, this needs to be talked about. If not, the permit can be issued and the applicant can proceed with the lower portion, perhaps with City participation. A permit for the lower portion has not been issued because there are unresolved issues with drainage, whether the City is going to participate, and whose responsibility certain things will be.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman suggested for purposes of discussion that the project be broken into two parts - from the tunnel down, and from the tunnel up.

Mr. Bundy commented that if the City is going to participate in the project from the tunnel down, it should come up with a number. There are some pluses in taking the road clear to the top, realizing this accesses the Stout?s property and the major purpose for this road is so they can develop their property. There are safety issues with the hillside, and the intersection at the top is not the safest. There is some reasoning for the City to participate in the whole thing, but the City Council needs to determine the level.


St. George City Council Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page Eleven

Marc Mortensen advised that Public Works Director Larry Bulloch suggested the City?s portion of the cost to complete the road from Highland Drive to the tunnel area would be $60,000. This figure includes the drainage.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman requested clarification of everything the $60,000 figure included.

Public Works Director Larry Bulloch replied the $60,000 figure included everything to improve the project as proposed - a paved two lane road.

Roger Bundy advised the City?s intent is to have the road built the full width of the grade with two lanes, 32' wide.

Public Works Director Larry Bulloch clarified the road will have to be built to City standards from end to end.

Marc Mortensen and Council Member Whatcott clarified for Mr. Stout that staff is recommending that $60,000 be the City?s total contribution, for everything.

Mr. Stout commented that if he has to do an asphalt road, his cost will increase greatly. He inquired if the $60,000 figure included drainage, curb and gutter, and the City?s cost to rebuild the intersection 100%. He commented the figure sounded low.

Mayor McArthur commented he thought the $60,000 figure included the portion of road from Highland Drive to the tunnel.

Public Works Director Larry Bulloch clarified that staff is proposing that Mr. Stout build the road entirely from Highland Drive to Red Rock Road, 32' wide, with hot mix asphalt 3" thick, and with 8" of base, to City standards, the same as for anyone developing an access to a subdivision. If Mr. Stout will do this, the City will pay $60,000 toward the project. The road does not need to be built right now, but if Mr. Stout wants to build it, the Subdivision Ordinance requires him to pay the full cost. However, because of the history of this project, it is staff?s recommendation that the City contribute $60,000 to improve the road.

Council Member Isom and Mayor McArthur commented they did not think $60,000 was enough.

Council Member Isom inquired if the City was going to put in the intersection at Highland Drive.

Public Works Director Larry Bulloch replied that no, the City was not going to put in the intersection unless the City Council directs differently. Staff?s recommendation is that the City contribute $60,000 only.

Council Member Gardner inquired when the Highland Drive project would be finished.

Public Works Director Larry Bulloch replied that it was now out to bid and would begin within a month or two.

Council Member Gardner suggested that in an effort to find a solution, this intersection should be part of the Highland Drive project.

Roger Bundy advised that the City is already removing a portion of the Highland Drive intersection and regrading it to match Highland Drive. There will not be much at Highland Drive as far as the tie-in, and the City is doing that.

Council Member Whatcott clarified that the $60,000 figure recognizes that the City is already taking care of the Highland Drive intersection, and this then eliminates Highland Drive from being an issue.

Mr. Stout commented that City participation should be double the $60,000 amount, and he could not agree to $60,000 because he would have to put the project out to bid and see if the figures are accurate. If the figure comes in double the amount, he would be hard hit if he agreed to $60,000. The reason the right-of-way was dedicated at 66' was for the future, as it is a major artery. He commented he was losing property around the tunnel because he has to stay on this own property 100% and therefore cut into the lava cap, which is a major expense. Because the City did not want to condemn adjacent property, the road was moved to the east as far as possible. If only a 33' road were required it could be moved to the west. However, Engineering staff says if it is dedicated and planned at 66', they want it cut now, not later.


St. George City Council Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page Twelve

Council Member Whatcott suggested that the City come up with a percentage as its responsibility.

Council Member Gardner recommended the City be responsible for 25% of the total project.

Council Member Orton stated there had to be some limit, as the amount could not be open-ended.

Mr. Stout commented if Engineering staff could put together the figures on 100% of the cost of the road at today?s costs, and then the City pay 25% of that cost, this would be feasible.

A motion was made by Council Member Isom to approve the hillside development permit with the narrower road. The motion died for lack of a second.

Project Engineer Roger Bundy explained that plans have already been submitted and approved by the Hillside Review Board, and if the plans are changed, then they need to be reviewed again. He commented that other than saving excavation costs, it makes no sense to narrow the excavation of the road. The road should be built to the full width now, as there will be a scar either way.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman advised that from visiting with the City Manager, Mr. Esplin?s point of view is that he favors working with Engineering staff to make the road safe, and if it can be narrowed, that would be the preferable thing to do.

Mayor McArthur commented he did not see why the road had to be 66' wide.

Mr. Stout inquired if he could now get a grading permit, or if he would have to deal with staff on more issues before he could get the grading permit.

Mayor McArthur advised Mr. Stout that he would have to meet all current City guidelines to obtain a grading permit.

Mr. Stout commented that the reason the lower portion has been left in rough grade is because drainage is a problem, and he cannot move forward without a permit. If the City Council is saying he needs to meet all requirements, he does not know what those are.

Council Member Isom informed Mr. Stout that her motion was just to approve the hillside development permit.

Mr. Stout inquired if this would allow him to go to work.

Council Member Isom clarified that it would if he could meet the six conditions recommended by the Hillside Review Board.

Mr. Stout inquired if he could then go to work when he met the six conditions. He stated that who was responsible for the permit on the lower part of the road has never been addressed, as well as who is supposed to pay for the grading fees and reconstruction bond. He inquired if the fees could be waived on the entire project.

Roger Bundy advised he was hesitant to issue any permit on the lower or upper portion until it is understood who is paying for what, and who is responsible for what.

Council Member Whatcott inquired if the City was taking responsibility for anything from the tunnel to Red Rock Road, or if it should break the project into two sections and deal with the bottom section later in order to deal with the numbers for each section separately.

Roger Bundy replied that he liked this approach, as drainage and traffic could be taken care of when he issues the permit.

Mr. Stout commented that in the July meeting the City said it would partner on the intersection to Red Rock and Twin Lakes, and this needs to be part of the upper road portion. He inquired where the drainage would be dumped if a permit is issued for the upper part. He stated that this is why he has had such a hard time with the lower section, as the drainage cannot be completed without the upper part.

Council Member Gardner recommended that the City participate on a 25% ratio up to $90,000, and the City should forgive the permits so that there will be no basis for arguing. He then made a motion to contribute 25% of the total project, with the City?s

St. George City Council Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page Thirteen

ultimate exposure no more than $90,000 of the total project, and to approve the hillside development permit. The motion was seconded by Council Member Isom.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman inquired if the motion included the project from Red Rock to the intersection to Middleton Drive.

Mayor McArthur replied that no, the motion included the total project.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman replied that it needed to be clarified what intersections the City would be responsible for.

Council Member Orton replied that the City is willing to contribute 25% of the total project, up to $90,000.

Mr. Stout asked for clarification of the road width.

Mayor McArthur replied the road width could be 33'.

Mr. Stout advised he could do the whole road 66' wide except near the lava cap.

Council Member Isom was excused from the meeting.

Council Member Gardner commented that in this event there would still be an option to do a wider road later.

Marc Mortensen advised that the City Manager opposes City involvement in anything beyond the tunnel.

Council Member Gardner clarified that he did not care if the City?s $90,000 was spent entirely in the bottom half of the project.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman clarified that the issue before the City Council today is the hillside development permit, and the rest of the discussion is so Mr. Stout can plan on what the City?s future commitment will be so he can move to design the roadway and drainage, and who will be responsible for what can be summarized. He stated that technically the roadway is not being realigned, just narrowed.

Mr. Stout inquired if he would need the signatures of adjacent property owners at any time down the road, as he was staying within the dedicated right-of-way.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman replied that he would not.

Council Member Whatcott then reviewed the six conditions recommended by the Hillside Review Board.

Council Member Gardner proposed that the rocks be moved down where they would camouflage the cut as seen from the freeway.

Mr. Stout replied that a narrower cut would eliminate rock available for this purpose.

Council Member Whatcott recommended that any rock be kept for this purpose to fill the cut which can be seen from the freeway.

Mr. Stout inquired who would close Middleton Drive.

Roger Bundy replied that he could not authorize closure of a road.

Council Member Gardner requested that the road closure request come to the City Council.

Mr. Stout inquired if staff would take care of the process to close the road so that he did not have to.

Marc Mortensen commented that the road would have to be built within the 60 day period from the time it is closed.

Mr. Stout asked if the City Council was saying that access had to be replaced to the old tunnel.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman replied that the purpose of the alternate access would be so traffic over the mountain could still find a way to funnel over it safely.


St. George City Council Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page Fourteen

Mr. Stout inquired if the access could come around the lower part.

Roger Bundy advised that he envisioned Mr. Stout completing all the roadway with the exception of a short distance. The road does not have to be closed until he gets to the point of doing that last section. The road would then be closed and he would have 60 days to complete it while the road is closed.

Mr. Stout inquired if he could have longer than 60 days.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman advised that this matter could be addressed when the road closure is considered by the City Council.

Council Member Gardner clarified that the 60 day road closure was not part of the present motion and will be addressed when the request for the road closure comes to the City Council.

Council Member Whatcott advised Mr. Stout that it would be his responsibility to tell staff when he is ready for the road closure. The City will then close it, and the clock will then begin ticking and the road will then have to completed within 60 days.

Mr. Stout inquired who would actually close the road and put up the barricades.

Council Member Whatcott and Mayor McArthur advised Mr. Stout that it would be his responsibility to close the road and put up the barricades.

Council Member Whatcott advised that a restoration bond will also be required before construction on the roadway begins. A grading permit is also required. The City Council is not requiring the cutting up on top as it agrees the road can be narrowed.
That is the motion.

Roger Bundy commented that the Hillside Ordinance requires a restoration bond.

Council Member Gardner inquired if the City Council wanted to forgive the fees.

Council Member Whatcott replied that no, the fees were included in the 25% up to a maximum of $90,000 figure.

Roger Bundy advised that the fees are not that substantial in any event, perhaps a few hundred dollars, but the restoration bond has a cost and that is something that can be worked with. He requested that a dedication be done for the portion of road which will connect to the public right-of-way. Encroachments permits for working in the Red Rock Road area will also be required. When Mr. Stout comes to him for the permit there are many things which still need to be resolved before he is comfortable issuing a permit, including all drainage facilities in place, all City standards met with respect to design of the road in any nature, and changing the width of the road which may influence the intersection. This is not what is on the plan right now, so the City needs to make sure that the design is according to City standards.

Council Member Allen returned to the meeting.

Mr. Stout advised that in the ten year old agreement the City was supposed to do all the engineering and design with regard to the right of way. He expressed concern that the Stouts would have to give up more property to go further north.

Mayor McArthur replied that the road would have to go straight.

Mr. Stout replied that he did not want to put in and dedicate a new road to the City?s use, as he owns it, and the City is asking him to give up more property.

Roger Bundy advised that the alignment does not match without doing it.

Mr. Stout suggested that a curve be done there.

Mayor McArthur replied that the intersection was needed.

Mr. Stout commented that the City is now asking more from him, and some of the things that must be considered are in the old agreement.

Marc Mortensen replied that the old agreement is for the tunnel down.




St. George City Council Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page Fifteen

Shawn Guzman replied that the City?s position has always been to supplant the access that was taken away and not necessarily by the City, but the City would go from the tunnel down. Mr. Guzman advised that a motion was previously made but not seconded.

Mayor McArthur advised that a second to the motion was made by Council Member Isom, but she has since left the meeting.

Council Member Whatcott commented he merely reiterated the recommendations of the Hillside Review Board, and that the motion is literally the recommendations of the Hillside Review Board. He advised that encroachments permits are required as part of the normal process.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman suggested the motion include language which requires all applicable requirements.

Council Member Gardner clarified that his motion included the stipulation that the City contribute 25% of the total project up to $90,000.

Mr. Stout inquired if he would have to pay to have the road re-engineered and designed if it were going to be reduced to 33', as the original agreement indicates the City is supposed to pay for the entire design of the road.

Marc Mortensen replied that the City was not going to pay for the top portion from the tunnel up.

Mr. Stout then inquired why the City paid for it in the beginning, if they were not supposed to.

Roger Bundy replied this was because the City did more than it should have. The agreement said that the City would do a preliminary design. The City has gone beyond that in order to facilitate moving the project along, and now changing the plan is being discussed. He commented that he likes to issue a permit on a plan that is complete, on what is going to be done, and not on something that is proposed to be done. When he issues a permit on a plan, that is what the City expects to be done, and changes become a problem. He suggested that the plan be modified. It should not be a big cost issue, but it should be modified for the 33' wide road. He suggested that 32' be the paved area, with ditches along the side, resulting in a width greater than 32-33'.

Mayor McArthur commented that the road has to meet City standards.

Council Member Whatcott inquired with regard to the intersection and dedication of property, how much the City is going to require to make it a proper intersection, and how far to the north staff is referring to.

Roger Bundy replied that right now it is dedicated to a certain point. If the road is realigned, an area needs to be reconstructed to tie into Twin Lakes Road and Red Rock Road.

Council Member Whatcott inquired if the City would be giving back to the Stouts the section which is left in an exchange.

Mr. Bundy replied that in essence that would be the case, but there is no dedication, it is just a prescriptive right.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman advised that with regard to a prescriptive right, case law says that the City can widen it as necessary for public safety. If the City determined that it needed to be wider for public safety, the City could do that.

Council Member Whatcott inquired if the City and Stouts could trade prescriptive easements.

Mr. Stout replied that he did not have a problem with that, but if the City is going to be restrictive on participation, and then ask for more from him, he was going to be restrictive on the other end.

Council Member Whatcott commented that no one is asking Mr. Stout to continue building the road north.

Roger Bundy replied that the engineering design would require the road to tie into the existing road.


St. George City Council Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page Sixteen

Mr. Stout inquired who would draw up and make the dedicated right-of-way if he dedicates the road. He was advised that he would have to do this.

Council Member Whatcott commented that even if the City paid for it, it would take it out of the contribution for the south portion.

Mr. Stout stated that when it comes to hard costs on the lower part, City Manager Gary Esplin said there was room to massage them and work back and forth. If the City puts a cap on its share of the costs and then he finds out that the cost is more, this matter come up again in the future.

Council Member Orton commented that the City Council did put a cap on it.

Council Member Whatcott commented that if the City Council puts a cap on something, as far as he was concerned the amount the City pays now will be deducted from what the City does on the south side.

Mr. Stout stated that because of what the City is asking the Stouts to give, the cap should be higher.

Council Member Whatcott disagreed, and advised that the City is simply moving the prescriptive easement.

Mr. Stout commented that the City is taking a skinny road and having him build a big, wide one.

Council Member Whatcott commented the road width is 32'.

Mr. Stout advised that the road was not designed to 32', and if he is going to design it back to 32' and that is all he is giving up, that is fine. However, the City Council said they wanted to keep the dedicated right-of-way to 66'.

Mayor McArthur advised he was inclined to continue the matter until another meeting.

Council Member Gardner suggested a vote be taken on the motion and second.

Mayor McArthur advised Mr. Stout that the City Council has agreed to work from the tunnel down, but from the tunnel up, this is what is required, and the City Council is saying that this is what the Stouts have to do in order to complete the project. The intersection to required be done. A motion was made to allow the hillside development permit based on the criteria recommended by the Hillside Review Board. In the next motion the City will set a cap, and it can be used for the top, but it will then come off the bottom. It does not matter whether it is used top or bottom.

Council Member Orton advised Mr. Stout that he has to do everything the City requires.

Mr. Stout advised that he asked for this matter to be discussed in a work meeting and it should have been ironed out when there was time.

Council Member Whatcott commented that if the City Council wanted to table the south section and put a cap on it and discuss it in a work meeting when Mr. Esplin is present, that would be fine. However, the motion stands with the stipulations.

Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

Council Member Gardner commented that the City and Stouts have had this discussion many times over the last ten years, and there will always be a debate. The City has reached conceptually what will work, and he does not care where the Stouts spend the money. He made a motion to give staff direction of what was talked about before - that the project to the City is from top to bottom, and that the Stouts have a 25% participation from the City. The City will do the Highland Drive intersection and the Stouts will do the others. The City?s participation is 25% up to $90,000. The motion was seconded by Council Member Orton. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

RECOMMENDATION FOR AUDIT SERVICES:
Consider a recommendation for audit services for the City of St. George.

Council Member Gardner declared a conflict of interest as his daughter works for one of the audit firms.



St. George City Council Minutes
February 20, 2003
Page Seventeen

Finance Director Phil Peterson advised that staff mailed an RFP to three local audit firms for audit services. The proposals were evaluated based on a valuation form provided by the State Auditor provides which is a weighted system. A group of five individuals reviewed the proposals, and Council Member Whatcott was one of these. The highest rated firm was Kemp, Burdick, Hinton and Hall. Second was Hafen Buckner, and third was Savage Esplin. Staff recommends award of audit services to Kemp, Burdick, Hinton and Hall. A pre-conference was held and each firm was represented. Price was part of the equation but not the overriding part of the equation. The 2003 cost is $44,995.

A motion was made by Council Member Whatcott to award auditing services for the next four years to Kemp, Burdick, Hinton and Hall, with the 2003 cost being $44,995. The motion was seconded by Council Member Allen. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, and all voted aye. The motion carried.

Council Member Orton was excused from the meeting.

ADDENDUM TO STANDARDS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION:
Consider approval of an addendum to the City?s Standards and Specifications for Design and Constr