City Council Minutes

Thursday, April 25,2002

APRIL 25, 2002, 4:00 P.M.

Mayor Dan McArthur
Council Member Rod Orton
Council Member Sharon Isom
Council Member Bob Whatcott
Council Member Suzanne Allen
City Manager Gary Esplin
City Attorney Jonathan Wright
City Recorder Gay Cragun

Council Member Larry Gardner

Mayor McArthur called the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance. The pledge of allegiance was led by Council Member Whatcott and the invocation was offered by Mayor McArthur.

Consider a request for approval of a business license for a mobile oil changing business.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright explained that very few cities in Utah have ordinances governing mobile oil changing businesses. The State of Utah Department of Environmental Quality requires a permit to carry 50 pounds of oil or more. This permit must be obtained before a City business license can be issued. Layton City requires their operators to provide them with a monthly report showing how and where the oil was disposed.

The applicant explained he carries a 50 gallon drum with a secondary containment around it, inside an enclosed trailer. The oil is picked up and disposed of once a week.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright advised that only Salt Lake City has an ordinance specifically governing these types of businesses.

Council Member Isom stated she did not feel this type of business was different than other types of mobile businesses permitted in the City as long as the oil is contained and disposal monitored. She suggested a specific
ordinance be drafted to govern this type of business. She then made a motion to approve the business license.

Council Member Orton inquired if the business could be monitored on a monthly basis.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright replied that this could be a condition of approval.

City Manager Gary Esplin commented that the applicant could report monthly to the Business License Officer.

Council Member Orton inquired if the approval could be for a one year period in order to allow a review at that time.

Mayor McArthur commented that when an ordinance is created to govern this type of business, the applicant would then have to comply with it.

St. George City Council Minutes
April 25, 2002
Page Two

City Manager Gary Esplin commented until then, the business would fall under the jurisdiction of the present Mobile Catering Ordinance, in addition to the stipulations placed by the City to obtain a state permit, and to file a monthly report with the Business License Officer. He advised that all City business licenses are renewable yearly, and if there are problems within the yearly period, the matter could be reviewed by the City Council.

Mayor McArthur inquired if the monthly report would show the location of the work performed and where the oil was disposed.

The applicant replied that the monthly report would show the location of every oil change, as well as reporting any spills.

The motion was seconded by Council Member Allen.

Council Member Whatcott inquired what approval of this request would mean for the City in the future.

City Manager Gary Esplin replied that if the City is overwhelmed with requests for mobile businesses, it may need to reconsider the entire matter.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright clarified that the applicant originally requested permission to perform light vehicle repairs in addition to the oil changes, but mobile car repair is prohibited.

The applicant replied that over the weekend he observed a mobile RV service van servicing an RV.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright advised the City's ordinance does not allow for this type of business, and the matter would be investigated. Vehicle repair is required to be performed in an enclosed building.

Mayor McArthur called for a vote, as follows:

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

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

Consider approval of a resolution to enter into an operations and management services agreement with Washington County and the Washington County/St. George Interlocal Agency for management and operation of the Dixie Center.

City Manager Gary Esplin explained that currently the Washington County Interlocal Agency is the governing board of the Dixie Center and oversees operations at the Dixie Center. It is now proposed that Dixie Center operations be overseen by the City, with administrative functions handled by the County. It is proposed that the City joint with the County in an interlocal agreement to provide for operation and management services. A new division under Leisure Services will be created by the City, and Dixie Center employees will now become City employees.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright explained that legally the WCIA is still the owner of the Dixie Center, and the City and County are tenants who will provide the services at the Dixie Center.

St. George City Council Minutes
April 25, 2002
Page Three

City Manager Gary Esplin explained that the City is responsible for 38% of the costs of the Dixie Center, with the County responsible for 62% of the costs. The County will reimburse the City for any funds expended over 38%. The Travel Council will remain under jurisdiction of the County, and several of the current Dixie Center employees will be transferred to the Travel Council.

John Griffith advised that he represented Stephen Wade and Bob Garff who own property adjoining the Dixie Center. Mr. Garff wants to dispose of nine acres which has been set aside for a convention hotel. If the property were sold to the City as a bargain sale, Mr. Garff and Mr. Wade would receive tax benefits.

Mr. Esplin replied that the City would be interested in purchasing the property if the property were sold as a bargain sale at an appropriate price.

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

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

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

Mayor McArthur announced the City may need to implement a stage of its water conservation plan.

Marc Mortensen, Assistant to the City Manager, advised that he would make his recommendation to Water and Power Director Wayne McArthur who would then make a recommendation to the City Council. From a public relations standpoint, it is staff's feeling that the City should support the Governor in his request for water conservation throughout the State of Utah. The public is also wondering why the City is not mandating water conservation.

Council Member Allen suggested a different water rate system be used to reward those who conserve water while penalizing those who waste water by paying a higher rate. A financial carrot is what makes people conserve. She also explained that she hears a complaint daily about the City watering its parks and golf courses in the middle of the day. She inquired if it would be possible to water at night only.

City Manager Gary Esplin replied that the City's system cannot water all the facilities with irrigation water during night time hours only. However, the City should be watering at night whenever possible. He explained that the City's Conservation Committee will be recommending a fee schedule for water. Additionally, information should be disseminated to the public so those who criticize the City's golf courses can be informed about the revenue they generate to pay bonds, etc., and their impact on the hotels, motels, and shops. Golf courses are not just recreation, but economic development, and they affect the economy.

Council Member Orton suggested that the public be educated through use of the newspaper and radio on the importance of water conservation, and the economic impact of golf courses on the local economy.

St. George City Council Minutes
April 25, 2002
Page Four

Council Member Allen commented a citizen inquired why he should conserve when he is being billed for a 5,000 gallon minimum each month.

City Manager Gary Esplin replied that this 5,000 gallons is used up by indoor water use, and the minimum used to be 15,000 gallons a month.

Council Member Whatcott commented that it would be impossible to quantify the number of people who moved to St. George because of the many golf courses.

Water and Power Director Wayne McArthur introduced Doug Hunter from UAMPS and advised he would explain the current status of some of UAMPS' programs and answer any questions. There has been a lot of concern about deregulation of the industry and the volatility of the market and how this impacts the City.

Mr. Hunter distributed copies of a power point presentation entitled Cost Recovery Charge, attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and reviewed it with those present.

After the presentation, Council Member Whatcott inquired of Mr. Hunter who authorized the subscription of power.

Mr. Hunter replied it was done after input from members. He explained that this input is requested in the winter so power can be purchased in February and March when the cost is at its lowest point in the year. This year Caterpillar and Cummings sold mobile diesel generators to a number of cities
who therefore did not subscribe. UAMPS realized they were not getting the subscriptions needed and found someone to buy the power.

Council Member Whatcott stated that the City purchased some of those mobile diesel generators, and he found it hard to believe that its Power Department would recommend purchasing them after UAMPS had purchased power at a high rate. The City did not subscribe to some of the expensive power, yet it was also stuck with the 5.5 million dollar debacle. He stated that a letter from UAMPS stated that some budgeting reduction should eliminate pressure on the need to increase rates, yet the City's Power Department lost $12.5 million in the last year. He requested an explanation of the statement in the letter.

Mr. Hunter replied that he took the budget for the upcoming years and reduced all costs to take pressure off the situation and reduce the budget.

Council Member Whatcott inquired why the principal was not being paid down so that interest could be reduced as well. He inquired if there were a prepayment penalty.

Mr. Hunter replied that there was not a monetary prepayment penalty, but the payment is not yet due, and can only be made on certain dates. The Board will make the decision when to make the payment.

Council Member Whatcott commented that in reading the letter and listening to the presentation, he did not hear anything about mistakes made by UAMPS, as basically everything was attributed to being out of the control of UAMPS, and no one at UAMPS was taking responsibility for what has happened.

St. George City Council Minutes
April 25, 2002
Page Five

Mr. Hunter advised that UAMPS acted prudently given the information it had at the time, and it did all it could to alleviate the situation. However, if he had it to do all over again, he would do it different.

Council Member Whatcott commented the lack of subscription was not out of the control of UAMPS.

Mr. Hunter replied that UAMPS followed its normal procedure.

Council Member Whatcott commented that the error of judgment was very expensive and questioned Mr. Hunter's assertion that UAMPS acted prudently. He questioned whether the risk factor was considered when playing with city funds in a volatile market and if a risk analysis was performed before purchasing the power.

Mr. Hunter replied that UAMPS used a forward curve to analyze power prices, and looked at what prices would be if UAMPS did not buy forward in the summer and just a day or hour ahead. An analysis was performed, as well as a detailed loan analysis on what was available. It normally takes somewhere up to 30 days to get the subscriptions in, and in the time frame UAMPS was looking at, there were a number of people to buy the power. However, it just sat there, and he takes the blame. In the future he would just sell it. By taking it back to the Board, this caused a ten day delay and the market fell out.

Council Member Whatcott commented that the City has taken a huge hit that it will feel for at least the next five years at a minimum, and when these
situations happen, everyone conserves. He questioned if UAMPS was giving any wage increases in this time of a money crunch.

Mr. Hunter replied that there were no wage increases, as they were not in the budget. However, he received an increase because he was offered another job but the Board wanted to retain him. The matter was discussed in executive sessions, and he was not present.

Mr. Whatcott replied in that event, he would have a discussion with the City's Water and Power Department.

Council Member Allen inquired if new procedures or safeguards had been implemented.

Mr. Hunter replied that he would vote for non-purchase until someone comes to them, and he would not buy any power on the market to subscribe as has been done in the past.

Also present were Washington City Council Members Jean Arbuckle, Rick White, Mike Heaton, and Roger Bundy.

Public Works Director Larry Bulloch distributed copies of a proposed City of Washington Airport Overlay Zone hand-out, attached hereto as Exhibit "B."

Washington City Manager Kevin Watt advised that the Washington City Council was willing to adopt the overlay zone, but it would be a hard sell to adopt it with any more than what the FAA has already approved. Also, it is felt that the plan submitted to the FAA is what St. George would like. Washington City is looking at ways to work with St. George and sell the idea to property owners in Washington City in order to move forward.

St. George City Council Minutes
April 25, 2002
Page Six

Washington does not want to obstruct the new airport, but also must be accountable to its citizens.

Mayor McArthur advised it was his understanding that a compromise has been reached while still adopting the overlay zone to protect the site for the future.

Public Works Director Larry Bulloch advised that the second runway does not have to be shown on the zoning map, but the zone that protects it must be shown. This softens the impression that the second runway will be built for sure, and then someday in the future if it is determined to be a realistic project, then it could be added back on. The City's consultant, Mr. Dunkelberg, advises this is acceptable, and the second runway could be shown in the General Plan as a possibility in the future. Another thing which was asked by Washington City is if the City could change the reference to museums as a prohibited use to a conditional use. This change has been completed as it is felt that some types of museums would be acceptable. Property owners asked if the horizontal surface above the secondary runway which would limit height could be changed, and this is 150 feet. There was another question raised about the reference to prohibiting publicly funded parks and recreation areas, as there is a golf course adjacent to the Salt Lake airport. However, regulations have since been changed and today golf courses are prohibited by the FAA due to problems with attracting birds. Mr. Bulloch advised that the FAA requires that the airport sponsor protect the investment of federal funds into the facility, and this is done by doing land use planning. The City hired a consultant/planner to make recommendations, and those recommendations were used to develop this proposed plan. The plan was submitted to the FAA and accepted.

Jerry Ferrell, Program Manager for the Replacement Airport, commented that the FAA requires protection of approaches to the airport, and the changes talked about would be acceptable to the FAA.

Mr. Bulloch commented that the FAA definitely does not want a public gathering in the approach to the airport, and the prohibition for museums was left in the approach zone only.

Washington City Manager Kevin Watt advised that there has been a lot of money already invested in the approach area, and the proposed second runway still affects Washington City and Red Hawk property. The area for the second runway imposes restrictions on property owners in Washington City, and perhaps St. George should buy all the property affected by the second runway.

Mr. Bulloch replied that the City asked the affected property owners to change their use from residential to something more compatible with the airport, and a higher and better use than residential. The City has been talking to the property owners for many years, and they are aware of the matter.

Mr. Watt commented that if the second runway were not there, residential use would be allowed.

Mr. Bulloch responded that the flight patterns would still not allow residential use, regardless of the second runway.

Mayor McArthur commented that residential development is restricted in the entire area because of the primary runway, not the second runway.

St. George City Council Minutes
April 25, 2002
Page Seven

Mr. Watt stated that in that event the property is still clouded.

City Manager Gary Esplin commented that it simply reduces the number of uses on the property.

Mr. Bulloch commented he believed there would be strong market for the property because of all the infrastructure, and if the City could afford it, it would be in its best interests to own the affected property.

Dallin Gardner commented that the market for the property will be at a lesser value.

Mr. Bulloch replied that in that event, perhaps the City had an obligation to make the property owners whole.

City Manager Gary Esplin commented that the value was not in residential use, but in commercial and industrial.

Mr. Gardner replied that if options are taken away, so is value.

City Manager Gary Esplin commented that value is being added, as the only option now is residential.

Mr. Gallian stated that the property around the airport will have commercial and industrial potential, but the Red Hawk property will not be marketable.

Mr. Esplin replied that property in the Ft. Pearce Industrial Park sells for $50,000 an acre.

Mr. Gallian commented that Red Hawk has installed utilities and has put millions of dollars in the ground there.

Mr. Esplin replied that this is another issue to argue, but the point is that there are other uses for the property, and the overlay zone does not materially decrease the value of the property.

Jeff Klein stated that he wants to help, but he has serious concerns about judgments made and whether or not the second runway is needed and what can be developed near it. He stated that prime developable land is located next to the primary runway, and if the second runway is developed, it will take that prime economic development potential away. He questioned the demand for the second runway, and if that demand outweighed development of that prime economic development acreage. If there is a demand for the second runway, he suggested it be located on the west side of the primary runway, and therefore save the prime acreage for development.

Public Works Director Larry Bulloch commented that he made a commitment to Mr. Klein to get together with his experts and talk through the facts.

Mr. Klein commented that this was the Council's job - to do what is in the best interests of the community.

Mayor McArthur commented that taking the second runway off of the overlay zone and putting it in text only in the General Plan does not cloud the property.

Mr. Klein inquired if the City wanted to go after the very finest companies and create jobs for the communities.

St. George City Council Minutes
April 25, 2002
Page Eight

Mayor McArthur replied that the City must make accommodations for the possibility of the secondary runway.

Council Member Whatcott inquired if a study had been done to determine the cost of putting the second runway on the east side where there is flat ground vs. the cost of putting it on the west side where fill and leveling is required.

Mr. Bulloch replied that the ground on the west side of the primary runway slopes and would require a cut of 50 to 60 feet to build the secondary runway, as opposed to building it where the ground is flat. Calculations, however, have not been done. He advised he would meet with Mr. Klein's engineers.

Council Member Allen inquired if the FAA would accept the second runway on the west side if the land were properly prepared.

Mr. Bulloch replied that currently it would be economically unfeasible to build the runway on the west side.

Council Member Allen again inquired if the FAA would accept the secondary runway if it were located on the west side.

Mr. Bulloch inquired if both sides of the airport were now to be protected.

Council Member Whatcott commented that it was worth looking at.

Dallin Gardner commented that if the second runway had been removed, the area of influence would have been reduced in size and the FAA might have approved a smaller area.

Mr. Esplin advised that the second runway was never discussed with the FAA, and the size of area affected would not have changed. He commented that the City is trying to protect itself. The City's obligation is to try and minimize impacts, and this is why the FAA has guidelines. This may not be good news for property owners, but is prudent planning.

Russ Gallian commented that one of the plans proposed is a corporate campus approach with mixed uses and some residential built into the commercial. He stated he previously asked Mr. Bulloch if this residential use would be allowed by a conditional use permit.

Mr. Bulloch replied that on a limited basis this might be OK, such as a facility with a night watchman or caretaker, but not on a wholesale basis of developing neighborhoods of residential use.

City Manager Gary Esplin commented he could see use of a building as 3/4 commercial with 1/4 used for residential, as residential would be incidental to the main purpose of the building. Additionally, the occupants would know the overall plan and know what they were buying.

Mr. Bulloch stated that hundreds of residential units would not be allowed.

City Attorney Jonathan Wright advised that use of a conditional use permit would be difficult as there would be the burden of showing why it should be allowed.

Council Member Isom commented that times are changing, and affordable housing is now being built on top of commercial businesses.

St. George City Council Minutes
April 25, 2002
Page Nine

Mr. Bulloch commented that the City must try to avoid locating residential units next to noisy places, however, there may be some exceptions.

Washington City Council Member Jean Arbuckle commented that in this event a purchaser would know what they were getting.

Mr. Klein stated that the new airport would not be like the Salt Lake International Airport.

Washington City Council Member Jean Arbuckle commented that the buildings could also be sound-proofed.

Council Member Allen commented that there are many residence inns located by major airports across the country, and she saw that as being compatible with the new airport. She commented that some of St. George's most expensive properties are located adjacent to the current runway and in the flight path and residents do not see the airport as a problem.

Mayor McArthur suggested that another joint meeting be held in the future.

A motion to adjourn was made by Council Member Isom and seconded by Council Member Whatcott. Mayor McArthur called for a vote, as follows:

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

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried. The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m.

Gay Cragun, City Recorder