City Council Minutes

Thursday, December 10,2009



ST. GEORGE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
DECEMBER 10, 2009, 4:00 P.M.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM

PRESENT:

Mayor Daniel McArthur
Council Member Suzanne Allen
Council Member Gail Bunker
Council Member Gil Almquist
Council Member Gloria Shakespeare
Council Member Jon Pike
City Manager Gary Esplin
City Attorney Shawn Guzman
Deputy City Recorder Judith Mayfield

OPENING:
Mayor McArthur called the meeting to order and welcomed all in attendance. Mayor McArthur led those in attendance in the pledge of allegiance and the invocation was offered by Pastor Dean Heuring.

Mayor McArthur stated that he really appreciated the coming together of all the religious faiths on the Day of Prayer. He said that the Day of Prayer will be on New Years Day at noon and will be held at the Town Square.

Mayor McArthur explained to the council that they would need to schedule a special meeting to discuss an annexation issue. The meeting was scheduled for December 28, 2009 at 5:00 p.m.

RESOLUTION:
Consider approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of St. George, Utah authorizing the execution and delivery of an Amended Interlocal Cooperation Agreement by and between the City of St. George, Utah and Washington County, Utah, to pledge certain tax revenue levied and other legally available funds to be used for the payment of certain limited obligation bonds to be issued by the City to finance the City airport and related facilities and improvements.

Gary Esplin explained that according to the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement that had been agreed to between the City and the County, the County was going to give the City a portion of their restaurant tax funds which the City would use for the airport. Mr. Esplin stated that recently an interim committee within the state legislature had voted to make a recommendation to the full state house and senate to do away with the restaurant tax. He said that the City was going to close on their bonds on December 15, 2009 which was secured by the Interlocal Agreement which was backed by security of the restaurant tax. He explained that after full disclosure to the purchaser of the bonds, the purchaser stated they would not buy the bonds if the legislature takes the money away. Mr. Esplin said that the City went back to the County and got them to agree to a change in the language in the Interlocal Agreement. He stated the change would only be one word in the agreement where it says the County may use this tax plus any other revenues they have to secure the $700,000.00 annual payment. Mr. Esplin explained that they agreed to substitute the word shall for the word may in

St. George City Council Minutes
December 10, 2009
Page Two

the sentence he quoted from the agreement. He said that Bank of America which is the potential bond holder felt good about the change in wording.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Bunker to approve the resolution as stated.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Almquist.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, as follows:

Council Member Bunker - aye
Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Pike aye
Council Member Shakespeare aye
Council Member Almquist - aye

The vote was unanimous and motion carried.

RESOLUTION:
Consider approval of a resolution of the City Council of the City of St. George, Utah (the Issuer), finalizing the terms and conditions for the issuance and sale of the Issuers (I) Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2009A (federally taxable - issuer subsidy - Build America Bonds) in the aggregate principal amount of $3,504,000 (the Series 2009A Bonds), and (ii) Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Taxable Series 2009B (Issuer subsidy - Recovery Zone Bonds) in the aggregate principal amount of $6,722,000 (the Series 2009B Bonds and collectively with the Series 2009A Bonds, the Series 2009 Bonds); confirming the sale of said Series 2009 Bonds; authorizing the execution by the Issuer of a general indenture of trust, a first supplemental indenture of trust; and other documents required in connection therewith; authorizing the taking of all other actions necessary to the consummation of the transaction contemplated by this resolution; providing a severability clause; repealing resolutions in conflict; providing an effective date; and related matters.

City Manager Gary Esplin stated that the next item had been tabled from the last City Council meeting after discussion about different types of bonds. He said that Jason Burningham would be providing the council with a brief explanation of the types of bonds that were included in the resolution. Mr. Esplin recommended that the council considered how these bonds would maximize the amount of proceeds they would get up front rather than the interest rate.

Jason Burningham, a Financial Advisor with Lewis Young Robertson & Burningham, Inc. stated that traditionally they would have a public offering where the bonds would be rated and possibly insured and would be marketed to various institutions. He stated that as they were going through the process, one of the hurdles they came up against was that the rating agencies would not allow the level of rating that was necessary to maximize the annual $700,000 payment. He stated that if they had a public offering they would only get $8 million dollars or less in proceeds. He explained that the airport financial plan required more than that so they looked at alternates that would achieve higher proceeds up front. Mr. Burningham stated the bonds are taxable and the purchaser is Bank of America, a private placement purchaser. He stated they were paying a taxable rate but would be receiving an issuers subsidy through the federal
St. George City Council Minutes
December 10, 2009
Page Three

government of 35% on a portion of the bonds and 45% on another portion. He explained there are two series of bonds because of the two different levels of subsidy.
Mr. Burningham presented a Final Pricing Booklet to the council and stated the net effective interest rate on the 25 year bonds would be just under 4.4% because of the subsidies. He said that under the proposed structure the City would get $10 million dollars in proceeds to put into the airport. He said that if the final bond resolution was approved by the council they would close on December 15, 2009 and proceeds would be delivered at that time and put into the airport construction fund.

City Manager Esplin stated the only caveat is that the bonds are amortized over 25 years for debt services but they are only 15 year bonds. He explained that sometime within the next 15 years the City would have to redo the bonds and take them out for another 10 years.

Council Member Almquist asked Mr. Burningham if the bonds had a pay down option.

Mr. Burningham said there was a pay down option after 9 years. He said there was also an advanced refund option.

Council Member Pike asked Mr. Burningham to confirm Mr. Pikes understanding that the net proceeds would be $10.2 million, the City would be paying $9.5 million in interest but would be receiving $4 million in subsidies. Mr. Pike said that with the $700,000 annual payment from the county, the City would clearly be covered on the annual debt service.

Mr. Burningham confirmed Mr. Pikes understanding of the financial summary.

MOTION: A motion was made by Council Member Shakespeare to approve the resolution as stated.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Pike.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, as follows:

Council Member Almquist - aye
Council Member Shakespeare - aye
Council Member Pike aye
Council Member Allen aye
Council Member Bunker - aye

The vote was unanimous and motion carried.

Mayor McArthur invited several students and scouts to introduce themselves.

City Manager Gary Esplin stated that the next item was not on the agenda. Mr. Esplin displayed a map and referred to a purple area that encompassed the new interchange at Dixie Drive. He said that he wanted to get some direction from the Mayor and council members on some issues having to do with landscaping, walls, ramps and the trail. Mr. Esplin said they are having a very difficult time trying to figure out whos responsible to pay for what. He said the state puts 1% of the total construction costs into a possible use for landscaping. He said the estimate for landscaping is $700,000 but the state is

St. George City Council Minutes
December 10, 2009
Page Four

only agreeing to pay $500,000. He also said that at the present time it was unknown if the state was going to be responsible for the costs of other items. Mr. Esplin explained that the City had an opportunity to apply for an enhancement grant from the state but it would require a match and the application was due by the end of January. Mr. Esplin asked if the Mayor and council wanted staff to work on a formal action to present to the council next week.

Mayor McArthur directed Mr. Esplin to go ahead with a formal action that could be presented to the council.

Presentation and discussion concerning the Utah Communication Area Network (UCAN).

Police Chief Marlon Stratton stated he was present to discuss the public safety radio system. He introduced Jeff Dial, Communications Manager, and explained to the Mayor and council that Mr. Dial was very instrumental in obtaining a $2.15 million dollar grant and would be used to transition from VHF to 800 MHz. Chief Stratton went through a PowerPoint Presentation that detailed how the current VHF system was working and what the advantages were to transitioning to 800 MHz. The PowerPoint also detailed current costs and the proposed costs if the City became a member of the Utah Communications Agency Network (UCAN).

Council Member Bunker asked Chief Stratton about UCANs track record.

Chief Stratton handed out a list of participating agencies with UCAN. He stated that Life Flight also uses UCAN.

Council Member Almquist asked Chief Stratton if UCAN would increase the monthly charge after the 7 year grace period.

Chief Stratton stated that they would have to increase the monthly charge for all of the members, not just the City of St. George. Chief Stratton said that UCANs intent was to keep the user fees reasonable so more agencies would participate.

Mayor McArthur recognized Phil Peterson, Finance Director.

Mr. Peterson asked Chief Stratton if we would still be able to communicate with agencies that were still using VHF.

Chief Stratton said that we would continue to communicate with agencies on VHF in addition to having 800 MHz.

Council Member Bunker asked if the college would be included in the change.

Chief Stratton said that the college was under our wing but that they may stay on VHF if they would not be able to come up with the funds for the monthly service fee.

Council Member Pike asked if Chief Stratton believed that UCAN was treating the City fairly compared to communities and agencies up north.


St. George City Council Minutes
December 10, 2009
Page Five

Mr. Dial stated that UCAN was being very fair with us.

City Manager Gary Esplin explained that they will plan on putting a recommendation for UCAN membership on an upcoming council meeting because the grant will expire in January. He explained that if the recommendation were approved the transition would be completed before the end of 2010.

Mayor McArthur moved the meeting into the City Council Chambers because of the number of attendees wanting to hear the report from the Little Valley Committee.

Report from the Little Valley Committee.

Mayor McArthur stated the Little Valley Committee was going to present a report to the council on what they have been working on over the past several months. He explained that comments would be limited to the Little Valley Committee members, City Council members, and City staff members.

Bob Nicholson, Director of Community Development, said a limited number of the Little Valley Plan Review Committee reports had been printed but that it would be put on the City web site under Community Development.

Mayor McArthur asked that Mr. Nicholson introduce the committee members.

Mr. Nicholson introduced property owners Ron Bracken, Ed Burgess, Ray Cox, Paul Gooch, and Karen Jorgensen. Ms. Jorgensen was not present at the meeting. He also introduced Mike Nobis, Planning Commission member. Mr. Nobis was not present at the meeting. Mr. Nicholson said that Dr. Todd Parry was a resident of the Knowles which is at the edge of Little Valley. Mr. Nicholson explained that Dr. Parry had an interest in coming to the meetings and was an active member. Council Member Jon Pike was also introduced as a Little Valley Committee member. Mr. Nicholson said the City staff members included himself; Craig Harvey, Planner I; Gail Williams, Secretary, who took the minutes; Laura Taylor, Parks Planning Manager; and Mark Goble, Landscape Architect I. Ms. Taylor was not present at the meeting.

Mr. Nicholson pointed out that the committee had met ten times between May 20, 2009 and October 21, 2009. He said that almost all of the meetings were held at City Hall. He stated on July 1, 2009 the committee went on a field trip through the area and on August 5, 2009 a meeting was held with approximately 25 30 large property owners in Little Valley. He said there was a public meeting held on September 16, 2009 at Sunrise Intermediate School that was attended by approximately 40 or 50 people who were mostly residents of Little Valley. Mr. Nicholson stated there had been very good attendance at the committee meetings and everyone behaved in a civil manner. He explained that the committee members set ground rules at the beginning which included presenting both sides of an issue if the committee members couldnt reach a consensus rather than having a vote determine the outcome. He said that there were a number of issues where the committee reached a consensus. He said the first item was the equestrian trail which was proposed as part of the Little Valley plan map that was adopted in March of 2007. The proposed trail would run along the length of 3000 East along the power easement. The committee reached a consensus that an equestrian trail would not be good along 3000 East because of the amount of traffic in that area. They

St. George City Council Minutes
December 10, 2009
Page Six

proposed a lower loop trail that was detailed on page 11 of the report. The trail would extend along the base of the airport hill, then along the Ft. Pierce Wash to the
intersect with the Washington Canal-Coyote Springs Drive-Seegmiller Drive, completing a triangular-shaped loop.

Mayor McArthur asked if there had been any communication with Washington City about the proposed trail.

Mr. Nicholson stated that he was not aware of any communication because the trail was still in a proposed state. He went on to state that the 3000 East area could become more of a multi-purpose trail.

Mr. Nicholson said that item two was a discussion about how to make development compatible with existing large lot subdivisions. He explained that the existing Little Valley plan required a 100 ft. buffer between the nearest new home in a new development and the property in an equestrian subdivision. He referred to a map of the Silkwood Subdivision as an example of a plan that had been approved that has the 100 ft. buffer and the 60 ft. wide trail easement. He said the density feathering adds a wrinkle to the approved plan. He explained that lot sizes are feathered and referred to another map that had various green colored lots. He stated the dark green represented 1 acre lots and pointed out that they were buffered by a row of acre lots which transitioned to the acre lots and on down to the smaller lots. He said it is a feathering of the density. Mr. Nicholson said the committee endorsed this as a way to further protect those existing agricultural subdivisions. He said when the Little Valley plan was adopted there were no specifics. The plan just said that
new development shall feather its density without really saying what that means. He said if they adopted something like the example of the 1 acre to smaller lots it would be fairly specific and they could be as rigid as saying that a acre lot would have to go next to the acre lot. He said it would put a little more meat on the bones of defining how it would actually work. He said the density feathering could also be accomplished through lot-size averaging. He explained that lot-size averaging doesnt increase the number of lots it just allows for more flexibility.

Mr. Nicholson said item 3 in the report is a recommendation to allow lot-size averaging in the residential estates zones. The current ordinance allows lot-size averaging in R-1-10, R-1-12, R-1-20 and R-1-40 zones but does not allow for small or large animals. Residential estates zones allow for both large and small animals. He stated there was also support for a zoning code amendment which would allow for limited commercial gardening in the RE-37.5 zone which would allow for commercial selling (seasonal farmer vegetable stands) of eggs, tomatoes or similar vegetables and fruits.

Council Member Pike said with the lot-size averaging and allowing it in RE zones was that the committee wanted to make it abundantly clear that the area was more of an agricultural area even if the resident wasnt on a 1 acre parcel. He stated it would also give people who lived on the smaller lots a right to do some of the agricultural things.

Mr. Nicholson said he was going to have Craig Harvey, City Planner, discuss the Right to Farm item.



St. George City Council Minutes
December 10, 2009
Page Seven

Mr. Harvey explained in the current ordinance there is nothing that protects farmers or agricultural operations from nuisance complaints. He said there was 100% agreement from Little Valley residents to recommend an amendment to the nuisance ordinance or something that would protect their farmer rights. He stated the request was to amend the St. George City Code, Title 4 Health and Safety, Chapter 2 Nuisances, Section 4-2-1 Defined to provide protection to the inherent right of agricultural operations on agricultural and similarly zoned properties throughout the City. The proposed new language would be:

D. Agricultural Operations: Commercial and Non-Commercial
1. Activities conducted in the normal and ordinary course of agricultural operations, as defined in subsection 4-2-1(D)(3), and conducted in accordance with sound agricultural practices are presumed to be reasonable and do not constitute a public nuisance under section 1.
2. Agricultural operations undertaken in conformity with federal, state, and the Citys regulations and zoning ordinances, are presumed to be operating within sound agricultural practices.
3. Agricultural Operations means any agricultural activity, operation, or facility included, but not limited to:
a. The cultivation and tillage of the soil;
b. The lawful use of appropriated water rights for agricultural irrigation purposes, as well as irrigation water delivery systems equipment maintenance and improvements;
c. The lawful burning of weeds, debris, and agricultural waste, including the burning of ditches and fields;
d. Dairying;
e. The production, irrigation, draining, frost protection, cultivation, growing, harvesting, and processing of any commercial agricultural commodity, including turf production, viticulture, apiculture, or horticulture;
f. The raising of livestock, or poultry for commercial purposes or otherwise;
g. 4-H and similar activities;
h. Agricultural spoils areas;
i. Veterinary services, hospitals or clinics, including veterinary crematoriums for small animals;
j. Public or private equestrian stables, and corrals; and any practices performed by a farmer or on a farm as incidental to or in conjunction with the above described activities, facilities and operations, including: the legal application of pesticides, herbicides, fungicides, rodenticides, and fertilizers by ground or aerial application; use of farm equipment; storage and preparation of agricultural products for market, and delivery of such products to storage, market, or to carriers for transportation to market.

Mr. Harvey said they recommended taking Policy #21 from the existing Little Valley Sub-Area plan and placing the language on all new subdivision plats approved for the Little Valley area.

St. George City Council Minutes
December 10, 2009
Page Eight

Mayor McArthur stated they have already put that type of language on some zone changes.

Council Member Bunker asked if there couldnt be something stronger that just the language on the plat. She asked if there could be some type of legal document that says the owner has read the language.

Mayor McArthur said they have done that at different times in the past where the individual actually signs a document.

City Attorney Shawn Guzman said that the unfortunate thing about that type of document is that they are only as good as the title company that is representing the buyer/seller.

Mr. Harvey said with many of the nuisance ordinances he reviewed, there was a disclosure statement the homeowner had to sign acknowledging a right to farm ordinance and that there are agricultural operations next to their plat. He said he couldnt find anything like that in the State of Utah. He stated that he found it was generally adopted by counties rather than cities.

Council Member Bunker stated she would like to see something like that put in place.
Paul Gooch stated he was in favor of the recommendation. He asked if there was some way to make sure that in the future the residents would still be protected by the ordinance.

Mayor McArthur explained that at any time a resident could make a request for a change in the ordinance.

City Manager Gary Esplin said the master plan has and could be changed based on the needs and requests that are presented to the council. He explained that if in the future a request was made to amend the ordinance and it was approved by the council the change would take effect.

City Attorney Guzman said that the current residents would be grandfathered but if they ceased to use the animal rights for 1 year after the ordinance was changed then they would lose the grandfathering on that property. He explained as long as they continue to use the property as it is currently covered under the existing ordinance land they would be protected.

Mr. Harvey went on to say that the final recommendation was to promote neighborhood or community gardens. He said even though there was discussion about responsibilities for keeping up the gardens, the committee supported efforts to promote community gardens. He stated the committee wanted community gardens to be encouraged as part of a developments common area or landscape/open space requirement for projects which have common area.

Council Member Almquist asked Mr. Harvey to clarify that the recommendation was not to mandate a community garden but rather it was an option that would be available for open areas.

St. George City Council Minutes
December 10, 2009
Page Nine

Mr. Harvey said the Council Member Almquist was correct in saying it would be an option not a requirement. He said he found in his research the average community garden is 1,200 sq. ft. per family.

Bob Nicholson, Director of Community Development, stated he was going to review concepts there were discussed by the committee but where there was no consensus reached. He explained some committee members proposed that the Little Valley Plan contain an Agricultural (Ag) area or Rural Lifestyle Area where large lots (minimum of one acre) would be required, and zone changes for lot sizes of less than one acre (or density less than 1 du/ac) would not be approved. Support for the Ag area was based on: (a) society needs Ag areas and even small-scale Ag areas for food production and for such uses as 4-H projects for children, equestrian use, and elbow room; (b) variety and diversity of neighborhoods. St. George has many standard acre lot subdivisions throughout the city but very little area for large lot/agricultural uses. Rather than blanket the entire city with standard subdivisions, an area should be reserved for a rural lifestyle; (c) contact with nature. People who grow up with a more direct contact with nature realize positive health and psychological benefits. He stated some committee members supported an agricultural corridor which would provide a minimum critical mass area that could support continued agricultural uses including equestrian use for many years in the future, and that without such a minimum Ag corridor the existing Ag uses and equestrian owners would move away due to the problems created by development isolation. The Ag area would have the same standing or significance as an industrial area, multi-family area or any other zoning use designation. The above listed preferences for keeping the Little Valley area rural were generally echoed by residents who turned out to a neighborhood meeting at the Sunrise Intermediate School on September 16, 2009.

Council Member Bunker said that the concept of having an agricultural corridor sounded very good. Ms. Bunker asked if they had identified a specific location that could be an Ag corridor.

Mr. Nicholson stated there was a recommended location that was shown on the map on page 10 of the report. He said the area would extend from 2450 South on the north end down to Little Valley Ranchos on the south. He said the idea was to have an area that would be designated on the General Plan for long term agricultural use, for the next twenty plus years. He said the present plan that was adopted allows for large lots and most of the area is currently zoned that way but it doesnt mandate that for the future.

Council Member Shakespeare asked how many acres the Ag corridor would involve.

Mr. Nicholson said he would have to go back to the minutes to see what the actual number would be. He stated the minutes of all the committee meetings were included in the report that was handed out.

Mr. Nicholson said on August 5 property owners who had property in the so called rural lifestyle area were invited to a meeting which was held at City Hall. He explained that about 30 people were present and almost none of them liked the idea. He said some of the people stated they were farming today but they didnt like the idea of the City designating a somewhat permanent twenty year plan that the area would be rural.


St. George City Council Minutes
December 10, 2009
Page Ten

Mayor McArthur asked if there had been any discussion about conservation easements.

Mr. Nicholson said there had been a little discussion about conservation easements. He said at the site visit there was a member of the Virgin River Trust who talked about it

but there was a cost involved. He said the question was asked about where the money would come from to pay for conservation easements.

Mayor McArthur asked if there was a conservation easement were the property owners in favor of it.

Mr. Nicholson stated they really didnt discuss that with the property owners. He said he suspected if the property owners got their market value for it, there probably would be an acceptability for a conservation easement.

Council Member Shakespeare asked if instead of putting all of the acre lots together couldnt the acre and acre lots be mixed in with the acre lots and then made into a rural agricultural area. She asked if that wouldnt give the landowners a lot more protection so that future City Councils wouldnt change the zoning.

Mayor McArthur said that the variety would also make it more interesting as a community.

Paul Gooch said they were not asking for all open space. He stated development isolation is what they are afraid of. He agreed that the concept Council Member Shakespeare described would fit with what they wanted.

Mr. Nicholson explained that he was going to present a different view point to the council which was on opposite one from the one he described before. He said some committee members support the current Little Valley Land Use Plan, which accommodates smaller lots i.e., more intense development for the following reasons: (a) smaller lots reduce sprawl, reduce development costs and therefore promote housing affordability; (b) much of Little Valley is currently non-irrigated and may not be well-suited for agriculture or pastures; (c) there appears to be a declining demand for large-lots and horse properties; (d) smaller lots are easier to maintain and generally promote water conservation. The impact fees assessed by the Washington County Water Conservancy District limit outside irrigation with culinary water to 5,000 sq. ft. or less and significantly increase this required impact fee payment for lots larger than 10,000 sq. ft. in size. Mr. Nicholson said the impact fees that were listed in the report would begin in January of 2010. He stated there is an annual escalation built in. He stated for a 10,000 sq. ft. lot the annual impact fee would be $5,272 but it would be increased significantly if the owner did not sign an agreement limiting the amount of outside turf. He said the fees would be $10,442 for a 20,000 sq. ft. lot and $20,782 for a 40,000 sq. ft. lot. He stated the Water Conservation Easement restricts an outside irrigation area to 5,000 sq. ft. He said the point was that even with the larger lots they would only have 5,000 sq. ft. of irrigation area unless they paid the extra fees or if they had a secondary water system; (e) the current Plan accommodating smaller lots i.e., 4 du/ac in most areas is consistent with Washington Citys Plan for the Washington Fields area; (f) much of Little Valley has the necessary infrastructure to support suburban type growth, such as schools, churches, parks, utilities and roads; (g) the current Plan is

St. George City Council Minutes
December 10, 2009
Page Eleven

consistent with smart growth principles and more efficient land use. Also, the City used professional city planner consultants in the development of the Little Valley Sub-plan and the planners involved recommended adoption of the Plan; (h) existing large-lot (horse) subdivisions can be buffered to some extent through density feathering and buffer setback requirements.

Mr. Nicholson said in conclusion the above two contrasting visions for the Little Valley are representative of the larger community. He said there seems to be two rather polarized positions when it comes to the future of the Little Valley area and the committee was not able to develop a workable solution or compromise that met the needs of both sides. He stated the committee met ten times, had good attendance, the meetings were very civil and all the committee members respected one anothers view points but in regard to the long-term preservation of an agricultural area in Little Valley no consensus was reached.

Mayor McArthur asked if other committee members wanted to present their opinions to the council.

Paul Gooch expressed his thanks for the City allowing them to participate in the process. He said that no one could say that their voices hadnt been heard in the current process. He said the Little Valley community members were a tight knit group, good citizens and industrious. He said the one question that hadnt yet been answered is whether the City is going to protect some ag use within the City and do more than build statutes in the center of town celebrating that heritage. He said the developmental isolation that can come from some of these compromises that have been talked about will in the long term squeeze out the ag use. He said that if the City is serious about preserving a place for agricultural use than it needs to have a home. He stated it needs to have continuity, contiguity, and critical mass. He said if it wasnt set up that way than it wouldnt exist. He stated that critical mass is such an important part and that Little Valley is on the edge of the City and there wouldnt be anywhere else to go.

Council Member Shakespeare stated there was an area in Portland that was identified as an agricultural area and wanted to know how big it was.

Mr. Harvey said that he thought the area was about 825 square miles for urban growth and everything outside of the area was for farming.

Mr. Gooch said that in the last few months cities from coast to coast are struggling with the same issue and looking at how to handle small scale farm use.

Council Member Bunker said the Portland parameter was to prohibit growth and if you wanted to buy a home it had to be a fixer-upper. She asked Mr. Gooch if the reason why he wants an agricultural corridor is because of the potential increase in critical mass.

Mr. Gooch stated that was correct.

Mr. Ed Burgess said that he means no disrespect but he has been through this process 3 different times with various councils. He stated there had been times in the past when the meetings had gotten ugly. He said that theyll be back again when there is a new

St. George City Council Minutes
December 10, 2009
Page Twelve

council. Mr. Burgess said there was a consensus on wanting to get a nuisance ordinance but no one wants to be told what they to do forever in the future. He said theyll be fighting forever if they dont find some consensus. He suggested they need to find a way to make them whole.

Mr. Rob Bracken said it takes $105,000 to get an acre ready to sell and people are not willing to pay that much money. He said he would lose money if he sold property for what its value is today.

Dr. Todd Perry said they dont want a medium density property development next to a school. He stated he wants a combination of feathering and lot-size averaging with an agricultural corridor included.

Mr. Ray Cox said his thoughts were scattered. He said there are very few who support having a huge equestrian trail. He asked if anyone had looked at the estimated cost versus the actual use of it. He stated he has been involved in the meetings for years and they keep having the same general arguments. He said that if they stepped back 10, 20 or 30 years people didnt want to have 1 acre lots. He said there is a natural growth that needs to be accepted. Over the years he goes on and on about the future.
City Council Member Bunker asked about the plan that was done a couple of years ago where there were some spots of agricultural. She wanted to know if the residents were totally against that concept.

Someone from the audience stated that they didnt talk about the plan in that kind of detail but focused more on 1 acre lots.

Mayor McArthur said the council went through the same discussions and relived it over and over. He stated they have traveled to different areas to get ideas. He said former councils have tried to protect agricultural use through zoning. He said there have been a whole bunch of different people who have a whole bunch of different views and thats what is continuing to happen.

City Manager Gary Esplin said he went through the Vision Dixie program where they brought different people from the County together to try to create a compromise that would appease everybody and obviously it didnt work because theyre still discussing the same issues. He explained its because new people come into the discussion. He stated that the groups are so polarized that they cant come to a consensus. He said the Master Plan will continue to change over the years as new people come into the community and as new ideas are brought to the council. He stated that having a conservation easement is the only way to address the issue.

Discussion continued between several of the committee members.

Council Member Almquist said he wanted to express his thanks to everyone who served on the committee.

Mayor McArthur said he appreciated the civility shown by the committee members. He explained they would be revisiting the issue and said that was one of the reasons they put it out to a committee. He stated there was some good information in the report and

St. George City Council Minutes
December 10, 2009
Page Thirteen

the council would be looking at it. He expressed his thanks to everyone for their participation.

Council Member Shakespeare stated the City wants to try and accommodate diversity and look at recommendations to see what is the best for the City in the long run.

Council Member Pike said he thought the committee did a really good job and felt that a lot of good had come out of it. He stated they could make some improvements from what they have learned. He said he appreciated every person on the committee taking the time to attend the ten meetings.

ADJOURN

MOTION: A motion to adjourn was made by Council Member Bunker to adjourn.
SECOND: The motion was seconded by Council Member Pike.
VOTE: Mayor McArthur called for a vote, as follows:

Council Member Bunker aye
Council Member Allen - aye
Council Member Pike - aye
Council Member Shakespeare - aye
Council Member Almquist - aye

The vote was unanimous and the motion carried.

The meeting adjourned at 7:10 p.m.



_______________________________ ___________________
Judith Mayfield, Deputy City Recorder Date