All present included Mayor Hart,
Council Member Elwell,
Council Member McDonald,
Council Member Jolley,
Council Member Roberts,
and
City Recorder Kari D. Jimenez.
STAFF:
City Manager Judy Gubler,
and
City Attorney Dale Coulam.
EXCUSED:
Council Member Rusick
Audience: Rose Watson, Colin Harrison, Angelo Disante, Don Best, Tom Pruden, Jim Schaetz, Judith Kapuscinski, Cindy Smith, Kathy Blythe, Steve Blythe, Mike Scheidle, Kim Mitchell, Cindi Lyon, Blake Esauk, Clyde Anderson, Kim Anderson, Michal Nad, Joe Reveira, Slava Lubomudrov, Dennis Mehr, McKenzie Hansen, Tim Bryan, Toni Schroath, Jeff Loris, Wendy Loris and others who did not sign in.
Council Member Rusick was excused.
Council Member Elwell led the Flag Salute
Council Member Elwell gave the Invocation
Council Member Jolley and Council Member Roberts disclosed they are property owners and residents of the Historic Township that will be discussed under the Public Hearing and SAA (Special Assessment Area) items.
Judy Gubler introduced this agenda item and indicated the first step in the process is for the City Council to propose the creation of the SAA (Special Assessment Area) to provide the improvements and that process occurred approximately two (2) months ago. A Notice of the proposed SAA was then published in the newspaper for four (4) weeks as well as sent to the property owners. The Notice included the costs, the Public Hearing date and the method to protest. The protests were then received and the deadline for the protests to be received was July 29, 2010. Tonight is the Public Hearing to hear from the affected property owners and anyone else who would like to comment. If there are less than fifty percent (50%) of protests received, the City Council can adopt a Resolution to either abandon or designate the SAA as previously discussed or the Council can alter the Resolution to include a smaller area. After the Resolution is adopted, and if the SAA is approved, the Engineer would be instructed to secure bids which are reviewed and approved. At that point the Council can scale back or abandon the project. If the project moves forward, the City Council would create a Board of Equalization, which is a Board that hears specific issues with regard to specific properties. The final step would be to send the assessment to the property owners. At any time in the process the Council can abandon the project. Regarding the protests that were received, for purposes of protest calculation, every protest received was included and counted and the percentages of protests exclude any City property. Every effort was to err on behalf of those protesting. There were 103 protests received, which is 27.5%. Based on acreage, the percentage is 29.8% and based on frontage, the percentage is 30.4%, with an average percentage of 30%. Some individuals included comments on the protest form, those being comments regarding the proposed assessment being a financial burden, disagreement with the assessment formula, preference for the rural feel of Ivins, the design of the improvements and comments that the City should pay for the improvements.
Mayor Hart indicated the purpose of a Public Hearing is for information to be provided to the City Council so the City Council can move forward. He reminded those in attendance that the discussion was to be orderly and respectful and requested that those who were going to speak, to clearly state their name and address before making their comment. Mayor Hart opened the Public Hearing.
There were several individuals who spoke in support of, and in opposition to, the proposed assessment area designation for the Special Assessment Area (SAA).
The following individuals spoke in support of the proposed assessment area designation: Marie Taylor - 145 E. 300 N.; Randall Warburton - 345 N. Main Street; Jan Mower - 165 E. 350 N.; McKenzie Hansen - 13 W. 200 S.; Don Best - 290 S. 100 W.; Paul Brennan - 150 E. 300 N.; Betty Barnum - Principal of Red Mountain Elementary; Jeff Loris - 56 S. 200 W.; Blake Esauk - 130 E. 200 N.; Joe Reveira - 269 N. Main. The following is a summary of their comments: Their property is flooded each time it rains. Flooding has been a problem for a long time. The property adjacent to their property ends up in their yard and destroys landscaping. It costs more in damages for a flooded yard and home than the assessed amount for the improvements. The proposed improvements will address the flooding issues and will improve the City. The property owners who live uphill are responsible for those who live downhill. If not now, when? - It is never a good time financially. The City and residents should take advantage of the economic situation with interest rates and construction costs being at a record low. Improvements increase property values. Other options are temporary fixes. There are a lot of children in Ivins walking to the two (2) elementary schools located in Ivins and a price cannot be placed on the childrens’ safety. The City Council is very aware of the residents and the Council looks at the City as a whole and what is best for the City. The City has been generous to pay for a portion of the improvements. They appreciate the City and the Public Safety Department. It is better for the City to address the flooding issues on its own terms rather than to be told by the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency) how to address the issues. The EPA’s involvement could be extremely costly. The City has done a good job putting this project together and has chosen a fair way to assess the properties. Some residents suggested the City look into the possibilities of placing sidewalks on only one side of the street, sweat equity, utilizing workers who live in Ivins, and/or a community effort to assist those who cannot afford the improvements.
The following individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed assessment area designation: Tom Pruden - 370 N. 100 E.; Lilly Ofcarcik - 145 E. 350 N.; Don Audd - 135 E. 100 S.; Katrina James - 25 W. 300 N.; Donna Kohl - 130 S. 200 W.; Elaine Winget - 130 N. Main; Michal Nad - 20 W. 200 N.; Jay Beacham - 85 E. Center. The following is a summary of their comments: The process for counting the votes was not fair and was unethical because the property owners who did not protest were counted as a "yes" vote. There are property owners who are out of town during the summer months and they were not able to protest prior to the deadline. A number of properties are in foreclosure and it is unlikely that the banks responded. The assessment was not calculated fairly. Something needs to be done to address the flooding issues but the City and residents cannot afford this project. The City should be conserving and not spending. They are unsure of the EPA’s involvement or requirements. The City may not receive the anticipated federal funding for the project. This project would be a financial hardship. Some prefer the rural feel of the community. If the project moves forward, it should only include improvements for the areas that are affected by flooding and the engineering should be checked to ensure it is correct to address elevation changes. Sidewalks are an illusion of safety, are overrated and are not needed on both sides of the streets.
There being no further comments, Mayor Hart closed the Public Hearing and applauded those in attendance for their courtesy and thoughtful comments. He indicated the City followed the process according to Utah Law and realizes there are multiple points of view on this issue. The City has made a conscientious effort to provide information to residents and to answer questions.
Dale Coulam indicated he had drafted two (2) Resolutions. One Resolution would abandon the assessment area and the other Resolution would move forward with the assessment area as proposed. The Council does not have to designate the assessment area tonight but if the Council wants to move forward it would be prudent to designate the assessment area because there is a phase two to the process. The project can be abandoned at anytime. Adjustments to the properties in the assessment area would be through a Board of Equalization. There has been discussion regarding the community getting together to help those who cannot afford the assessment. The City could not discuss that prior to the Public Hearing but now that the Public Hearing has concluded, if the Council moves forward with the assessment designation, the City can look at options to assist those who may need financial help to pay for the assessment.
Council Member Elwell is in favor of the SAA and referred to his background in Law Enforcement and Traffic Safety. There is no question there is a need for sidewalks in Ivins. The safety hazards are real and there are drawbacks to sidewalks but overall it is safer for kids to walk on sidewalks than in the street.
Council Member McDonald thanked everyone for their attendance and indicated the SAA project came forward based on public comments from concerned residents. He is in favor of the SAA and hopes the project can be completed in a timely manner.
Council Member Jolley is in favor of the project and stated as a homeowner living within the boundaries of the SAA it would be easy for him to say "leave it the way it is" but as an elected official representing others, the City needs to look at the future of Ivins and curb, gutter and sidewalk are a necessity as the City moves forward. He is sympathetic to those who would be financially burdened by the assessment.
Council Member Roberts thanked everyone for the civility of the Public Hearing. Curb, gutter and sidewalk are a health, safety and welfare issue. The EPA will become involved if Ivins does not address their concerns. The City should move forward with the project as designated and he is favor of using local contractors anyway the City can and thinks the community can put together an effort to help those in need.
Dale Coulam referred to Resolution No. 2010-17R and read it in its entirety. A copy of the Resolution is available by request through Ivins City Hall. The Council Members had no changes to Resolution No. 2010-17R.
MOTION: Council Member Roberts moved to approve Resolution No. 2010-17R regarding the Proposed Assessment Area Designation for the Special Assessment Area 2010-01 Assessment Area
SECOND: Council Member McDonald
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Council Member Elwell |
AYE |
| Council Member McDonald |
AYE |
| Council Member Jolley |
AYE |
| Council Member Roberts |
AYE |
| Council Member Rusick |
ABSENT |
Roll call vote. All Council Members that were present voted in favor.
Colin Harrison, 125 Mesa Vista Ct., inquired as to the status of the demolition of the home on 105 S Mesa Vista Ct. He is representing other families in the neighborhood that are concerned with the property. He indicated that on July 25, 2010 the 30 day period for the property owner to file a demolition ended and a 30 day countdown started for the City to demolish the home. He thanked Dale Coulam and Kevin Rudd for keeping him informed of the situation. He requested the City proceed to obtain an order to demolish the property. Dale Coulam indicated the 30 day time frame runs through the end of August.
Steven Weida, 63 South Padre Canyon Dr., commented regarding the process to amend the written text for Padre Canyon Estates to allow keeping up to three (3) horses on lots greater than one (1) acre. The CC&R’s (Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions) were changed and recorded with the County for Padre Canyon Estates Phases 1 and 2 but they are in conflict with the Ivins City Zoning Ordinance. He is requesting the Council assist with streamlining the process to accomplish what the residents of Padre Canyon Estates want. Mayor Hart indicated the Council has the option to bring this item forward as an agenda item in the future. Judy Gubler stated this issue could be addressed later in the agenda under item 5)D as part of another agenda item. The Council agreed to address this comment under agenda item 5)D.
Marc Deshowitz, 250 N. Snow Canyon Dr. #65 commented regarding future development on the west side. Mr. Deshowitz is a Geologist and indicated there is a scarp fault currently forming on the west side of Red Mountain that poses a potential landslide risk. He requested the City keep that in mind for future development. Judy Gubler stated Mr. Deshowitz is on the Sensitive Lands Committee.
Dale Coulam provided a draft Ordinance to the City Council, a copy of which is available by request through Ivins City Hall. He indicated there was a lawsuit recently filed against the City of St. George by a taxi company. He stated hotel shuttles and taxi services to the Spas and Tuacahn in Ivins may be considered taxi services. If the Council intends to also regulate taxi services that are located outside of Ivins, they may want to think through the potential impacts carefully, as the City does not want to hinder the spas and Tuacahn. He also suggested the City wait and see what occurs with the current lawsuit. The Council agreed and requested the "Registration" language under section 5.09.102 be removed from the Ordinance.
MOTION: Council Member McDonald moved to approve Ordinance No. 2010-13, an Ordinance of Ivins City, Utah Amending Section 5.09.101 of the Ivins City Code regarding Taxi Service
SECOND: Council Member Roberts
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Council Member Elwell |
AYE |
| Council Member McDonald |
AYE |
| Council Member Jolley |
AYE |
| Council Member Roberts |
AYE |
| Council Member Rusick |
ABSENT |
MOTION: Council Member Jolley moved to approve the Ratification of the Contract that has been signed
SECOND: Council Member Elwell
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Council Member Elwell |
AYE |
| Council Member McDonald |
AYE |
| Council Member Jolley |
AYE |
| Council Member Roberts |
AYE |
| Council Member Rusick |
ABSENT |
Judy Gubler indicated Staff met and reviewed the proposals submitted for the project and she would request the Council table this item due to an element in the low bid that may have been left out and needs to be reviewed.
MOTION: Council Member McDonald moved to table item 5)C, the discussion and award of contract for installation of the solar system
SECOND: Council Member Jolley
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Council Member Elwell |
AYE |
| Council Member McDonald |
AYE |
| Council Member Jolley |
AYE |
| Council Member Roberts |
AYE |
| Council Member Rusick |
ABSENT |
Judy Gubler indicated the subject of how the City handles some zone amendments is really at question here. The keeping of bees is not allowed in Ivins Zoning Ordinance and is therefore a prohibited use. Recently there was an issue brought before the City Council regarding a zone amendment change for Real Estate signs. Council directed the Planning Commission to review that, it came back to the City Council, went back to the Planning Commission and then back to the City Council. There is now a request to bypass the zone amendment to address horses in Padre Canyon. In that case the horse regulations overlay the entire community. The Council can direct Staff and the Planning Commission to review these and the City then becomes the applicant. There are three (3) options: One (1) is to do nothing and the regulations remain status quo. The second (2) option is the City can sponsor the application. There are costs associated with any zone amendment which include staff time and publications for two (2) Public Hearings. The application fee was established based on actual applications the City has received. The third (3) option is for the City to ask the affected party to submit an application. Staff is looking for direction as to how the Council would like Staff to handle zoning change requests. Dale Coulam stated there is also a legal process. By statute, to make an amendment to a land use ordinance, there is a process mandated that requires public hearings, sufficient notice and other requirements. The application fee for a zoning amendment or zoning district is $1,000 based on what it costs the City to go through the required process. Staff needs clarification as to when the City would be the applicant. If the City is the applicant, the costs are the City’s which means the City as a whole is paying for that amendment.
Council Member Roberts inquired that if the Council directed the City to proceed with a change, can the keeping of bees and the horse issue be addressed together? Judy Gubler indicated the hearings could be combined but that the notices may need to be separate. Dale Coulam stated if it is the Council’s preference to address an accumulation of items once or twice a year the City could do that, otherwise if it was a pressing issue the applicant would need to file an application on their own at their own expense.
Council Member Elwell likes the direction of combining the issues when that can be done. Anytime something comes to the Council’s attention that the Council did not address when the City developed the zoning ordinance, the City should bring that forward and discuss it. If it is something that the Council has had extensive discussion on, the burden should be on the developer or the individual.
Mayor Hart invited Steven Weida to speak regarding his request. Steven Weida indicated he feels that because the City adopted Padre Canyon’s CC&R’s, the City bears some responsibility and obligation to allow a reasonable mechanism for change when those CC&R’s change. Otherwise the City is hijacking the CC&R’s and any changes that are made to the CC&R’s would be meaningless. Mayor Hart stated that by making a mechanism for CC&R’s to change, therefore the ordinance changes along with it, then the City opens the door for things that are unacceptable or are in violation of other ordinances.
Council Member Jolley is in favor of combining the keeping of bees and horse issues and inquired as to what the time frame would be for the accumulation of issues. Mayor Hart indicated the Council would need to set qualifications for issues that would be acceptable to address in combination.
MOTION: Council Member Roberts moved to put in process to review the Agricultural domestic animals, beekeeping, prohibited use of that zoning ordinance
SECOND: Council Member Jolley
VOTE: The motion carried unanimously.
| Council Member Elwell |
AYE |
| Council Member McDonald |
AYE |
| Council Member Jolley |
AYE |
| Council Member Roberts |
AYE |
| Council Member Rusick |
ABSENT |