AGENDA HIGHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING October 6, 2015 …freedomnotes.com/Documents/Highland/2015-10-06 City Council Agend… · INVOCATION – Mayor Thompson ... The prayer was offered

7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION – CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS

CALL TO ORDER – Mayor Mark Thompson

INVOCATION – Mayor Thompson

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Jessie Schoenfeld

APPEARANCES

Time has been set aside for the public to express their ideas, concerns, and comments.

(Please limit your comments to three minutes each.)

PRESENTATIONS

1. Elections – JoD’Ann Bates, City Recorder

2. Highland Library – Kent Slade, Library Director

CONSENT

3. MOTION: Meeting Minutes for the City Council Regular Session – September 1, 2015

4. MOTION: Approval of Election Poll Workers – Highland 2015 Municipal General Election

PUBLIC HEARINGS and ACTION ITEMS

5. PUBLIC HERAING and RESOLUTION: Open Space Purchase – Canterbury North

6. RESOLUTION: Highland City Justice Court – Recertification

7. RESOLUTION: Intergovernmental Agreement with Utah County - Everbridge Mass Notification

System

8. MAYOR/ CITY COUNCIL & STAFF COMMUNICATION ITEMS

AGENDA HIGHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING

October 6, 2015

7:00 p.m. Regular City Council Session

Highland City Council Chambers, 5400 West Civic Center Drive, Highland Utah 84003

mannr

Highlight

Yes with minor changes Brian moved to continue this to next council meeting so that the minutes can be revised to include more detail including names of individuals recognized, details on fling finances ... .

mannr

Highlight

Yes Approved unanimously

mannr

Highlight

Yes. but I don't think the land is 0.64 acres in size. Unanimous: Moved to approve and have the proceeds put into the park budget as well as any signage changed as appropriate (as determined by staff).

mannr

Highlight

Yes Approved unanimously

mannr

Highlight

Yes Approved unanimously with the inclusion of a whereas to indicate that this is to replace a system which is no longer functional.

ADJOURNMENT

(These items are for information purposes only.)

Description Requested/Owner Due Date Status

Road Capital Improvement Plan for FY 15-16 Prioritize and Communicate to Residents

City Council

Continued Discussion

Determine Park Use for Recreation City Council Parks Staff

4th Quarter of 2015

Staff to make Recommendations

Building Use Policy Fees DeVirl Barfuss

4th Quarter of 2015

Gathering Information

HW Bldg. – PW Storage Status City Council Mayor/PW

End of 2015 In Progress

Moratorium for the Town Center Overlay City Council January 2016

CERTIFICATE OF POSTING The undersigned duly appointed City Recorder does hereby certify that on this 1st day of October, 2015, the above agenda was posted in three public places within Highland City limits. Agenda also posted on State (http://pmn.utah.gov) and City websites (www.highlandcity.org).

JOD’ANN BATES, City Recorder

In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, Highland City will make reasonable accommodations to participate in the meeting. Requests for

assistance can be made by contacting the City Recorder at 801-772-4505, at least 3 days in advance to the meeting.

The order of agenda items may change to accommodate the needs of the City Council, the staff and the public.

This meeting may be held electronically via telephone to permit one or more of the council members to participate.

THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO PARTICIPATE IN ALL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS.

http://pmn.utah.gov/

http://www.highlandcity.org/

DRAFT

Highland City Council 1 September 1, 2015

MINUTES 1 HIGHLAND CITY COUNCIL MEETING 2

Tuesday, September 1, 2015 3 Highland City Council Chambers, 5400 West Civic Center Drive, Highland, Utah 84003 4

5 PRESENT: Mayor Mark S. Thompson, conducting 6

Councilmember Brian Braithwaite 7 Councilmember Dennis LeBaron 8 Councilmember Tim Irwin 9 Councilmember Jessie Schoenfeld 10 Councilmember Rod Mann 11

12

STAFF PRESENT: Nathan Crane, City Administrator/Community Development Dir. 13 Gary LeCheminant, Finance Director 14

JoD’Ann Bates, City Recorder 15 Justin Parduhn, Public Works O&M Director 16 Brian Gwilliam, Chief of Police 17

Tim Merrill, City Attorney 18 Todd Trane, Contract Engineer 19

Brad Freeman, Fire Chief 20 21 22

OTHERS: Rhonda Bromley, Dennie Butterfield, Fay Butterfield, Lillie Kohler, Paul Bennett, 23

Jeanie Westover, Mike May, Carol May, Stuart Anderson, Christine Anderson, Amy Jones, Gil 24

Wilburn, Lynne Wilburn, Christopher McGahan, Alice Anderson, Roy Anderson, Mike Gagon, 25 Alison Gagon, Julie Brinkerhoff, Stephanie Collins, Paul Atkinson, Ryan Nuesmeyer, Rollin 26

Johnson, Kathy Mead, Lafe Harris, Willard Spykes, Jeannie Spykes, Bryce Ashcraft, Kenney 27 McEwan, Pattie McEwan, Jennifer Moulder, Rob Gulbrandsen, Srina Gulbrandsen, Jeff Beer 28 Cheyin Siggard, Karin Siggard, Bill Haines, Linda Haines, David Lukens, Brandon Baucnton, 29

Diana Pitcher, Sheila Packard, Cheryl Clyde, Jeff Clyde, Brett Johnson, Lygia Johnson, Charles 30 Allen, Kim Allison, Ryan Highlequist, Sherie Stewart, Joe Pavia, George Ramjoue, David Perez, 31

Brent Morrill, David Pixton, Joe Totorica, Elvira Totorica, Mark Whitney, Henry Boogaard, 32 Shirley Boogaard, Tim Aalder, Dennis Likes, Heidi Parker, Cathy Allred, Stephanie Lewis, 33 Janice Clouse, Randy Clouse, Evelyn Cahoon, Joel Zabriskie, Catherine Pavia, Vern Cahoon, 34

Jennifer Ashcraft, Anne-Marie Hancock, Bill Bennett, Kenny Anderson, Bob Emmett, Brandon 35 Newman, Natalie Ball, Tonya College, Wendy Condie and Robert Lewis 36

37 The meeting was called to order by Mayor Mark S. Thompson as a regular session at 7:02 p.m. 38 The meeting agenda was posted on the Utah State Public Meeting Website at least 24 hours prior 39 to the meeting. The prayer was offered by Dennis LeBaron and those assembled were led in the 40 Pledge of Allegiance by Tim Irwin. 41 42 43

Item # 3

DRAFT


APPEARANCES: 1 2 Rhonda Bromley, principal at Lone Peak High School (LPHS), gave a report and thanked the 3 City for all that they have done. She announced that LPHS has a 95.3% graduation rate, which is 4 above the State average. LPHS is also in the top five high schools in Utah in the areas of science 5 and math. Ms. Bromley thanked the City for their support in Lone Peak Community for Hope. 6

Lastly, she thanked the Council for being proactive on the parking issues, and hopes that a 7 resolution can be reached soon. 8 9 Allison Gagon commented on the church that is being proposed on 6900 West. She expressed 10 concerns with the road being a dead end street, and was worried that when people park on both 11

sides of the street it will be reduced to one lane only. Ms. Gagon explained that they have a 12

horse trailer and truck which they pull out of the driveway on a daily basis. She requested that 13 “no parking” signs be posted on both sides of the road so that they can still get in and out of their 14

driveway, and stated that these signs should be posted prior to the start of construction. 15 16 Mike Gagon reiterated Ms. Gagon's remarks, and stated that they need to be able to get in and 17

out of their driveway every day. 18 19

Lygia Johnson stated that she lives in the Town Center, and outlined the Goals and Policies of 20 Section 8 of the Highland City General Plan regarding Parks and Recreation. She was of the 21 opinion that there is not a sufficient amount of parking near parks and splash pads. Furthermore, 22

she does not believe that the Blackstone project meets the master plan and goals of Highland 23

City, and feels that it should be denied. 24

25 Mark Whitney noted that he is a Highland resident, and asked the Council to carefully consider 26

prior to casting a vote on the Blackstone project whether or not their actions will potentially lead 27 to a lawsuit. Mr. Whitney stressed the importance of only committing to projects that remain in 28 the best interest of the City. 29

30 Kathy Mead thanked the Mayor and Council for their willingness to serve the community. With 31

regards to the Blackstone project, Ms. Mead explained that there are always two sides of the 32 decision. She believes that the Council needs to choose what is right and let the consequences 33 follow. In keeping with the standards as they are set forth by Highland City, the Council should 34

deny the Blackstone application. 35 36

Brett Johnson has been a Highland resident for 18 years, and has worked as a researcher for 37 nearly 35 years. He stated that the impact of high density living and overcrowding is detrimental 38 to the health and general welfare of individual and families. Mr. Johnson then provided some 39 statistics on mental health issues in Utah and the effects of growing community development. 40 He argued that community contentment is lowered as a community begins to get overcrowded, 41 and agreed with previous remarks that the Blackstone project should be denied. 42 43

DRAFT


George Ramjoue stated that he has been a Highland resident for eight years, and is a retired City 1

Planner. With regards to the Blackstone project, the community has become heavily involved in 2 the process, and is frustrated that they have to fight against another development. He explained 3 that the purpose of the flex use code is to provide an essential area where retail and residential 4 areas can be blended. The Planning Commission recommended that the Council deny this 5 proposal. In conclusion, Mr. Ramjoue expressed frustration that the City is not using the General 6

Plan as a guide when reviewing this application, and hopes that the Blackstone project will be 7 denied. 8 9 Stan Mead acknowledged that the Council has a difficult decision to make tonight. Mr. Mead 10 explained that the Town Center Overlay indicates that it may include affordable housing, retail, 11

commercial and professional operations. The flex use code also lists approximately 40 different 12

types of businesses that could be used in this area. Mr. Mead encouraged the Council to side 13 with the residents, who have brought forth facts that show how detrimental the Blackstone 14

project would be for the City. 15 16 Dennis Likes presented a photo to the Council, and explained that recently he walked behind a 17

shopping center, which alerted him to several safety and noise concerns with regards to delivery 18 of supplies, should this project proposal be approved. 19

20 Joe Pavia spoke about the proposed storage facility on SR92 on the bottom of Park Drive. 21 Currently that space is used for a parking lot for the school buses as they drop off and pick up 22

kids from school. He explained that the lot was purposed as a parking lot because the road 23

leading to the neighboring housing development ended up being too steep for the bus. He 24

requested that the Council prohibit placement of the storage facility on that lot, as it will be 25 detrimental to the safety of the children. 26

27 Stuart and Christine Anderson recently lost their daughter in a traffic accident, and they are 28 present at tonight's meeting to make comments during Item 17, which is a motion on the 29

Operational Safety Report. As a former police officer, Mr. Anderson has some suggestions on 30 how to ensure greater safety at the City's intersections. 31

32 33

PRESENTATIONS: 34 35

1. Highland Fling Chairs – Jessie Schoenfeld and Emily Gillingwater 36

37

DRAFT


Jessie Schoenfeld thanked all of the volunteers, Council Members and staff for their help and 1

support, and stated that this year's Fling was the biggest event ever. She stated that having an 2 announcer at the parade was a great idea; however, she felt that there wasn’t enough participation 3 from City-sponsored committees and commissions. She had wanted to see them participate in 4 the parade as a way for them to gain recognition for what they do for the City. Next year Jessie 5 would like more emphasis to be placed on the Flag Raising Ceremony. She enjoyed having 6

activities all day rather than just a portion of the day. Next year she would like the information 7 booth to be staffed the entire day by the Mayor and Council. Enlisting volunteer support from 8 scouting troops for cleanup has also been a huge help, which she hopes will continue next year as 9 well. 10 11

Emily Gillingwater provided an overview of the events that took place at this year's Fling, as 12

well as the budget. She noted that the event cost around $15,000, and mentioned additional 13 changes that were made this year from last year's event. 14

15 16

2. Public Works Department – Fire Chief Freeman and Justin Parduhn 17

18 Fire Chief, Brad Freeman, reported a recent house fire that started in a garage. The Public 19

Works staff saw the fire and immediately took action, and were able to contain the fire from 20 going inside the house. 21 22

Justin Parduhn, Public Works O&M Director, thanked the staff for all that they do in service to 23

the community. He briefly mentioned another recent situation in which a child was rescued from 24

potentially drowning in a nearby park. The City's personnel go above and beyond their daily 25 responsibilities. 26

27 28

3. Changes in Drug Enforcement – Police Chief Gwilliam and Tim Merrill 29

30 Tim Merrill, City Attorney, explained some changes which will be effective as of October 1, 31

2015. He reported that the statistics for illegal drug use are slightly lower than the national 32 average, and prescription drug use is 5% higher than the national average. The State Legislature 33 has reclassified felony drug offenses as misdemeanors, which has been an extremely unpopular 34

legislative action among law enforcement and prosecutors. He explained that only the State can 35 criminalize conduct up to a Class B misdemeanor, which will shift the burden of prosecution to 36

municipalities. The changes in the law reflect a society trend to get offenders into rehabilitation 37 programs. Tim Merrill is of the opinion that the real reason behind these legislative changes 38 relate to fiscal impacts to the State. He pointed out that the new law was enacted in light of 39 moving the State prison, and this new law will inevitably reduce the overcrowding at the prison. 40 Misdemeanors cannot have a prison sentence, which puts added financial burden on counties to 41 house people sent to the county jail for drug use, rather than sending them to the State Prison. 42 43

DRAFT


Chief of Police, Brian Gwilliam, echoed Tim's remarks. He reiterated that law enforcement 1

opposed this bill, knowing the effects that it would have on drugs in the community. Chief 2 Gwilliam stated that county jails are already full, and this new mandate will create an even 3 bigger burden on them. 4 5 6

4. Open Meeting Law – Tim Merrill 7 This item was continued until the next regularly scheduled City Council Meeting. 8

9 10

CONSENT ITEMS: 11

12 5. MOTION: Approval of Minutes for City Council Regular Session – May 5, 2015 13

14 6. MOTION: Approval of Minutes for City Council Regular Session – June 16, 2015 15

16 7. MOTION: Approval of Minutes for the City Council Regular Session – June 21, 17

2015 18

19 8. MOTION: Approval of Minutes for the City Council Regular Session – August 4, 20

2015 21 22

MOTION: Tim Irwin moved that the City Council approve the Consent Items on the 23

agenda. 24 25

Dennis LeBaron seconded the motion. 26 Unanimous vote, motion carried. 27 28

29

PUBLIC COMMENT: 30 31

9. Urban Deer Control Program – Requirement of DWR 32

33 Ben Fitkau stated that he is a local resident who favors this program going into effect. He would 34

like to get the animals out of his property, because he does not want anyone who visits his 35 property to pick up any diseases that the animals may be carrying. He provided a breakdown of 36

how the animals have impacted his property over the past two years. 37 38

DRAFT


City Recorder, Jody Bates, explained that the Highland City Urban Deer Control Program 1

currently does not utilize a processing location, all the meat is donated to local residents that are 2 responsible for the cost of the processing. Brian Braithwaite asked about the City's previous plan 3 for covering costs associated with animal processing. Jody answered that they have enough 4 residents requesting the meat that the City has donated all of it, thereby covering all costs. Tim 5 Irwin suggested that this item be placed on a future agenda so that a public hearing can take 6

place. 7 8 9

PUBLIC HEARING: 10 11

10. Highland Oaks – Annexation and Approval of Ordinance 12

13 Nathan Crane presented the staff report. Tim Irwin expressed concerns with a portion of the 14

property for the ravine encroaching on some of the lots, and inquired as to whether or not this 15 will be fixed. Nathan answered that there aren't any plans in place to make this change, however 16 staff can further look into the matter. Brian Braithwaite asked how the development will work 17

around the property, and opined that the R1-20 zone will not offer sufficient flexibility. He 18 suggested that this item go back to the Planning Commission so that they can make adjustments. 19

Rod Mann agreed with his remarks. 20 21 Rob Gulbrandsen stated that from an engineering standpoint, the impact is less on R1-20 than 22

any other zone. The General Plan identifies the R1-20 as a zone that is preferred by the City, 23

because it is a low density. Mr. Gulbrandsen then presented slides and design grading plans, and 24

explained that according to an analysis he feels it would be best to rezone an R1-40 property to 25 R1-20. The grades in R1-20 are no larger than what already exists in other subdivisions. The 26

drainage will affect five lots, which can potentially be adjusted. Sewage issues have successfully 27 been negotiated in order to connect into this new division. Mr. Gulbrandsen stated that they 28 would like own the street scape along 11800 North and Highland Boulevard, which would be 29

maintained by an HOA. 30 31

Mayor Thompson opened the Public Hearing. 32 33 Bill Bennett stated that he lives across the street from the proposed development, and explained 34

that most developers with whom he has associated are usually only interested in money, rather 35 than the needs of the community. However, Mr. Rob Gulbrandsen is not this way. In reviewing 36

some of Mr. Gulbrandsen's other projects, Mr. Bennett has been duly impressed. Mr. 37 Gulbrandsen is highly experienced in his profession, and he will make an absolutely gorgeous 38 development. 39 40 Kenny Anderson stated that he is a builder and a Highland resident. He commented that the lot 41 size that the majority of people are requesting is a half-acre or a R1-20 lot size. He was 42 supportive of the proposed solution and hopes that it is approved. 43

DRAFT


Bob Emmett lives on the east side of the proposed lot, and commented that he loves his view and 1

would rather not have anything come on the property. However, he believes that the developer 2 seems competent and Mr. Emmett would be supportive of his development. 3 4 Brandon Newman lives in the Dry Creek area and remarked that he is an interested buyer in the 5 property. He has been impressed with the developer, and his willingness to work with the City. 6

7 Natalie Ball expressed concerns with the density at the school. She has heard mixed reviews 8 about the developer and would like the City to stick to the General Plan. 9 10 Karen Carling stated that her father purchased 23 acres many years ago, and they sold many one-11

acre lots. She explained that smaller lots are more flattering and easier to maintain, and that 12

many people would be interested in purchasing smaller lots. 13 14

Tonya Colledge expressed that she built her dream home in Highland and would prefer that 15 Highland remain as it is, with wide open spaces. She express concerns with water and irrigation, 16 and how it will be maintained. She was also worried with the amount of traffic that will be 17

generated with higher density zones. 18 19

Shirley Boogaard stated that she has been a Highland resident for eight months. She lives in Sky 20 Estates and enjoys the natural environment in the City. She was concerned that the developer 21 will take away the beautiful scenery that they have been able to enjoy. 22

23

Mayor Thompson closed the Public Hearing. 24

25 Brian Braithwaite stated that the developer has done a great job, but would prefer to wait on a 26

decision so as to receive input from the engineer. Rod Mann agreed with Brian's remarks. Tim 27 Irwin disagreed with Brian and Rod's suggestion, and was of the opinion that the Council 28 prolongs too many items. He respects the opinions of the Planning Commission, and stated that 29

he would like to make a decision tonight. 30 31

Rob Gulbrandsen understands that they would like to discuss the matter. However, he believes 32 that the Council has had plenty of time to consider this item. He explained that if a plan was 33 submitted tonight, as an HOA they would be able to preserve the natural vegetation on the 30 34

foot non-disturbance easement. 35 36

Todd Trane, Engineer, explained that they did an analysis and presented the issues to the 37 developer. However, at this point a full engineering plan has not been completed. Changes may 38 need to be made in the future depending on sewage laws, and there was further discussion on the 39 matter. 40 41 42

ACTION ITEMS: 43

DRAFT


11. ORDINANCE: Establishing the Zoning of recently Annexed Property – Highland 1

Oaks 2 3

MOTION: Tim Irwin moved that the Council approve the R1-20 zone for the Highland 4 Oaks Annexation property, with the condition that all of the Planning Commission's 5

findings are included, and a commitment from the developer that there will only be a 5% 6 modification in the plans, or otherwise an additional review by the City Council will be 7 required. Development is being approved to the annexation of this property only. 8 9 Rod Mann seconded the motion. 10

11

Those voting "Aye": Rod Mann, Jessie Schoenfeld, Tim Irwin, Brian Braithwaite 12

Those voting "Nay": Dennis LeBaron 13 Motion carried 4-to-1. 14

15 16

12. ORDINANCE: Annexation of 35.50 acres located at the northeast corner of 17 Highland Blvd. and 11800 North – Highland Oaks Annexation 18

19

MOTION: Jessie Schoenfeld moved that the Council annex 35.50 acres, known as 20 Highland Oaks, located at the northeast corner of Highland Boulevard and 11800 North. 21

22 Tim Irwin seconded the motion. 23

24 Those voting "Aye": Jessie Schoenfeld, Tim Irwin, Rod Mann, Brian Braithwaite, Dennis 25

LeBaron 26 Those voting "Nay": none. 27 Motion carried unanimously. 28

29 Mayor Thompson called for a 10 minute recess at 10:22 pm. The meeting reconvened the 30 meeting at 10:34 pm. 31

32 33

13. MOTION: Conditional Use Permit for an 86 Unit Multi-Family Townhome 34 Development in the Town Center Flex Use Zone – Blackstone 35

36

Nathan Crane presented the staff report, and provided an overview of concerns related to 37 parking. He then turned the time over to Bruce Baird. 38 39

DRAFT


Mr. Baird explained that the access on the northeast side will not be necessary because there will 1

be an additional exit; the driveway behind Ridley's is large enough for delivery trucks as well as 2 emergency vehicles. The design on the entry level floor could require a modification to add 50% 3 of windows to the store front. As far as the applicant is aware, everything has been done 4 according to City standard. According to traffic studies, it appears that a second access is not 5 needed. There was discussion regarding whether or not a fence is needed to protect large 6

animals, but the applicant argued that it would be expensive and unnecessary. 7 8 Brian Braithwaite stated that this zone was created in order for the City to have additional 9 business locations. This proposal is a primarily residential development, and he is confused on 10 how this will bring retail to the City. He feels that the Blackstone development is very similar to 11

the development across the street, which from his perspective is not seeing a lot of success. Mr. 12

Baird argued that they are fully compliant with the use and the code, and stated that the code 13 does not require them as developers to assure the City that their development will attract 14

businesses to the City. Brian Braithwaite then read the following statement which is written in 15 the code: 16 17

“...to provide a central area where commercial, retail, and residential could be blended in an 18 attractive walkable open space environment.” 19

20 Tim Alder stated that the first design that was presented included two retail centers across from 21 the splash pad, as well as office space. However, the traffic study showed that this would create 22

more stress on the area as opposed to having just a residential development. Mr. Alder explained 23

that the units were designed with sufficient office on the main floor and a spacious living area on 24

the top floor. He assured the Council that the proposal meets the City's codes and standards. 25 Rod Mann agreed with Mr. Baird that it is not the developer's responsibility to assure the City 26

that their development will attract businesses. He believes that the other development across the 27 street isn't working because there aren't enough residents in Highland in order to support it. 28 Jessie Schoenfeld added that this development could potentially deter larger businesses from 29

coming to Highland. There was continued discussion, and Tim Irwin commented that there is 30 not enough traffic flow to make the development profitable. However, the developer has met the 31

code requirements and as a Council that is what they need to consider. 32 33

MOTION: Jessie Schoenfeld moved that the Council continue this item in order to review 34

the items and be able to make a more educated decision. This item will be placed on the 35 agenda for the September 15, 2015 meeting. 36

37 Tim Irwin seconded the motion. 38 Unanimous vote, motion carried. 39 40 41

14. MOTION: Conditional Use Permit for a 19.422 Square Foot Church – 9681 North 42 6900 West 43

mannr

Highlight

Aalders

mannr

Highlight

Aalders

DRAFT


1

Nathan Crane presented the staff report. Lafe Harris apologized to the Gagon family, who made 2 comments earlier in the meeting, and explained that they weren’t trying to diminish how often 3 they use their driveway. He stated that the church is only used for major events once a week and 4 felt that it wouldn’t often affect them. They will stress to their congregation not to park on the 5 street. Tim Irwin understands that members do typically park on the street, and suggested that a 6

no-parking zone be created to prevent traffic from blocking in the Gagon family. There was 7 further discussion on the matter. 8 9 Alison Gagon commented that the church is being built for Lehi residents; however, it will affect 10 Highland residents. She was concerned that there would be sufficient space in the event that an 11

emergency vehicle needed to access the neighborhood. 12

13

MOTION: Rod Mann moved that the Council approve the church with the condition that 14

red curbing be added to restrict parking in front of the Gagon home. 15 16

Tim Irwin seconded the motion. 17 Unanimous vote, motion carried. 18 19

20 15. MOTION: Preliminary Plat Approval for an 11-lot subdivision, 5650 W. 9600 No. – 21

Flats at Fox Hollow 22

23

Nathan Crane presented the staff report and explained that the developer is adding curb and 24

gutter, which will be reimbursed by the City. Brian Braithwaite stated that he would like to see 25 sidewalk put in for safety, and Nathan replied that they will need to get the property owners' 26

approval. 27 28

MOTION: Tim Irwin moved to approve the Preliminary Plat for an 11-lot subdivision 29

located at 5650 West 9600 North, including the stipulations from the Planning Commission. 30 31 Jessie Schoenfeld seconded the motion. 32 Unanimous vote, motion carried. 33 34

35 16. MOTION: Conditional Use Permit for a Salt Storage Building – Northwest corner of 36

Park Drive and SR92 37 38 Mayor Thompson pulled this item and indicated that it will be discussed at the next regular City 39 Council Meeting. Brian Braithwaite requested that a formal motion be made. 40 41

MOTION: Brian Braithwaite moved that the Council continue Item 16 to the next Council 42 meeting on September 15, 2015. 43

DRAFT


1 Tim Irwin seconded the motion. 2 Unanimous vote, motion carried. 3 4 5

17. MOTION: Operational Safety Report – 11800 North Highland Boulevard 6

7 Nathan Crane explained that two Operational Safety Reports were completed. He stated that the 8 reports are designed to look at how the intersection functions, rather than looking at traffic 9 counts or speed surveys. Brian Braithwaite asked what the goal is for this intersection, and 10 explained that there is more than one option to consider. Todd Trane commented that the City 11

should consider the recommendations made in the traffic studies, and explained that a three-way 12

stop could potentially cause vehicular stacking. 13 14

Stuart Anderson stated that he does not believe the striping the right turning lane would be 15 beneficial. He asked if considerations have been made for a three-way stop sign, or possibly 16 speed bumps to mitigate the issues. 17

18 Christine Anderson expressed concerns about the split second where one can’t see an oncoming 19

car, and feels a flashing stop sign is not sufficient. 20 21 Natalie Ball emphasized that speed is a major issue on this road and that something needs to be 22

done. 23

24

Jennifer Moulder explained that there is a section of the road that has a speed limit of 25 miles 25 per hour. She stated that she has never seen anyone driving that speed limit, nor has she ever 26

seen officers enforcing it either. She doesn't believe that pulling out the trees from the roadway 27 will provide a sufficient line of sight. 28 29

Wendy Condie remarked that the greatest hazard with this intersection is the turning left. 30 31

Charles Allen, representing InterPlan, stated that three-way stops tend to cause more driver 32 frustration and accidents. 33 34

Ryan Nuesmeyer, representing Project Engineering Consultants, explained that they should not 35 input a stop sign for the sake of speed control. Drivers disregard the signs when tired or running 36

late at night, thereby causing accidents. 37 38 Christine Anderson commented that there are much bigger issues to this situation. Nathan Crane 39 assured her that there are multiple factors, and that as a City they are not only looking at speed. 40 Mayor Thompson echoed previous comments that have been made throughout the discussion. 41 42

DRAFT


Jennifer Moulder questioned why better traffic control hasn't been placed at such a busy 1

intersection. Todd Trane explained they intersections are reviewed individually, and Jennifer 2 stated that something needs to be done at this intersection before another accident occurs. 3 4

MOTION: Rod Mann moved the City Council direct staff to execute a warrant study. 5

6 Dennis LeBaron seconded the motion. 7 Unanimous vote, motion carried. 8 9 MOTION: Rod Mann moved the City Council to approve a flashing speed sign be placed 10

on the Northbound side of Highland Boulevard, which would have the ability to track and 11

record speeds and times. 12

13 Tim Irwin seconded the motion 14

Unanimous vote, motion carried. 15 16 Mayor Thompson asked if a three-way stop would work in this area, and Todd Trane replied that 17

he can answer this question without data. Additional remarks were made on the subject matter. 18

19

20 18. MOTION: Increase budgeted Expense in Major Road Maintenance Fund – unused 21

portion of B and C funds from Fiscal Year 2015 22

23

Finance Director, Gary LeCheminant, stated that the City did not spend all the B and C road 24

funds from the previous Fiscal Year, and wants to move the excess $170,000 into the Major 25 Capital Road Fund. 26

27

MOTION: Tim Irwin moved that the Council move from $560,000 to $730,492.07 to use 28

the unused portion from the B&C road funds from Fiscal Year 2015 to Fiscal Year 2016. 29

30 Jessie Schoenfeld seconded the motion. 31 Unanimous vote, motion carried. 32 33 34

MAYOR, CITY COUNCIL & STAFF COMMUNICATION ITEMS 35 (These items are for information purposes only and do not require action or discussion by the 36

City Council) 37 38 Mayor Thompson indicated that due to the late hour the following items will be continued to the 39 next agenda. 40 41

A. Everbridge Communications – Devirl Barfuss 42 43

DRAFT


B. Saved Water Shares – Mayor Thompson 1

2 3

ADJOURNMENT 4 5

MOTION: Dennis LeBaron moved to adjourn. 6 7 Brian Braithwaite seconded the motion. 8 Unanimous vote. Motion carried. 9 10

Meeting adjourned at 1:08 a.m. 11 12

13 14

JoD’Ann Bates, City Recorder 15 16 17

18 Date Approved: October 6, 2015 19

20

21

CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT

DATE:

Tuesday, October 6, 2015

TO:

Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council

FROM: BY:

Nathan Crane, AICP

City Administrator / Community Development Director

JoD’Ann Bates

City Recorder

SUBJECT:

MOTION: APPROVAL OF POLL WORKERS FOR THE 2015 HIGHLAND CITY MUNICPAL GENERAL ELECTION

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval of Poll Workers for the 2015 Highland City Municipal General Election BACKGROUND: Pursuant to Utah State Code 20A-5-602, the governing body shall appoint three poll workers for each polling place and any alternates at least 15 days before the election. Poll workers are volunteers that upon approval from the Council are required to sign an Acceptance of Appointment and Oath stating the following: I , ______________, do accept the appointment of Poll Worker for the election to be held November 3,

2015, in Election Precinct _________________________________.

When I accept the position of Poll Worker, I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support, obey and

defend the Constitution of the United States, and the Constitution of Utah, and that I will discharge the

duties of my office with fidelity; that I am a citizen of the United States and the State of Utah; that I am

a registered voter; that I will perform the duties of poll worker according to law and the best of my

ability; that I will endeavor to prevent fraud, deceit, and abuse in conducting the same; that I will not

try to ascertain how any voter voted, nor disclose how any voter voted if, in the discharge of my duties

as poll worker, such knowledge comes to me; and that I will not disclose the results of the votes until the

polls have closed.

Highland City is fortunate to have returning poll workers that has previously helped with City and

County elections. They are very dedicated and skilled in the voting and counting process.

Poll Worker Judges, Counting Judges and alternates for the 2015 Highland City Municipal Elections are

as follows:

Item # 4

Evelyn Jankovich Roger Tracy Ann Jeppson

Janeen Fluckiger Laurie Vawdrey Wini Jensen

Vicki Forsyth Dennie Butterfield Rita Millar

Shirlee Webb Fay Butterfield Sherry Gillespie

Debra Maughan Mary Ellingson Mati Collins

Larilee Hansen Grant Ellingson DeAnn Thrasher

Mary Volk Susanne Holgreen Cami Dean

Teisha Anderson Kandis Johnson Susan Holgreen

These judges will participate in the early voting held here at City Hall:

October 20th – October 23rd from 9:00 am to 1:00 pm,

October 27th – October 29th from 3:00 pm to 7:00 pm and

October 30th from 1:00 pm to 5:00 pm

They will also participate in the General Election held here at City Hall and at the Community Center

November 3, 2015 from 7:00 am to 8:00 pm (later for those that are counting)

FISCAL IMPACT: Although Poll workers are volunteers they are paid for their time spent at the polls for the following: Election Training: $15 each after attendance Early Voting Judges (2): $10/hour Election Day Polls: $100. (Flat Amount) Counting Judges: $50 (Flat amount) This is budgeted for out of the Reorders Election budget 10-47-22 ATTACHMENTS: None


DATE:

October 6, 2015

TO:


FROM:

Nathan Crane, City Administrator/Community Development Director

SUBJECT:

PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION – DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS PROPERTY – CANTERBURY NORTH

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Hold a public hearing and determine if a 0.64 acre parcel owned by the City should be surplus and sold to an adjacent property owner. BACKGROUND: Plat F of the Canterbury North Subdivision was recorded in 2002. The property was given to the City to use as a trail corridor. The property owners within the subdivision are requesting the disposal of approximately 0.64 acres of open space property on the northeast boundary of the subdivision (Attachment A). The parcel was originally planned for a trail. The trail was identified as a neighborhood option trail. Chapter 2.44 Disposal of Public Property of the Municipal Code regulates the disposal of property. The first step in the process is for the City Council to declare the property surplus by resolution (attached). The second step is for the Council to hold a public hearing. Chapter 12.30 Removal of a Neighborhood Option Trail provides the process for the removal of the trail and trail corridors. CITIZEN PARTICIPATION: A petition has been submitted showing support from 147 property owners adjacent to the open space has been submitted, which represents 73% of the property owners in the subdivision. The petition exceeds the minimum requirement of 60%. Notice of the City Council public hearing was sent to all property owners on September 24, 2015. The property was posted on September 30, 2015. Notice was also published in the September 27, 2015. FISCAL IMPACT: Unknown

Item # 5

mannr

Highlight

Is that really the size of the property? 20x140 ft piece of land = 2/3rds of an acre? Perhaps a 0 is missing.

ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2. Open Space Disposal Application

RESOLUTION NO. 2015-**

A RESOLUTION OF HIGHLAND CITY, UTAH REMOVING A NEIGHBORHOOD OPTION TRAIL AND DESIGNATING OPEN SPACE PROPERTY FOR

DISPOSAL PROPERTY IN THE CANTERBURY NORTH SUBDIVISION WHEREAS, the Highland City Council has established a process of designating open space

property for disposal.

NOW, THEREFORE be it resolved by the City Council of Highland City that the Open Space

Property in the Canterbury North Subdivision, outlined and shown in Exhibit “A” is hereby designated

for disposal the City Council hereby authorizes the City Administrator to begin the disposal process of

the above-mentioned property following State and City Code.

This resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage.

ADOPTED by the City Council of Highland City, Utah, this 6th day of October 2015.

HIGHLAND CITY, UTAH

__________________________________ Mark Thompson, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ JoD’Ann Bates, City Recorder COUNCILMEMBER

YES NO

Brian Braithwaite □ □

Tim Irwin □ □

Dennis LeBaron □ □

Rod Mann □ □

Jessie Schoenfeld □ □


DATE:

October 6, 2105

TO:


FROM:

Nathan Crane, AICP

City Administrator/Community Development Director

Doug Nielsen, Judge

SUBJECT:

RESOLUTION – JUSTICE COURT RECERTIFICATION

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Recertification for the Highland/Alpine Justice Court through the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC).

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this letter is to request recertification of the Highland/Alpine City Justice The Justice Court needs to be recertified in February 2016. The recertification materials need to be submitted to the AOC no later than October 30, 2015. To apply for recertification the City must submit a written opinion from the City Attorney as well as a resolution passed by the City Council. The State Legislature has provided that any Justice Court that continues to meet the minimum requirements for its class is entitled to be recertified. FISCAL IMPACT: None ATTACHMENTS:

1. Report from Judge Nielsen with a Resolution 2. Letter from City Attorney

Item # 5

HANSEN WRIGHT EDDY & HAWS, P.C. ATTORNEYS

233 South Pleasant Grove Blvd., Suite 202

Pleasant Grove, Utah 84062

TELEPHONE (801) 443-2380

FACSIMILE (801) 796-0984

JAMES “TUCKER” HANSEN OF COUNSEL, M. REED ADAMS KASEY L. WRIGHT MARK D. EDDY BRIAN K. HAWS TIMOTHY G. MERRILL LARAMIE D. MERRITT MATTHEW R. CRANE CHERYLYN M. EGNER

September 30, 2015

Mayor Mark Thompson

Highland City Council

5400 West Civic Centre Dr., Suite 1

Highland, Utah 84003

Re: Recertification of the Highland City Justice Court

Dear Mayor and Council

Pursuant to state statute I am required to advise you and to provide you with an opinion as

to the feasibility of Highland City maintaining its justice court. In Highland, we have a Class III

justice court, which has fewer than 150 case filings per month. Justice courts must meet certain

minimum standards in the recertification process. These standards and the City’s compliance

therewith, are listed below:

1. All court business must be conducted in a facility with a courtroom and/or an office in a

public facility, within the boundaries of Highland City, which is conducive and

appropriate to the administration of justice, meeting at least the minimum standards set

out in 78A-7-213, including adequate seating and furniture for the judge, clerk,

attorneys, jury, and public.

The Highland City Justice Court's facilities meet all of the state’s standards. The justice center

has a well-appointed court room and conference room which fully accommodates the judge,

clerk, attorneys, jury and public.

2. The City must provide a judicial robe, a gavel, current bail schedules and necessary

forms and supplies, including copies of the Utah Code, Justice Court Manual, the Code

of Judicial Administration, and all other local ordinances and state laws affecting local

governments.

Highland City has provided the items required that are listed above.

2

3. The City must provide office space for the judge and clerk, including the necessary furniture and

equipment and supplies, as listed in Rule 9-105 in the Code of Judicial Administration, to

conduct court business, including a cash register or secured cash box, a typewriter or word

processor, and access to a copy machine.

Highland provides separate office space for the judge and clerks and provides both offices with

the required supplies, including computer and internet equipment.

4. The City must provide and compensate a judge a fixed compensation within the range

provided by U.C.A §78A-7-206.

Highland City retains the Honorable Douglas J. Nielsen as the justice court judge and

compensates Judge Nielsen in accordance with the state statute.

5. The City must provide and compensate sufficient clerical personnel to conduct the

business of the court.

Highland City currently employs two clerks, who are sufficient to meet the needs of the court.

6. The court must be open every day, with the hours of operation posted conspicuously at the

court and in local public buildings, although the judge is not required to be present during

all hours that the court is open.

The Highland City Justice Court is open Monday through Thursday from 9:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.,

and Friday from 9:00 a.m. to 12:00 noon. Based on the average number of case filings, the Court

is required to be open at least two hours a day. As noted above, Highland keeps its court open

and available to the public far above this requirement.

7. The judge and the clerk must hold the court at regularly scheduled times, and at such

additional times as may be needed.

Judge Nielsen holds Court every Thursday.

8. The City must pay the expenses of travel, meals, and lodging for the judge to attend

required judicial education and training and for clerical personnel to attend training

sessions conducted by the state judicial council.

Highland City pays for the judge to attend the all required judicial councils conferences and pays

for court staff to attend training as offered by the state. As a Class III Court, the judge must attend

at least 30 Hours of training and the Clerks attend at least 10 hours on an annual basis.

3

9. The City must provide a sufficient staff of prosecutors to attend court and perform the

duties of prosecution and must provide adequate funding for attorneys for defendants who

are indigent.

The Highland City prosecutor is attorney J. Tucker Hansen, who provides prosecution services in

justice court and district court. The public defender is K. Shawn Patten, who serves as defense of

defendants that are indigent. Prosecutors are present for all criminal proceeding, and the public

defender is present on an "as needed" basis.

10. The City must provide sufficient law enforcement to attend court and provide security for

the court.

Highland contracts with All-Pro Security to provide bailiffs for the court. All Pro Security retains

and uses off duty officers or those who are properly trained in court security as bailiffs for the

court.

11. The City must pay witness and jury fees for those called to testify or sit on a jury court.

Court staff verifies that all witnesses have required to attend the hearing and that they qualify for

witness fees and provides compensation consistent with state law for those who qualify. The

witness fee allowed by statute for the first appearance is $18.50.

12. The City must establish a system to accurately report and submit fines, surcharges, or

assessments owing to the state. All reports and audits shall be filed pursuant to U.C.A.

78A-7-213. The court must use the state common case management system and disposition

reporting system and must provide sufficient computer and internet equipment to

effectively comply with the case disposition reporting requirements established by statute

or rule.

Highland Justice Court complies with the state reporting requirements.

13. The court must have a digital audio recording system as specified by the Judicial Council

and maintain the audio recordings for a minimum of one year.

Highland Justice Court operates an audio recording system as required by the Judicial Council

and retains the recordings as provided under law.

14. The city must have at least one peace officer.

Lone Peak Police Department employs more than the required number of officers.

4

15. The city must have a security plan consistent with Rule 3-414 of the Code of Judicial

Administration.

The Justice Court has adopted a security plan which meets the requirements of statue, including

processing all visitors to the Court using a metal detector.

16. Each court shall report required case disposition information to the DLD, BCI, and the

administrative office of the courts electronically.

Highland city complies with this requirement through the reporting system.

In consideration of the above listed information, I am of the opinion, and recommend to

you that the Highland City Justice Court is feasible and should be recertified to continue its

operation. It is my opinion that the Justice Court fully complies with the requirements of the

Judicial Council and that it has the ability to meet these state guidelines on a continual basis.

Sincerely,

HANSEN, WRIGHT, EDDY & HAWS

/s/ Tim Merrill

TIMOTHY G. MERRILL

Highland City Attorney


DATE:

October 6, 2015

TO:


FROM:

Nathan Crane, City Administrator/Community Development Director

Erin Wells, Assitant to the City Administrator SUBJECT:

Resolution – Intergovernmental Agreement with Utah County for the Everbridge Mass Notification System

STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval an intergovernmental agreement with Utah County for the Everbridge Mass Notification System by resolution. BACKGROUND: Utah County has County has entered into an agreement for countywide mass notification services through Everbridge mass notification services. Everbridge is a software program that enables wireless notification of individuals through FEMA’s Integrated Alert and Warning System. Alerts are sent to cell phones via text messages. Recipients are required to opt in to the system. The system can be used for emergency alters or other notifications. The County is proposing a five year interlocal agreement. The agreement does allow the agreement to be extended after the five year period. Any changes to the agreement will require approval by the City Council. The fiscal impact of the agreement is discussed below. If the Council chooses to approve the agreement, staff will be discussing how to implement the program. Erin Wells, Assistant to the City Administrator will be responsible for the project. FISCAL IMPACT: First Year: A minimum of $3,744.59. Years Two-Five: Based on the number of households in the city divided by the number of households of the cities that have adopted the agreement but not to exceed the $3,744.59 in the second year but could go up in subsequent years. This item was not included in the City Budget. The budget will need to be amended to include this expenditure. ATTACHMENTS:

1. Resolution 2. Intergovernmental Agreement

Item # 7

ATTACHMENT 1

RESOLUTION NO. R-2015-**

A RESOLUTION OF HIGHLAND CITY, UTAH AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN HIGHLAND CITY AND UTAH

COUNTY FOR THE PURPOSES OF PROVIDING MASS COMMUNICATION/NOTIFICATION SERVICES AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.

WHEREAS, the Highland City Council has established that there is a need for a citywide mass

communication system to disperse information to its residents during times of emergency and other

important events; and

WHEREAS, mass notification services provide an important means to notify the citizens

residing in the boundaries of Highland City of disasters, emergencies, and other important matters,

thereby promoting the health, safety and welfare of the citizens of Highland; and

WHEREAS, the Highland City will benefit by reduced fees for mass notification services to the

citizens of Highland by entering into this Agreement while maintaining autonomy of notification in

their respective jurisdictions; and

WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement desire to benefit from the mass notification services

provided in accordance with the Agreement and the cost savings associated therewith; and

WHEREAS, the County has entered into an agreement more particularly described below for

countywide mass notification services to promote the health safety and welfare of citizens residing in

Utah County; and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to set forth the terms of their agreement and the parities rights

and obligations in this Agreement, and

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and promises contained herein, and for

other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged,

the parties agree as follows:

SECTION 1:

The Mayor of Highland City is hereby authorized to sign the “Countywide Mass Notification

Interlocal Service Agreement” with Utah County for mass communication and notification support

services attached hereto as Exhibit A.

SECTION 2:

This resolution shall take effect immediately upon passage.

ADOPTED by the City Council of Highland City, Utah, this 6th day of October 2015.

HIGHLAND CITY, UTAH

_________________________________

Mark Thompson, Mayor ATTEST: _________________________________ JoD’Ann Bates, City Recorder COUNCILMEMBER

YES NO

Brian Braithwaite □ □ Tim Irwin □ □ Dennis Lebaron □ □ Rod Mann □ □ Jessie Schoenfeld □ □

EXHIBIT A

Interlocal Agreement

-1- 4818-5346-2021.4

MASS NOTIFICATION INTERLOCAL COOPERATION

AGREEMENT

THIS MASS NOTIFICATION INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT

(hereinafter “Agreement”), is executed in duplicate this ____ day of ______________, 2015, by

and among UTAH COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Utah (hereinafter referred to

as ACounty@), and ALPINE CITY, AMERICAN FORK CITY, CEDAR FORT TOWN,

CITY OF CEDAR HILLS, EAGLE MOUNTAIN CITY, ELK RIDGE CITY, FAIRFIELD

TOWN, GENOLA CITY, GOSHEN CITY, HIGHLAND CITY, LEHI CITY, LINDON

CITY, MAPLETON CITY, the CITY OF OREM, PAYSON CITY, PLEASANT GROVE

CITY, PROVO CITY, SALEM CITY, SANTAQUIN CITY, SARATOGA SPRINGS

CITY, SPANISH FORK CITY, SPRINGVILLE CITY, VINEYARD CITY, and

WOODLAND HILLS CITY, all municipal corporations and political subdivisions of the State

of Utah, (the combined group of cities to be hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Cities” or

“City” when used in the singular).

RECITALS

WHEREAS, mass notification services provide an important means to notify the citizens

residing in the boundaries of Utah County of disasters, emergencies and other important matters,

thereby promoting the health, safety and welfare of the citizens residing in Utah County; and

WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement will benefit by reduced fees for mass

notification services to the citizens of their respective jurisdictions by entering into this

Agreement while maintaining autonomy of notifications in their respective jurisdictions; and

WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement desire to benefit from the mass notification

services provided in accordance with the Agreement and the cost savings associated therewith;

and

WHEREAS, County has entered into an agreement more particularly described below for

countywide mass notification services to promote the health safety and welfare of citizens

residing in Utah County; and

WHEREAS, the parties to this Agreement desire to enter into this Agreement to provide

for the funding and use of the mass notification system; and

WHEREAS, the parties desire to set forth the terms of their agreement and the parties= respective rights and obligations in this Agreement; and

WHEREAS, the parties and each of the Cities have approved this Agreement by

resolutions adopted by their respective governing bodies;

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the covenants and promises contained herein,

and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby

acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

-2- 4818-5346-2021.4

1. Agreement with Everbridge. County has entered into a Quote, Service

Agreement and IPAWS Addendum to Service Agreement with Everbridge, Inc., (the “Mass

Notification Agreement”), in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A, allowing Cities to utilize the

mass notification services provided by Everbridge. Upon entering into this interlocal agreement

and payment of fees to County as provided herein, each city may participate in the Everbridge

mass notification services as provided in the Mass Notification Agreement.

All Cities who are contracting with Everbridge prior to entering into this Agreement have

the option to remain separate organizations within the Everbridge system as currently established

and may continue to contact Everbridge directly with support needs for their organizations.

2. Funding and Apportionment of Mass Notification Expenses.

2.1 For the first year of the Mass Notification Agreement, each City without an

existing mass notification provider will pay County their share of the Mass

Notification Agreement contract price as stated in the last column of the

attached Exhibit B.

In the first year of the Mass Notification Agreement, Cities with an existing

mass notification provider, commencing upon the termination of their

respective existing mass notification contracts will pay County their pro rata

share of the Mass Notification Agreement price determined as follows:

(number of days remaining in the first year of the Mass Notification

Agreement/365) times the city’s yearly contract price with the previous

provider, or as otherwise determined and confirmed in writing between the

City and County.

2.2 In the second and subsequent years of the Mass Notification Agreement, each

City’s pro rata share of the contract price of the Mass Notification Agreement

will be based on the number of households in their respective jurisdictions

divided by the total number of households in the jurisdictions of all parties to

this Agreement, times the Mass Notification Agreement contract price. The

number of households in a respective jurisdiction is determined as follows:

Population divided by 2.4, multiplied by 1.1, equals total households. The

population used in the formula will be determined by the most recent United

States Census figures. All parties shall promptly pay County in advance for

the next succeeding year for their respective shares of the Mass Notification

Agreement contract price as provided in section 3.1. The percentage of the

expenses due from each party will be recalculated in the event updated US

Census figures are released during the term of this Agreement and will be

effective for the next payment period. In the second year only, a city’s pro

rata share shall not exceed the amount stated in the last column of Exhibit B.

2.3 A credit against the Quote price (Special Incentive Discount) has been applied

by Everbridge for the renewal price paid by Springville and Mapleton for the

renewal of the Springville/Mapleton Everbridge agreement. All amounts due

County from Springville and Mapleton under this Agreement will first be

-3- 4818-5346-2021.4

applied to the credit which will be apportioned equitably between Springville

and Mapleton until the amount of the credit has been satisfied. Thereafter,

Springville and Mapleton shall pay County their respective shares of the Mass

Notification Agreement contract price as provided above.

2.4 If American Fork enters into this Agreement, the totals in Exhibit B shall be

recalculated for the applicable contract year and any refunds applied to the

next contract year payments, to the extent that the recalculated amounts result

in a reduction of a City’s share of the Mass Notification Agreement contract

price.

2.5 Any additional fees incurred by County or a Participating City, including fees

listed in the Quote Supplemental Notes, will be paid by the County or

Participating City incurring the fee or service, including but not limited to API

connections, additional ORGS and training not listed in the quote, and new

ORG implementation fees.

3. Payment.

3.1 The County shall send an invoice to each of the Cities for the amount of each

City’s payment to County for their respective share of the Mass Notification

Agreement contract price. The County shall include a detail calculating each

party’s contract price share. A City’s contract price share will be allocated as

provided in the preceding section. Each party shall pay the County not less

than thirty (30) days prior to commencement of the next contract year or

within 30 days of receipt of an invoice from the County, whichever is later.

4. Coordination.

4.1 The parties shall meet at least annually to coordinate use of the mass

notification services and to discuss issues regarding the services.

5. Indemnification, Insurance, and Mass Notification Agreement Compliance.

5.1 The parties shall maintain such liability insurance as they deem prudent and

appropriate. The parties anticipate that the protections of the Utah

Governmental Immunity Act, 63G-7-101 et. seq. will apply to any claims

which may be made against any or all of the parties arising out of the use of

the Mass Notification System. However, notwithstanding these protections,

and without in any way waiving the defenses afforded by the Utah

Governmental Immunity Act, 63G-7-101 et. seq., each party to this

Agreement agrees to indemnify and hold harmless each and every other party

from all claims for personal injuries or damage to property to the extent that

such injuries or damages directly or indirectly arise out of that party’s own

acts or omissions. Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed as releasing,

indemnifying or holding harmless any party to this agreement from liability

for that party’s own acts or omissions. The indemnification obligations

hereunder, or as provided in any section of this Agreement, shall not be

-4- 4818-5346-2021.4

considered a waiver of the protections and immunities afforded by the Utah

Governmental Immunity Act (Utah Code Section 63G-7-101, et. seq.) The

obligation of the parties to indemnify under this section, or as provided in any

section of this Agreement, is limited to the limits of liability specified in the

Governmental Immunity Act (Utah Code Section 63G-7-604), or as amended

by statute or the state risk manager as provided by statute.

5.2 All parties to this Agreement shall comply with all terms and conditions of the

Mass Notification Agreement and will indicate their willingness to do so by

signing the Mass Notification Agreement as a Participating City. By such

signature as a Participating City, the city agrees to be bound by the terms and

conditions of the Mass Notification Agreement only, and does not make the

City a party to the Mass Notification Agreement.

In the event any party to this Agreement breaches any term or condition of the

Mass Notification Agreement, and fails to timely cure any such breach, the

breaching party to this Agreement shall indemnify and hold harmless all non

breaching parties to this Agreement for all claims, injuries or damages

resulting from the breaching party to this Agreement’s acts or omissions,

including but not limited to court costs and attorney’s fees incurred as a result

of the breaching party to this Agreement’s acts or omissions. The

indemnification obligations hereunder, or as provided in any section of this

Agreement, shall not be considered a waiver of the protections and immunities

afforded by the Utah Governmental Immunity Act (Utah Code Section 63G-7-

101, et. seq.) The obligation of the parties to indemnify under this section, or

as provided in any section of this Agreement, is limited to the limits of

liability specified in the Governmental Immunity Act (Utah Code Section

63G-7-604), or as amended by statute or the state risk manager as provided by

statute.

6. Duration. This Agreement shall be effective immediately upon the signature

hereof by at least two named parties to this Agreement and shall remain in full force and effect as

to all signatories to this Agreement for a period of five (5) years including any subsequent

renewal of the Mass Notification Agreement on the same terms and conditions as the original

agreement, or until such time as the Mass Notification Agreement is terminated, whichever is

sooner.

7. Interlocal Cooperation Act. The following terms are included in the Agreement

to comply with the requirements of the Interlocal Cooperation Act:

7.1 Resolution. This Agreement shall be authorized by resolution of the

legislative bodies of the signatories hereto as required by Section 11-13-202.5

of the Interlocal Act.

7.2 Purpose. This Interlocal Cooperation Agreement has been established and

entered into by the parties to provide mass notification services within Utah

County.

-5- 4818-5346-2021.4

7.3 No Separate Entity, Administration. The parties to this Agreement do not

contemplate nor intend to establish a separate legal entity under the terms of

this Agreement. The parties hereto agree that, pursuant to Section 11-13-207,

Utah Code Annotated, 1953 as amended, COUNTY shall act as the

administrator responsible for the administration of this Interlocal Cooperation

Agreement. The parties further agree that this Interlocal Cooperation

Agreement does not anticipate nor provide for any organizational changes in

the parties. The administrator agrees to keep all books and records in such

form and manner as the Utah County Clerk/Auditor shall specify and further

agrees that said books shall be open for examination by the signatories hereto

at all reasonable times. The parties agree that they will not acquire, hold nor

dispose of any real property pursuant to this Agreement. The parties further

agree that they will not acquire, hold, or dispose of any personal property

pursuant to this Agreement.

7.4 Financing. There shall not be a separate budget to carry out the terms of this

Agreement, but each party shall fund and pay for its respective responsibilities

pursuant to this Agreement. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein,

each party shall be responsible for its own costs of any action done pursuant to

this Agreement, and for any financing of such costs.

7.5 Filing. A duly executed original counterpart of this Agreement shall be filed

with the keeper of records of each party, pursuant to Section 11-13-209 of the

Interlocal Act.

7.6 Legal Review. This Agreement shall be reviewed as to proper form and

compliance with applicable law by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of

each party, pursuant to Section 11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Act.

7.7 Termination. Upon the termination of the Mass Notification Agreement, the

parties will each pay County their pro rata share for the cost of any services

due under the Mass Notification Agreement as determined in section 2.2.

7.8 Equipment. The parties will provide and maintain such equipment as they

determine necessary for their own use of the mass notification services. Any

equipment provided by a party shall remain the property of the party

providing the equipment. No real or personal property shall be acquired

jointly by the parties as a result of this Agreement. To the extent that a party

acquires, holds, or disposes of any real or personal property for use in the joint

or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this Agreement, such party shall

do so in the same manner that it deals with other property of such party.

8. Interpretation of Agreement. Whenever the context of any provision shall

require it, the singular number shall be held to include the plural number, and vice versa, and the

use of any gender shall include the other gender. The paragraph and section headings in this

Agreement are for convenience only and do not constitute a part of the provisions hereof.

-6- 4818-5346-2021.4

9. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended, changed, modified or altered

only by an instrument in writing which shall be (a) approved by Resolution of the governing or

legislative body of each of the parties, (b) executed by a duly authorized official of each of the

Parties, (c) submitted to an attorney for each party that is authorized to represent said party for

review as to proper form and compliance with applicable law, pursuant to Section 11-13-202.5 of

the Interlocal Act, and (d) filed in the official records of each party.

10. No Presumption. Should any provision of this Agreement require judicial

interpretation, the Court interpreting or construing the same shall not apply a presumption that

the terms hereof shall be more strictly construed against one party, by reason of the rule of

construction that a document is to be construed more strictly against the person who himself or

through his agents prepared the same, it being acknowledged that all parties have participated in

the preparation hereof.

11. Notices. All notices, demands and other communications required or permitted to

be given hereunder shall be in writing and shall be deemed to have been properly given if

delivered by hand or by certified mail, return receipt requested, postage paid, to the parties

directed to their respective County Commission Chairman or City Mayors at their respective

County and City Offices, or at such other addresses as may be designated by notice given

hereunder.

12. Assignment. The parties to this Agreement shall not assign this Agreement, or

any part hereof, without the prior written consent of all other parties to this Agreement. No

assignment shall relieve the original parties from any liability hereunder.

13. Utah Law. This Agreement shall be interpreted pursuant to the laws of the State

of Utah.

14. Time of Essence. Time shall be of the essence of this Agreement.

15. Lawful Agreement. The parties represent that each of them has lawfully entered

into this Agreement, having complied with all relevant statutes, ordinances, resolutions, by-laws,

and other legal requirements applicable to their operation.

16. Breach. In the event that any party breaches this Agreement, a non-breaching

party may serve the breaching party with a notice to cure the breach by certified mail, return

receipt requested or personal delivery to the breaching party. The breaching party shall cure the

breach within thirty days of receiving notice to cure, or if the breach is not capable of curing

within thirty days, commence corrective action within thirty days and diligently pursue

correction of the breach until the breach is cured. Failure to cure or diligently pursue corrective

action constitutes a breach.

17. Incorporation of Recitals. The Recitals to this Agreement are hereby

incorporated into the Covenants section of this Agreement as if fully set forth herein.

18. Binding Agreement. This Agreement shall be binding upon the heirs,

successors, administrators, and assigns of each of the parties hereto.

-7- 4818-5346-2021.4

19. Mass Notification Agreement. The parties to this Agreement shall not violate,

breach or cause the violation or breach of any term, condition or provision of the Mass

Notification Agreement.

20. Conflict. This Agreement is subject to the terms, provisions and conditions of the

Mass Notification Agreement and all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations. In

the event of any conflict between any term of this Agreement and the Mass Notification

Agreement, the Mass Notification Agreement shall govern. The parties to this Agreement shall

comply with all applicable state and federal laws, rules, and regulations.

21. Entire Agreement. This Agreement shall constitute the entire agreement

between the parties and any prior understanding or representation of any kind proceeding the

date of this Agreement shall not be binding upon either party except to the extent incorporated in

this Agreement.

22. Force of Nature. The parties to this Agreement shall not hold any other parties

liable for damages or otherwise responsible in any way if any party is prevented from the

performance of this Agreement by reason of acts of God, riot, strike, fire, weather, illness, war,

lock-up, energy shortages, or illegality.

23. Severability. If any term or provision of this Agreement or the application

thereof shall to any extent be invalid or unenforceable, the remainder of this Agreement, or the

application of such term or provision to circumstances other than those with respect to which it is

invalid or unenforceable, shall not be affected thereby, and shall be enforced to the extent

permitted by law. To the extent permitted by applicable law, the parties hereby waive any

provision of law which would render any of the terms of this Agreement unenforceable.

24. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, all

of which together shall be considered as one agreement.

25. Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement governs the rights and liabilities of

the signatories to this Agreement only. No third party beneficiaries are created, or intended to be

created by this Agreement for any person or entity not a signatory to this Agreement.

SIGNED and ENTERED INTO this _____ day of _______________________, 2015.

UTAH COUNTY

By:

Larry Ellertson

Chairman, Board of Utah County

Commissioners

-8- 4818-5346-2021.4

ATTEST:

By:

Bryan Thompson

Utah County Clerk Auditor

Reviewed as to proper form and

compliance with applicable law:

Jeffrey R. Buhman, Utah County Attorney

By:

Deputy

-9- 4818-5346-2021.4


ALPINE CITY

By:

Mayor

ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:

City Recorder


compliance with applicable law:

City Attorney

-10- 4818-5346-2021.4


AMERICAN FORK CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder


Compliance with applicable law:

City Attorney

-11- 4818-5346-2021.4


CEDAR FORT TOWN

By:

Mayor


Town Recorder



Town Attorney

-12- 4818-5346-2021.4


CITY OF CEDAR HILLS

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-13- 4818-5346-2021.4


EAGLE MOUNTAIN CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-14- 4818-5346-2021.4


ELK RIDGE CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-15- 4818-5346-2021.4


FAIRFIELD TOWN

By:

Mayor


Town Recorder



Town Attorney

-16- 4818-5346-2021.4


GENOLA CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-17- 4818-5346-2021.4


GOSHEN CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-18- 4818-5346-2021.4


HIGHLAND CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-19- 4818-5346-2021.4


LEHI CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-20- 4818-5346-2021.4


LINDON CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-21- 4818-5346-2021.4


MAPLETON CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-22- 4818-5346-2021.4


CITY OF OREM

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-23- 4818-5346-2021.4


PAYSON CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-24- 4818-5346-2021.4


PLEASANT GROVE CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-25- 4818-5346-2021.4


PROVO CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-26- 4818-5346-2021.4


SALEM CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-27- 4818-5346-2021.4


SANTAQUIN CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-28- 4818-5346-2021.4


SARATOGA SPRINGS CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-29- 4818-5346-2021.4


SPANISH FORK CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-30- 4818-5346-2021.4


SPRINGVILLE CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-31- 4818-5346-2021.4


VINEYARD CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

-32- 4818-5346-2021.4


WOODLAND HILLS CITY

By:

Mayor


City Recorder



City Attorney

A-1 4818-5346-2021.4

EXHIBIT A

[Here attach form of Mass Notification Agreement]