Minutes for 2004-01-13, Direct pdf link.

MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS OF WEBER COUNTY
Tuesday, January 13, 2004 - 6:00 p.m.
Commission Chambers, Weber Center, Ogden, Utah

Each Commission meeting is recorded on CD or audio tape, which is available to the public through the County Clerk's Office.
In accordance with the requirements of Utah Code Annotated Section 52-4-7(1)(d), the County Clerk records in the minutes the names of all citizens who appear and speak at a County Commission meeting and the substance “in brief” of their comments. Such statements may include opinion or purported facts. The County does not verify the accuracy or truth of any statement but includes it as part of the record pursuant to state law.

Commissioners Present: Chair Camille T. Cain, Commissioner Kenneth A. Bischoff, and Commissioner Glen H. Burton.

Others Present: Linda G. Lunceford, County Clerk/Auditor; Monette Hurtado, Deputy County Attorney. Fátima Blackford, Clerk/Auditor’s Office, took minutes.

A. Welcome by Commissioner Cain, Chair.

B. Pledge of Allegiance was conducted by Patty Burton.

C. Thought of the Day was offered by Commissioner Burton.

D. Consent Items:

1. Ratification of Warrants #183984 - #183991 in the amount of $20,911.10.
2. Purchase Orders of 13 Jan 2004 in the amount of $2,024,012.51.
3. Warrants #183992 - #184207 in the amount of $1,234,283.93.
4. Minutes of Regular Commission Meeting held on January 6, 2004.

Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve the consent items, less the minutes; Commissioner Burton seconded, all voting aye.

E. Action Items:

1. Engagement letter from independent auditors for 2003 audit services

Dan Olsen, County Comptroller, stated that Request for Proposals (RFP) had been sent out in August 2002 for audit services. The county had the previous auditor for eight or nine years and feel it is a good business practice to change auditors periodically. The low bidder for the 2003 audit services was Crane, Christensen & Ambrose which has extensive experience in county audits. They have audited Weber County in the past and currently audit Davis and Morgan counties. This engagement letter is for one year and subsequently it will be decided if a continued relationship is desired. It outlines the audit objectives and the auditors’ responsibilities which include that the auditors will audit the county’s financial statements, that they will do a Single Audit and will audit the county’s compliance with State regulations. Commissioner Bischoff asked if this firm would perform the services at the fee they had bid under the RFP in 2002 and Mr. Olsen replied they had agreed to do so, and he explained that, because the county had been implementing major accounting changes at that time, the county had kept the former auditor for an additional year.

Commissioner Burton moved to approve the engagement letter with the independent auditors, Crane, Christensen & Ambrose, for the 2003 audit services; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

 

F. Public Hearings:

Commissioner Bischoff moved to adjourn the public meeting and convene the public hearings; Commissioner Burton seconded, all voting aye. 1.

2. Public hearing on a petition to amend Lot 11, Falcon Crest Subdivision, to increase the building area for a dwelling

Jim Gentry, County Planning Department, stated that this petition was to amend the subdivision plat for Falcon Crest Subdivision, lot 11 (38+ acres), in the South Fork area of the Ogden Valley by changing the buildable area on the plat. The owner desires to build his home at a site presently outside the buildable area shown on the recorded plat of the subdivision. This is a large lot and the petitioner did not show all the slope under 25%. The owner is redesignating part of the lot with slope under 25% in order to build the home. The East Huntsville Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this item. Chair Cain invited public comments and none were offered.

3. Public hearing to review township planning commissions and determine whether their continued existence is advisable

Jim Gentry, County Planning Department, stated that a provision had been added to State law giving county legislative bodies, where townships had been reconstituted, the ability to review the townships after May 2002 to determine whether their continued existence was advisable. This item had been discussed at each Township Planning Commission and Mr. Gentry referred to information before this Commission including copies of minutes from the planning commissions and other documents on attendance and lack of quorums. Much discussion ensued on this item.

Chair Cain said that there had been complaints by citizens whose building projects had been delayed significantly because of lack of quorums. Commissioner Burton said that as attendance had been reviewed for townships, there were townships that one third of the time had no quorum, and about 15% of the time they did not have a full commission to make a decision. Chair Cain said that another reason for this review was a concern that had been raised through Risk Management related to insurance for the county in the event a Planning Commission’s decision became a legal liability if planning commissioners were not trained as they should be. Chair Cain had been informed that when previous efforts had been made to allow for training of those planning commissioners, that the meetings had not been effectively attended. One idea in the reconstitution process was to require training as a criterion for eligibility.

Commissioner Burton said that one issue was the heavy work load of the County’s Planning Department in order to schedule meetings, do public notifications, publications, do all the back up work, etc. for each township planning commission which take a lot of time, and require staff to work many nights. A significant issue has been that, due to lack of quorums at planning commission meetings, many applicants have had to wait sometimes up to six months for a decision. This review process began in March 2003 and was just now coming before the County Commission. Commissioner Burton said that other comments the planning staff had noted in this review process included low attendance at meetings, inadequate training, development delays due to lack of quorums to conduct business, and when a county-wide or upper (Ogden Valley) or lower valley issue arose there wasn’t a single entity from which to receive input on the recommendations. Some issues such as transportation, trails, and highways cross community lines and involve more than one planning commission. To improve this issue, he said that a two-planning commission concept had been considered, with the upper valley being one planning commission and the lower valley being another. This concept could reduce the number of meetings. To maintain community involvement, it was considered expanding the number of planning commissioners. Commissioner Burton suggested that with the savings from the overtime from Planning staff, perhaps a per diem could be paid to the planning commissioners for attending the meetings. However, those who spoke to this felt it was not needed. Monette Hurtado, Deputy County Attorney, clarified that if there was a county-wide planning commission, the County Commission would establish the number of commissioners, but if a township format was used, that number was limited to seven. Chair Cain stated that the County Commission’s objective was to provide the most efficient government to the people of Weber County and in the process not take away the local voice.

Chair Cain invited public comments and following is a summary: Gene Atkinson, past chair and current member of the West Weber Planning Commission, read a portion of a letter he gave to the Commission stating that over the past four years this planning commission had demonstrated excellent attendance and effective participation in the planning process, community members often attended meetings and shared their opinions, the community as a whole appreciated the identity and forum the planning commission provided its citizens, that this planning commission was actively involved to the point of providing substantial leadership in the development of the new general plan for western Weber County. The West Weber Planning Commission requested consideration to continue as presently constituted. The letter suggested that if there were any ineffective planning commissions that they be individually evaluated and incorporated into the Weber County Township Planning Commission. Additionally, that any time or money which might be saved by eliminating successfully functioning commissions would be offset by the loss of informed local citizen involvement. He responded to the commissioners’ questions expressing that if there was one planning commission for the lower valley it would be difficult for a planning commissioner to know every community as well as he knew his own, that people in a community had a better feel for that community, and one representative from a community could not provide objective input like seven could. Mr. Atkinson said that county staff made an attempt to train the planning commissioners at the onset, there were a few training sessions and planning commissioners were supplied with all the documents they needed, but it depended on how an individual applied himself with the information he was provided. He credited the staff for training the West Weber Planning Commission and always being accessible.

Kimbal Wheatley, who had been involved in the formation of the East Huntsville township and currently served on it, said that his six fellow commissioners lived or had land in the community and when issues, particularly controversial ones arose, they inspected the sites, spent a lot of time pondering and talking with neighbors, etc. He said training had been effective, though not formal, and because cases were very situational, he was not sure that day-long or week-long training meetings would be more effective than the way it was currently handled. Mr. Wheatley agreed that the Planning staff was overworked. Because there is so much work to do on issues coming before the planning commission, he suggested that if the County Commission decided to go with one valley-wide planning commission and one lower valley planning commission, that a system of committees be established that could take the policy review process early on to give it the necessary time. The information would then be presented to the Planning Commission and ultimately to the County Commission. He felt that the per diem idea might be better used to equip the Ogden Valley library so they could hold meetings there, which would help with attendance and get community involvement in the upper valley.

Joe VanDenBerghe, West Weber Planning Commission Chair, stated there were at least five members present tonight, an indication of this item’s importance. He said that County staff had been great to educate them along the way, that this Planning Commission had used the resources well, and the best government was the one as close to the people as possible in the community. He requested that the West Weber Planning Commission continue as it has because it had great value and would have even more in the future, particularly as growth in their area was inevitable.

Mike Ostermiller, Chief Executive Officer for Weber/North Davis Association of Realtors, stated the association had about 1,300 members and they felt it prudent to consolidate the planning commissions into two–one for the upper valley and one for the lower valley. He spent several hours in conversations with those members of the association, informally interviewing about three dozen members whose work on a daily basis related to this item. He spoke to brokers, developers, realtors, commercial and residential builders, and tried to get a fair geographic cross-section. The number one concern was lack of attendance by planning commissioners. The members were frustrated because they attended a number of meetings with clients or for personal purposes and due to lack of quorums, meetings had been canceled, which set them back and cost clients significant amounts of money. Other concerns included lack of efficiency; planning commissioners seemed to lack substantive knowledge both in terms of procedure and of more complex issues (which was extraordinarily time consuming and frustrating and decisions made seemed inconsistent with information presented); lack of clarity when issues overlapped into other townships (it was difficult to determine which planning commission was responsible); and a number of the members had indicated a lack of objectivity, that having such small geographical areas and by restricting geographical boundaries as much as they had been, perhaps it might not be sound practice to have planning commissioners making decisions on issues that had direct tangible impact on their own properties, businesses or investments. Mr. Ostermiller said that if there were two planning commissions, these would still be comprised of various members from the community but by enlarging the geographical boundaries, it would increase the objectivity.

Penny Stark, 2004 President of the Weber/North Davis Association of Realtors, cited one example that required a zoning change that was to be heard in April and it had taken several months to get an answer because the townships lacked a quorum, and then that answer had been negative. This process had taken a long time when there was a home on the market and the prime time for selling had passed.

Chair Cain wished to clarify that the period of time that it might take in some cases to get through a planning commission was not in instances where there had been intense deliberation but rather the concern was when a developer missed an entire construction season because of a lack of a quorum.

Gage Froerer, realtor/developer, and property owner both in the upper valley and the lower valley, urged the Commission to support the idea of an upper valley commission and a lower valley commission. He felt this was an issue of efficiency for the county and for the private property owner. He understood that there were a number of functioning planning commissions, which in his opinion were the exception. He attended a number of meetings where there had been lack of quorums. He indicated that some people who had looked at property in Weber County had left frustrated due to lack of apparent knowledge by some the planning commissioners, and some decisions by planning commissions appeared not to be objective. He suggested additional training for the planning commissioners.

Stephen Clarke, Eden Planning Committee Chair, spoke in support of township planning commissions. He felt the current representation of the Weber County Planning Commission was better than it would be with the two-planning commission proposal and asked this Commission to be careful about forming new townships and planning commissions but rather to solve the problems that currently existed. The committee felt strongly that there was a role for citizen committees in addition to township planning commissions and asked that this Commission make every effort to permit a variety of committees to function with each other. The issues the committee felt were most important included lack of proactive planning in areas such as Eden where master plans didn’t exist (notwithstanding the Ogden Valley General Plan which did not become a community master plan), and the need to consider the manner in which planning commissioners were selected. Mr. Clarke said that the feedback the committee had received, as well as the feelings of the committee members, was that elected representation was far superior to appointed representation and asked that the Commission do everything possible to permit elected representation in township planning commissions. Commissioner Burton asked what were the committee’s zoning recommendations for Eden and Mr. Clarke replied they would like a zoning review of Eden rather than the existing upper valley-wide zoning, in order to be more community specific. He referred to inappropriate cases of commercial zoning they found just in the last two months. Chair Cain asked if he was aware that there was a process whereby they could bring those issues before the Planning Commission and the County Commission and he said he was glad to hear that.

Chair Cain and Commissioner Burton expressed agreement with the planning committees concept because it provided the opportunity for a small nucleus of people to get together to discuss issues and bring a voice to a larger body. Mr. Clarke asked if it would be possible to have an expanded number of committees and he referred to legal constraints for committees, that they were not permitted to take strong positions on issues but could only make recommendations. Monette Hurtado, Deputy County Attorney, stated that the county did not restrict committees in any way, she believed it was by policy that the committees had adopted those kinds of recommendations.

Dick Manley, Eden Planning Committee, said the committee met with people from the Ogden Valley in the last several months and Ogden Canyon felt they were totally left out of the process and the two township concept might be an opportunity for them to get more involved. He agreed with electing the commissioners and residents of the Ogden Valley might feel they had a voice. Mr. Manley said that about 10 years ago each community area in the Ogden Valley had a planning committee and encouraged these committees, particularly if there was only one township. The committee’s frustration had been in not receiving information on planning commission items until late in the day of their committee meeting and insufficient time to review. He outlined a problem they were currently experiencing because the Eden Planning Committee had responsibility for a piece of property that was in East Huntsville and said the Eden Planning Committee should not be involved in what takes place in East Huntsville. He felt that if planning commissions could have more authority so their decisions or recommendations had more weight, this could help with better attendance, etc. Chair Cain said that the County Commission read the minutes of every planning commission meeting when they had a decision to make and did their best to serve the majority of the people with the majority decision. Commissioner Burton pointed out different problems with holding elections, citing a current example with an elected board in the Ogden Valley. He stated that every planning commission vacancy was advertised but there had been no applicants from Ogden Canyon. He added that the Eden Planning Committee had been doing a great job and gave a lot of input. He reiterated that the County Commission read all the information on issues.

Commissioner Burton stated that Weber County was the only county with townships. He explained that the unincorporated strip that was left between East Huntsville and Huntsville mentioned by Mr. Manley was the negotiated boundary with the East Huntsville Township Planning Commission and Huntsville Town in order to get their petition, with the agreement that it would be annexed into Huntsville. When the townships were changed, the property owners in that strip did not want to go into Huntsville. Commissioner Burton had legal counsel research this and the final solution still has not been determined.

Roger Price of Huntsville asked for clarification on townships and Ms. Hurtado explained that most of the county’s townships were created in 1996 under the original language of townships and then the legislature readdressed the issue in 1997 and allowed reconstitution of those that already existed, which was done with the majority of townships that now existed in the county, and some had been incorporated into cities. Mr. Price felt there ought to be a general plan and a single planning commission to handle Ogden Valley, and that planning commissions didn’t have to exist all over but rather where people wanted them.

Chair Cain said that the original concept for townships was that eventually those areas would incorporate and this is what the legislature expected to take place. This had not happened except in a couple of cases in Weber County. In other second class counties, people were not allowed to go through the processes that Weber County citizens had determined to value without annexing into a city. Another perspective is that county government should not be supplying some of the services that Weber County provides, that if people want those services, they should annex into a city. This issue had been difficult for the county to deal with at the legislature because people in Weber County want to live in rural settings and retain that lifestyle but this is not the way most communities handle it.

Neil Davis, Reese Planning Commission, said that theirs was the largest area left open for development in Weber County, that he watched it carefully, and their planning commissioners spent countless hours talking to neighbors to obtain their input in order to represent them. He felt that under one planning commission for the whole western Weber County not as many people would be contacted as is currently possible. Commissioner Bischoff asked if it would be less effective if there was a committee reporting to a planning commission that had representation from his area and Mr. Davis stated that they were more effective as a township planning commission rather than a committee. He said that there were times when his planning commission could not meet because some of them worked shifts, but on the whole they had quorums. Chair Cain recognized the hardship and pointed out that the County Commission was not diminishing the time and energy of those who were working hard to represent their communities.

Douglas Hansen of West Weber stated he highly supported the planning commissions as they currently existed and that West Weber had a very successful functioning planning commission. He felt the current system brought the planning commission process closer to the citizens whom they represented, permitted greater opportunity for more detailed investigation into certain issues, and commissioners had knowledge of the area and of the desires of the community, thus government was more responsive. From past experience, the current planning commissions better represented the objectives, standards and desires of their communities than if there was a broader representation. Under the former planning commission very little communication came back to their area and they did not know what was happening until after the fact. Currently, with the six planning commissions, more people were involved and there was better input into the process. The West Weber Planning Commission did not have attendance problems and offered good support from those who had been appointed. He suggested combining or consolidating those commissions that consistently did not have quorums and that training should be part of the eligibility criteria.

Sharon Holmstrom, prior Chair of the Weber County Planning Commission and current Vice Chair, said that some planning commissions were very viable but if the Commission was looking at consolidating, that a strong case could be made to have an upper valley commission and a lower valley commission. This would allow the upper valley to be more cohesive and to better develop the General Plan. She opposed one planning commission, that under the past planning commission the representation was not efficient. She believed that many delays happening in planning commissions in moving projects through were caused by developers and individual citizens asking for changes that sat outside of a general plan such as conditional uses/controversial issues, which caused a great deal of deliberation. Ms. Holmstrom has seen from month to month over the years how overworked county staff is and said there were ways that the County Commission should relieve that. She said that there should be mandatory training. She felt that the appointment process allowed the County Commission to even out the representation on planning commissions so there was representation from all segments of the community.

Roy White, Reese Planning Commission, spoke in favor of keeping the townships as they currently existed. Regarding having two planning commissions, Mr. White said that the problem he could foresee with committees reporting to the two representatives on the planning commission was that the committee could present a plan and those two would have to sell it to the remaining planning commissioners and politics would come into play. Chair Cain said that when a request by a petitioner was denied there had to be a reason given to the petitioner as part of the motion for the denial and could not be politically motivated. The concern was that this often did not happen and would have to be part of the training issues to be addressed.

Scott Wayment, Warren Township Planning Commission Chair, stated that their community did not have many issues, and he did not see the need to hold meetings regularly, however, when issues did come up specific to their community they would like to be involved. He said that if the result of tonight’s discussion was to have committees, it was important that the committee have influence on issues relating to their community.

Frank Maughan said that he had been appointed to the East Huntsville Township Planning Commission at its inception specifically to be one of two voices for those who own property in this township but did not live there. He urged consideration to keep that voice for non-resident owners regardless of the decision made by the County Commission. He reminded the Commission regarding what had been said about the reasons townships were created: on a state-wide basis people did not feel their voices were being heard. Mr. Maughan said that in six years East Huntsville had hardly missed a meeting due to a lack of quorum. He felt that having an upper valley planning commission and a lower valley planning commission short-changed the western valley and the varied issues between the western half of the upper valley and the eastern half and encouraged keeping these commissions as they were. He urged heavy emphasis on training for planning commissioners.

Commissioner Burton felt that the purpose of the townships legislation was an effort to protect some of the boundaries. Mr. Maughan said that the County Planning Commission had not been doing what the people in the area felt it should have been. He did not feel annexation was an issue in the Ogden Valley.

4.Commissioner Burton moved to adjourn the public hearings and reconvene the public meeting; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

5. Action on public hearings:

Public hearing on a petition to amend Lot 11, Falcon Crest Subdivision, to increase the building area for a dwelling

Commissioner Burton moved to approve amending Lot 11 of Falcon Crest Subdivision to increase the building area for a dwelling; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

Public hearing to review township planning commissions and determine whether their continued existence is advisable

Chair Cain expressed thanks to those who were willing to come speak to the County Commission on this issue. The commissioners received great input and needed time to review it. They will continue to work on this item and post an agenda when it will go before the County Commission again.

Commissioner Burton moved to table the item to determine whether planning commissions’ continued existence was advisable; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

G. Assign Pledge of Allegiance & Thought of the Day for Tuesday, January 20, 2004 at 10 a.m.

H. Public Comments:

Roger Price said that on November 3, 1998 there had been a change in government proposition that had been voted down and that at that time Commissioners Cain and Bischoff had said they would undertake a study to see if a change in government, and what form, would be an improvement, and he asked the status of this. Chair Cain said that she had looked at a number of different forms of government that were available. Since that time the legislature had changed the law and at this point, by necessity, either the Commission would appoint a committee or the people by petition would request that a ballot issue be put to the people. Once this occurred, it would take a 2-year process which guaranteed that money was spent and a decision was made. If the people of Weber County want this process, they need to act. Chair Cain offered to show Mr. Price the related information that she has.

Commissioner Burton believed that the legislature changed some of the statutes on the existing systems or added a different form of the commission. Commissioner Bischoff said he would like to see in print where he said he would undertake a study and Mr. Price said that it was in the Standard Examiner November 4, 1998 on the front page. Mr. Price said that the township concept was about representation and now there was a continual problem with representation whether people just did not give input or whether in some cases there was too much sway given to business interests and tax revenue. Chair Cain disagreed with Mr. Price expressing her belief that the consideration was never based on a fiscal note but rather on community interest and community planning. When a tax issue is brought to the Commission for the purpose of a tax deliberation matter, the taxes have to be considered but not in terms of growth and impacts based on the dollars they bring to a community. Douglas Hansen said that, in terms of the cost benefit ratio relating to the planning commissions and the cost incurred by the county for these planning commissions, it was important to look at the benefit to the community relating to the experience and education that had occurred in a lot of people in the county that would not have happened if there weren’t so many commissions. Many people had now learned much about zoning regulations, county government, etc., and as a county there was a larger source of knowledge that could be tapped into in the future and it was hard to define this benefit. The commissioners responded to Mr. Hansen’s question regarding what had happened to the townships in other counties, including that some had incorporated into cities, one county only allowed 5-acre lots in unincorporated county and anything else must annex.

I. Adjourn
Commissioner Burton moved to adjourn at 7:58 p.m.; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

KENNETH A. BISCHOFF, CHAIR
WEBER COUNTY COMMISSION

LINDA G. LUNCEFORD, CPO
WEBER COUNTY CLERK/AUDITOR