Minutes for 2004-08-17, Direct pdf link.

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

Others Present: David C. Wilson, Deputy County Attorney; Dan Olsen, Clerk/Auditor’s Office; Fátima Blackford, Clerk/Auditor’s Office, took minutes.

A. Welcome by Chair Cain
B. Pledge of Allegiance was conducted by Dan Olsen
C. Thought of the Day was offered by Commissioner Burton

D. Consent Items:
1. Purchase Orders in the amount of $221,797.67
2. Warrants #191663 - #191866 in the amount of $618,070.24
3. Approval of Minutes of the August 10, 2004 Commission Meeting
4. New Business License Applications
5. Request to set the date of September 7, 2004 at 10:00 a.m. for a public hearing on Conditional Use Permit Application CUP #09-04 for amendments to a Planned Residential Unit Development known as Lakeside Village P.R.U.D. at 6486 E. Hwy 39

Commissioner Burton questioned one new business license because the address listed was a post office box and a physical address was not known.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve the consent items, pending verification that the A thru Z Moving and Storage was in unincorporated Weber County; Commissioner Burton seconded, all voting aye.

E. Informational Item:

Second Quarter Report of the Ogden/Weber Convention Visitors Bureau

Shelleice Stokes, Executive Director of the CVB, stated that their budget was in line with all the projections for the end of July, however, they had found additional marketing dollars through partnerships with their facilities and with Fort Buenaventura. The CVB realigned its staff and had a marketing and sales position open. The CVB is looking for new markets for the Golden Spike Events Center, is working with the Fort Buenaventura’s Board to help promote awareness of what it has to offer, etc. Tanna McTee, Director of Sales, gave an overview of upcoming activities. She stated that sales activity had increased over 2003's figures and future business looked strong. Commissioner Bischoff asked what was a major concern for marketing our area. Ms. McTee replied it was lack of destination awareness and the vacant mall site was detrimental. For the ski market Ms. Stokes said that both sides of the Valley needed to address transportation for skiers. Commissioner Burton asked about the CVB’s efforts to get local entities to support them in bringing groups to our community. Ms. Stokes stated that she would be meeting with one of the association’s to see what could be done through WACOG. The CVB would like to start a “Bring it Home” campaign next year.

 F. Action Items:

1. Discussion and/or action to ratify the 2004 Tax Sale of the following properties - this item tabled from the August 10, 2004 Commission Meeting
a. LSN 06-014-0020
b. LSN 09-346-0011

Monette Hurtado, Deputy County Attorney, showed plats and a copy of the notice published in the newspaper. She stated that the language used in that notice was the same language that is used in the model form provided through the Standards of Practice, which calls for a description of property. Although statute allows listing either the land serial number (LSN) or property description, by practice most counties have used the model forms available and have provided additional information, which is the land serial number plus a brief description. She gave examples of how this has helped property owners. If a property owner had not provided a physical address to the county, the county used a modifier such as “next to.” Ms. Hurtado said that the county had done everything it could possibly do regarding posting for the 2004 tax sale.

Ms. Hurtado addressed the commissioners’ questions. She stated that the public notice included the last recorded property owner and the total amount of taxes due. The county sends certified mail to the owners, attempts notifying by regular mail those who appear to have an interest in the property and attempts posting notice on the property. The county’s website includes the property mailing address, physical address if there is one, the plat (containing dimensions), delinquent taxes, etc., and searches can be done by name, address or LSN. The county forwards to the State any tax sale funds in excess of the amount for delinquent taxes, penalties, interest and administrative fees. Chair Cain asked Ms. Hurtado’s opinion if in the future the county did not list a descriptive word but only the LSN and the current owner’s name. Ms. Hurtado said it would meet the letter of the law but she would be uncomfortable because many names are similar, a physical address is helpful to people, and the intent is to give the best notice available in order to protect people’s rights.

Mr. Wright, successful bidder of LSN 06-014-0020, stated that he had not researched the property prior to the tax sale but he felt that one of the issues was consistency in how properties were identified. He said that a modifier like “behind” or “landlocked” would have been helpful and that about 25 properties at the tax sale contained such a word. He said that the county would be more consistent in using the LSN only. Ms. Hurtado said that the county had to be careful about assuming characteristics of properties because there might be claims that the county is unaware of, a parcel may appear landlocked on a deed but there may be verbal agreements to allow access, and that even examining the ground is not sufficient because people may not have recorded an agreement. Additionally, the county does not know other jurisdictions’ requirements (i.e., frontage). Ms. Hurtado noted that the modifier “next to” had been listed in the public notice for LSN 09-346-0011–item F.1.(b)–purchased by Mr. Cummings because the property owner had not provided a physical address to the County Recorder’s office and he still had a concern, even with that notation.

The Commissioners expressed difficulty in making a decision on this item and discussed whether the process should be changed. Legal counsel pointed out that it would still be up to potential bidders to do their due diligence. Keith Kippen, an abutting property to LSN 09-346-0011, stated that the county had done what was required and Mr. Cummings obviously had not done due diligence in determining that the property was landlocked and, he himself had not done due diligence as he had been controlling that property since purchasing his home about one year ago. His efforts to contact the Moke’s to see if he could purchase it from them had been unsuccessful, and he had not been aware of the tax sale. Mr. Kippen felt that the way the county had listed the property was very helpful for neighbors of a property and recommended ratification of the tax sale.

 Ms. Hurtado stated that prior to a tax sale, the Surveyor and C/A’s offices determine if parcels are appropriate for preferential bid and then notify property owners. The Clerk also gives preferential bid at the tax sale to the property owner, and then to abutting owners and anyone with an interest on each parcel. Commissioner Burton asked if the adjacent owner to 09-346-0011 had been notified and Ms. Hurtado said she would have to speak with the Clerk’s office which kept track of the letters mailed, but generally letters were mailed for insignificant parcels that were landlocked. There are six property owners abutting this parcel. Mr. Wright’s parcel is 0.28 of an acre and Mr. Cummings’ is 0.16 of an acre. Mr. Wright indicated that he had contacted two adjacent property owners to the parcel he purchased and those persons said they had not been notified of the tax sale. Commissioner Burton noted that legal counsel’s finding was that the county had noticed appropriately. He said that perhaps the only thing not done in the process was that adjacent property owners had not been notified and Commissioner Bischoff stated that this was not a requirement.

Commissioner Burton moved to ratify the sale on the Wright property pending verification that adjoining property owners were notified prior to the tax sale as had been county policy. The motion died for a lack of a second. Chair Cain said that the county will validate if the adjacent neighbors were notified and the item will be brought back before the Commission next week for consideration.

2. Appointment of Mike Matthieu to represent the Weber Consolidated Dispatch Agency on the Utah 9-1-1 Committee

The Governor’s office had asked that the county forward the name of a person to represent Weber County on the Utah 911 Committee. Consolidated Dispatch recommended Mike Matthieu, Chair of their Board.
Commissioner Burton moved to forward the name of Mike Matthieu to represent the Weber Consolidated Dispatch Agency on the Utah 9-1-1 Committee; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

3. Power Purchase Agreement by and between Weber County and Pacificorp

This item was held to discuss some items with PacifiCorp.

4. Development Agreement by and among Farr West City, Weber County and Opheikens & Company - Contract C2004-98

David Wilson, Deputy County Attorney, stated that Mr. Opheikens’ company was developing some property in unincorporated Weber County bordering Farr West City. Mr. Opheikens would like to annex it into the City but had expressed some frustration about getting this process started and Commissioner Bischoff had arranged a meeting to facilitate this. The agreement stipulates that if development begins before annexation into the city, the developer must apply to the county for the requisite permits and comply with all its regulations. Mr. Opheikens will pay the City for utilities because they will come through Farr West. The agreement also indicates that the developer will pay all connection and impact fees to the City.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to approve Contract C2004-98, Development Agreement by and among Farr West City, Weber County and Opheikens & Company; Commissioner Burton seconded, all voting aye.

5. Lease Purchase Agreement by and between Weber County and Key Government Financing for the replacement of a wheel loader for the Solid Waste Facility, and replacement of a track hoe for the Storm Water Project - Contract C2004-99

Dan Olsen, County Comptroller, presented this item. The county purchased two pieces of equipment–a front-end loader for the Transfer Station and a track hoe for storm water projects. The financed amount is $388,424 at an interest rate of 3.91% for five years. Mr. Olsen addressed Commissioner Bischoff’s questions stating that the county had received firm prices on the equipment.
Commissioner Burton moved to approve Contract C2004-99, Lease Purchase Agreement by and between Weber County, KeyCorp, and Key Government Financing Inc. for the replacement of a wheel loader for the Solid Waste Facility, and replacement of a track hoe for the storm water project; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

6. Request for final subdivision approval of Trappers Ridge at Wolf Creek P.R.U.D. Phase 3, including a financial guarantee in the amount of $333,638.50 for improvements

Kevin Hamilton, County Planning Department, showed an area map of this 19 unit P.R.U.D. The homes will be built on building pads with adjacent open space. The Planning Commission unanimously recommended approval of this item. Chair Cain asked if the petitioner was putting pathways through the area and if it was adjacent to the trails plan and Mr. Hamilton did not know because this subdivision went through preliminary approval before the pathways ordinance became effective.
Commissioner Bischoff moved to grant final subdivision approval of Trappers Ridge at Wolf Creek P.R.U.D. Phase 3, including a financial guarantee in the amount of $333,638.50 for improvements; Commissioner Burton seconded, all voting aye.

7. Request for approval of a Building Parcel Designation for lots 149 and150 of Causey Estates

Kevin Hamilton, County Planning Department, explained that for building purposes this designation allowed the owner of two adjacent lots to use them as though they were one lot.
Commissioner Burton moved to approve a Building Parcel Designation for lots 149 and 150 of Causey Estates; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

G. 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 to consider final approval of Presidio 4 Subdivision, a 1 acre, 1 lot subdivision, with recommendation for approval from the Western Weber County Township Planning Commission, including recommendation for deferral of curb, gutter and sidewalk at 885 North 4400 West

Jim Gentry, County Planning Department, showed area maps. This subdivision is within 1 ½ miles of Fremont High School (from property line to property line it is 1.43 miles and from door to door it is about 1.69 miles). Mr. Gentry stated the Planning Commission unanimously recommended deferring curb, gutter and sidewalk based on information from the petitioner that the asphalt ended at this lot but areal photos provided by County Engineering showed that the asphalt actually ended beyond the south boundary of this lot and then continued as a gravel county road. County Engineering had indicated to Mr. Gentry they would support a deferral for curb and gutter because of drainage issues in this area but would like to see the sidewalk put in. Mr. Gentry addressed the commissioners’ questions stating that there was no other sidewalk in this area, there was no developed property on either side of this lot, and that no other property in the area had deferrals for these improvements. There are other lots with homes on them along 900 S. but they were approved prior to construction of Fremont High School. There is a new home being built to the east on 40+ acres but the owner was not required to go through the subdivision process because of the size of the parcel.

Dennis Richardson, County Engineering, stated that there were no other improvements in the area and that the sidewalk would look strange until other homes were built in the area, but the improvements needed to start somewhere because of the policy. There is another subdivision at about 700 S. and 4300 W., consisting of 6 lots, that was allowed to put in sidewalk only. They are within 1 ½ miles of the school. Mr. Richardson said that there were storm drainage issues in the area and to put curb and gutter in at this time might cause problems, however, sidewalk could go in the proper place at the proper grade.

Mark Storey, petitioner, asked for a deferral of these improvements until the rest of the neighborhood was completed so he would not encounter issues relating to connecting sidewalks, grades, etc. He had not intended to mislead anyone on the asphalt issue but when the asphalt was put in, the county simply put down the asphalt–no road grader was run through it–and he did not think it was asphalt. He had asked at that time why they had not gone the rest of the way with the asphalt because there are some homes to the south of that corner on a county road. Mr. Storey’s lot lies at the head of the gravel road and across the street from this property is a big pond. He indicated that since the ordinance had been in effect, there had been other deferrals granted in the area. He said that the distance was 1.6 miles from the school, that the children in that area were bussed, that no buses came down that gravel road–the Elementary School students were picked up on 4400 W. and the High School students were picked up on 4700 W. These improvements in the area would be out of place, there would be a sidewalk leading nowhere, going right into the neighbor’s horse pen. The commissioners noted that student safety was the main reason for these improvements when the schools did not bus the children, however, the children were bussed in this case which was somewhat unique. Chair Cain asked Mr. Richardson if the sidewalk’s grade could be properly established before the road was completed and other lots developed and he believed it could, it might not be exact vertically but would be close. Cain invited other comments and none were offered.

3. Public hearing on Agriculture Protection Area Proposal #1, Christensen, Darrell

Fátima Blackford, Clerk/Auditor’s Office, stated that Mr. Christensen had submitted this proposal to the county and the statutory procedures had been followed. There are five lots in this proposal constituting approximately 20 acres in total. The Advisory Board and the Planning Commission recommended approval. Chair Cain asked if there had been any protests and Ms. Blackford replied there had not. Chair Cain invited public comments and none were offered.

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

Action on Public Hearings:

G.2. -Final approval of Presidio 4 Subdivision, including recommendation for deferral of curb, gutter and sidewalk at 885 North 4400 West
Commissioner Bischoff moved to grant final approval of Presidio 4 Subdivision, a 1-acre, 1-lot subdivision with deferral of curb, gutter and sidewalk at 885 North 4400 West due to the fact that children in that area are bussed, thus removing the student safety issue, and that no other properties in the area have these improvements; Commissioner Burton seconded, all voting aye.

G.3. -Public hearing on Agriculture Protection Area Proposal APA #1 by Darrell Christensen
Commissioner Burton moved to approve the Agriculture Protection Area proposal #1 by Darrell Christensen; Commissioner Bischoff seconded, all voting aye.

H. Assign Pledge of Allegiance &Thought of the Day for Tuesday, August 24, 2004 at 10 a.m.

I. Other Comments: Commissioner Burton stated that the county had received the Eden Incorporation feasibility study and a meeting will be scheduled in the Ogden Valley to hear input on it.

J. Adjourn
Commissioner Bischoff moved to adjourn at 7:55 p.m.; Commissioner Burton seconded, all voting aye.
Camille T. Cain, Chair Linda G. Lunceford, CPO
Weber County Commission Weber County Clerk/Auditor