At the City Council
In and For Said City
August 22, 2017

Minutes of the Richfield City Council meeting held on Tuesday, August 22, 2017 at 7:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers of the Richfield City office building located at 75 East Center, Richfield, Utah. Mayor David C. Ogden presiding.



1. OPENING REMARKS were offered by Councilmember Arrington.


2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE was led by Mayor Ogden.


3. ROLL CALL Present: Mayor David Ogden, Kevin Arrington, Bryan Burrows, Richard Barnett, Kathy Christensen, Connie Nielson, Matt Creamer, Michele Jolley. Excused: Mike Langston.

Others present: Roene Shaw, Bonnie Stewart, Anna Stewart, Rosby K. Duhart, Judsen Rex, Esther Rex, Ferron Rex, John Juluson, Daphne Duhart, Keven Christensen, Trampas Gilbert, Chasin Lyman, Kevin Hiss, and Michelle Olsen.


4. MINUTES APPROVED. The Council reviewed the minutes of the meetings held July 25 and August 8, 2017. Motion: Approve the minutes of the meetings held July 25 and August 8, 2017, Action: Approved, Moved by Kathy Christensen, Seconded by Kevin Arrington. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yea = 5). Yea: Kevin Arrington, Bryan Burrows, Richard Barnett, Kathy Christensen, Connie Nielson.


5. CENTRAL UTAH FOOD SHARING. Roene Shaw addressed the Council thanking them for their donations to the Food Bank over the past couple of years. They serve any where for 1,000 to 1,200 individuals and 450 to 500 families each month depending upon the time of year. The City’s donation really helps them do that.


6. JULUSON ANNEXATION PUBLIC HEARING. At 7:08 p.m., Mayor Ogden opened a public hearing to receive comments on a proposed annexation filed by John & Caylyn Juluson. Mr. Juluson was asked about the process. Mr. Juluson stated that it was aggravating. Councilmember Burrows asked if there were things that could be done to handle it better. Mr. Juluson did not know why it took so long, but he knew that his engineer was a little slow which added some extra time. Mayor Ogden closed the public hearing at 7:11 p.m.


7. ANNEXATION DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DISCUSSED. The items for discussion for the Juluson Annexation Development Agreement included culinary water, sanitary sewer, and street improvements to 500 East. There is not any way for Mr. Juluson to connect to the sewer system, so a septic tank will need to be allowed. The agreement states that Mr. Juluson would connect to the sewer system once it becomes available and at that time an impact fee would be required. The City will pay to have the line upsized because Mr. Juluson would only require an 8-inch line. Mr. Juluson would also be required to surrender water shares, but he is asking that the Council allow him to pay cash in lieu of water shares.


8. MOSQUITO ABATEMENT REPORT TABLED. Motion: Table mosquito abatement report, Action: Tabled, Moved by Richard Barnett, Seconded by Connie Nielson. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yea = 5). Yea: Kevin Arrington, Bryan Burrows, Richard Barnett, Kathy Christensen, Connie Nielson.


9. APPEAL OF PLANNING COMMISSION DECISION FOR LOCATION OF THE HOME OCCUPATION FOR DAPHNE’S DOGGIES. Judsen Rex represented Ferron and Esther Rex who is appealing the Planning Commission’s decision to allow the home occupation for Daphne’s Doggies to continue for 30 days and potentially 90 days. Mr. Rex stated that their intent and purpose is to help find a solution that would move this business to a commercial district eventually. He hoped that nothing that is said tonight would be taken personally because they just want to bring the integrity of the neighborhood back in terms of the impacts that this business has had on the neighborhood.

Mr. Rex stated that on May 22, 2014 the City approved a business license and a home occupation permit for Daphne’s Doggies to operate at 692 Ogden Drive. There is a condition for a home occupation that says that a conditional use permit is required and that did not happen at that time. Mr. Rex pointed this out because in not doing this in 2014, the business owners have operated a business for 3 years and have made investments of time and resources without really knowing what the expectations of the City are and the residents are. If this would have been done at the time before they invested in a business, they would have known what those expectations are and perhaps had a different outcome than we have right now. The other thing is that the residents would have had an opportunity to weigh in on the impacts of such a business before it opened up.

The City ordinance stated that a home occupation is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling and does not change the character of the building from that of a dwelling or the character of the surrounding area. It further stated that the physical appearance and traffic in connection with the home occupation are not contrary to the intent of the zoning district. Mr. Rex interpreted this to mean that a home occupation verses a business should be incidental to a single family residential use and not really change the character of the neighborhood in terms of the amount of traffic, garbage, wastewater, etc.

He explained that the Planning Commission did a good job of vetting through the different issues, one was traffic. According to Mr. Rex a traffic engineer would say that for every customer that goes to Daphne’s Doggies would generate 4 counts of traffic, so even one customer adds 4 vehicle trips to that street that would not otherwise be there. At the meeting there was a comment made about maybe 8 to 10 customers per day and if this is added up in a week, a month, or a year; that is a lot of vehicles that come on to Ogden that would not otherwise be there because of a business use.

A business has a lot different garbage needs that a single family house does and that is why the City has commercial rates and residential rates because businesses generate a lot more garbage and in this case it included dog hair and products that are used at the business. On occasion there are multiple garbage cans in front of the residence that would not be there if there was not a business use.

Finally, the tricky issue is a wastewater issue and the grooming business which washes dogs that shed fur, the shampoo and other chemicals used to wash the dogs and operate the business and there is not a sewer connection in the garage now and the wastewater is not being disposed of in the City sewer, but in the back yard. This is not good with the Department of Environmental Quality or the City’s building and plumbing code. Again that is a different demand and use than what you would see in just a single family home that has plumbing fixtures typical to a single family home. The point in all this is that the main purpose of a business is to grow itself to be a flywheel that continues to turn, increase and accelerate, generate more traffic and customers and that is what he assumed they want there to do and he wanted their business to be successful and generate more customers.

Mr. Rex stated that he has seen their Facebook page and they have a lot of happy customers and he thought that they wanted to grow that business but there has to be a balance with needs and purpose of the business with the needs and purpose and intent of the residential zoning district which is to promote, preserve and protect single family residential development. He felt that the two are in conflict because a business owner wants more traffic and more business, but the residential zone does not want more traffic. Because of this conflict, Mr. Rex did not believe that there would be any way to find middle ground there. Any time there is a business in a residential zone it is going to inherently create issues.

Mr. Rex did not think that it would be fair or the right thing to do to tell the Duharts that they have shut their business down immediately. They really just need time to find a commercial place to put the business like they have before. He proposed that the Council give them an opportunity to transition out of that space and find a new space, which would take some time, so he would encourage the Council to have a date certain. The Planning Commission provided 90 days from their August 2 meeting to really resolve the issues which Mr. Rex said cannot really be resolved because the business conflict s with the purposes of a residential zoning district, so they just need to be given time to transition out of that space. He thought this would be the right thing to do and the fair thing to do.

Mr. Rex gave the Council a petition that his father had circulated around the neighborhood and was signed by seven property owners that are asking for the business to be moved out of that location because of the negative impacts on the neighborhood.

Councilmember Burrows commented that the blocks in this neighborhood are very long, so that does create a fair amount of traffic. He was at the Planning Commission meeting and he asked Mrs. Duhart if they had determined to give her 90 days. Mrs. Duhart stated that the Planning Commission wanted the wastewater issue fixed and it would be fixed within the 90 days. Councilmember Burrows asked why the same kind of business could drain its gray water into the sewer on Main Street, but not the Duharts. Mrs. Duhart stated that a hair catch removal system was not required, but the Planning Commission wanted to have such a system in place. She has ordered two that attach to the drain so that the water would be filtered before it goes into the sewer lines. The health department told her that they only require the wastewater to be plumbed in.

Mrs. Duhart stated that her purpose in doing a business in her home was to help her husband with the finances. She still only works part-time and does as much as possible until 3:00 or 4:00 p.m. She does have some customers that require a later pick up time due to their work schedules. She does know that she could expand her business and make it grow, but she has four kids at home and felt that it would be in the best interest of her family to stay at home. She is currently correcting everything that the Planning Commission has required, and she is appealing their decision to make her relocate her business and allow her to keep her business in her home.

Councilmember Nielson was confused by the minutes of the Planning Commission meeting and if the final outcome was that if she met the conditions she could stay. Mr. Creamer read the motion of the Planning Commission which stated “she could continue with her conditional use permit, providing she meets the items as set out above concerning the containment of garbage, traffic issues, signage, outdoor storage, no rabbits and contacting the Health Department regarding gray water.” She was to appear before the Planning Commission again on September 6, 2017 to report and then keep her conditional use permit while looking for somewhere else to go and that she would relocate within 90 days.

Mrs. Duhart stated that at the meeting she thought she would be able to financially cover the relocation, but when school is out, she will have additional costs for daycare; an increased cost associated with commercial areas and after looking at it closely has determined that she could not afford to relocate her business. As for the traffic, she indicated that some of the traffic generated is caused by a number of their friends that stop by, sometimes daily; and they also have a bible study that they do on Thursday nights where they have a bunch of families from their church come by. She does not believe that any of this is obstructive as far as the residential side of things. If this needs to be changed, there may be another family that would be willing to host the Thursday night bible study.

Councilmember Nielson asked Mrs. Duhart if she had changed the signage and she indicated that she has placed the sign in the window. She did state that there was a lot of stuff that needed to be cleaned up and that they had made all of those changes. She was unaware that bunnies were not permitted and so they are now gone. Councilmember Nielson asked if the Planning Commission clarified whether it was a major or a minor home occupation. A major home occupation allows for one employee and the use of an accessory building. Mrs. Duhart stated that she completed the major home occupation permit because the Planning Commission told her that if her business was more than 25% of the upper level of her home she would need to be approved for a major home occupation.

Councilmember Arrington also questioned the motion made at Planning Commission meeting. He wondered if after the 90 days set forth in their motion if the Conditional use would just disappear. It does not seem to state that, but he wondered if that was what was inferred in the motion.

Councilmember Burrows thought that the intent was to have some progress made within 30 days and that she would find a new place in 90 days. He stated that most all of the home occupations we have in town would have the same traffic issues. Councilmember Nielson stated that there is not a home business on her block, but she has a lot of traffic on her street constantly. Councilmember Arrington asked Mrs. Rex to clarify her complaint about the traffic and if it was 15 vehicles going to the business between 7 a.m. and 2 p.m. and she indicated that was the case.

Councilmember Christensen asked Mrs. Duhart about the gray water. Mrs. Duhart stated that the gray water has just been running onto and watering the front lawn. It was not something that they were even trying to hide. She did not know about the gray water situation. She has a way to plumb it in and has ordered the hair filtration systems that are used by groomers to make sure that the hair is controlled and maintained and that it does not cause clogging of the sewer. She would really like to keep her business at her house.

Councilmember Arrington quoted a comment from a neighbor, Melinda Greenwood, which says,” She feels that she can represent the neighborhood in saying that there is a place in the middle. She feels that the Duharts can work on this and if there is some improvement, then the neighbors can live with that. She does not want to insist that they desist because that is unreasonable.”

Councilmember Arrington wondered if over the course of the next 90 days all of the conditions that fall under our ordinance with regard to a home business, could we decide to put that business out of business if the conditions are all met.

Mr. Creamer stated that the one issue is that some of the requirements are somewhat subjected to interpretation. What is too much traffic? What is an undo amount of traffic in a residential area caused by a business? There still is a call that needs to be made either by the Planning Commission or the City Council.

According to Councilmember Burrows, there was obviously confusion when the business was transferred. Maybe there are some issues there that should have been handled. At this point in time, any neighbor could come in and complain about anything and say there is too much traffic and then we would have to shut it down.

Judsen Rex stated that along the lines of comparing this business to a day care, which is fair because that is a common home occupation, the difference would be that you cannot have 15 kids in a day care. The State caps that at 6 per each teacher and per the City’s rules, you cannot have a minor home occupation, a day care, with employees there. So if the Council is moving in the direction of allowing the business permanently, that they cap the hours of operation, which can be done under the code, so that the neighbors have some assurance that the traffic is not going to grow exponentially forever. If there is no restriction on days of operation or hours of operation, she could work 7 days a week, 24 hours a day without restriction and traffic would just keep coming and coming. He requested that the Council put some cap there to help mitigate the traffic in the neighborhood, the amount of garbage and maybe she needs to be a commercial customer instead of a residential customer for garbage because her business generates quite a bit of garbage.

Mr. Duhart addressed the Council and stated that it is not their intention to just grow out of control. That is not what they are doing. They are only trying to provide enough money to take care of their family. They do not want to grow their business exponentially. She is working part-time and then she is able to take off when she needs to. Mr. Duhart stated that they would not be opposed to a cap. Mrs. Duhart stated that she can only do 6 a day and she does not normally work on the weekends. She usually takes Saturday, Sunday and Monday off. Mr. Duhart stated that they would be very diligent in meeting the conditions.
Councilmember Barnett was not sure how he felt about this whole subject. On the one hand he is loathed to disregard the recommendations of the Planning Commission because they put a lot of time and effort into their decisions. On the other hand he is loathed to excerpt a heavy-handed governmental regulatory influence on the citizens of our community if it is not needed and not warranted. Consequently he found himself wondering where we were in this case. He has wondered if there is not something more here than what meets the eye. He did not know what it was or what it could be, but he is wondering if there was not something more here than just neighbors purporting to be upset about a dog grooming business in their neighborhood.

Councilmember Barnett recommended that Mrs. Duhart be allowed to make the changes and updates that she has been asked to make by the Planning Commission, that she be allowed to go back to the Planning Commission and show what she has done, and that the Council then get some sort of a definitive direction from the Planning Commission as to what they would like done. Then the Council can act accordingly.

Councilmember Burrows felt that the issues were the wastewater, which Mrs. Duhart was addressing; the issue of the signage, which has been taken care of; and the traffic. He suggested that Mrs. Duhart give the Planning Commission an idea of how many dogs she would groom in a day and what days she would be conducting business and then give her customers certain hours. Obviously the garbage needs to be covered and not put out until it is to be picked up. He agreed with Councilmember Barnett that there is something more to it than just the issue of the business itself. He would hope that everyone could get along and work it out.

Councilmember Nielson wanted to clarify if the decision of the Council would be to have Mrs. Duhart go back to the Planning Commission meeting and show the changes that have been made and then the Council will take their advisement.

Councilmember Christensen stated that the thing that is hard about this is that Mrs. Duhart has to address the gray water and has to hire a plumber, yet she is not sure that she is going to be able to keep her business there. That is not a good thing to do. She would be better off to find out if she could keep her business there before she spent the time and money getting a plumber to come and do a lot of plumbing.

Mayor Ogden noted that the Council has the ultimate decision to say yes or no to what Mrs. Duhart agrees to do. We accept the advice of the Planning Commission and we certainly do not want them to feel that the Council does not care about their decision and that the Council will do what it wants. Someone needs to make a motion to send Mrs. Duhart back to the Planning Commission and talk about what she has done and ask them for a new direction knowing that she is going to be coming back to the Council.

Councilmember Christensen suggested that if Mrs. Duhart is able to keep her business in her home, given the events that have happened and knowing that the neighbors have complained, she will be more sensitive to the Rexs and the neighbors and be more aware of the things she can do to mitigate some of the complaints.

Councilmember Barnett understood Judsen Rex to say that he did not want to put Mrs. Duhart out of business. The Planning Commission or the Council needs to decide if her home on Ogden Drive the appropriate place for her business. That is the decision that needs to be made. More to the point is whether or not Mrs. Duhart can make changes or adaptations to her current business to make if acceptable if it currently is not. If she can make those changes and make it so that where she lives is an acceptable venue for conducting this business, then the Council could approve to have her keep it there. If she cannot and it is not, then we need to insist that she move to a commercial area. That is the decision that needs to be made. Councilmember Barnett was not sure if he had enough information to make that decision. He was not sure he was ready to decide whether she can stay in her home or if she needed to go to a commercial area.

Councilmember Nielson was concerned because we have allowed home businesses in other areas she felt that the Council should be fair and avoid punishing one business while overlooking others. She felt that Mrs. Duhart needed to go back to the Planning Commission and then the Council could consider the advice given to see if the business could be allowed to stay there.

Councilmember Barnett indicated that the Planning Commission needed to know the issues the Council has discussed and have the Planning Commission determine if they would allow Mrs. Duhart’s business to stay there if she complies with all of the conditions of use.

Councilmember Burrows stated that Mrs. Duhart came to the Council tonight to appeal the decision that the Planning Commission made. Councilmember Arrington pointed out that the thing that is wrong with the Planning Commission’s motion is that it asked Mrs. Duhart to do certain things to stay and then said that in 90 days you have to move. Councilmember Burrows did not think that this was fair to Mrs. Duhart. Mrs. Duhart wondered why the Planning Commission was requiring her to make changes to the plumbing, etc., if their decision to have her move her business in 90 days was a permanent decision.

Esther Rex stated that she had made a formal appeal to Mr. Matheson. The Rexs are here to appeal the Planning Commission’s decision as well. That is why they flew their son in from Dennison, Texas. Councilmember Barnett asked Mrs. Rex what part of the Planning Commission’s decision she was appealing. Mrs. Rex indicated that she was appealing the last paragraph of the Planning Commission’s minutes or their motion. Mr. Creamer asked Mrs. Rex if she meant to allow the business and she said yes. Councilmember Burrows asked her if she just wanted the business gone and she again said yes. Councilmember Barnett asked if that meant that the Rexs did not even want her to have 90 days. Judsen Rex stated that he did not think they were arguing the number of days given, but Esther Rex stated that there needed to be a date when the business is to be gone by.

Councilmember Nielson clarified that Mrs. Rex wanted the Council to vote on the appeal and whether to force Mrs. Duhart to move tonight. Mrs. Rex stated that Mrs. Duhart has still been conducting business and Councilmember Nielson argued that she was told that she could. Mrs. Rex pointed out that the State has requirements about gray water, suggesting that if they were to turn Richfield into the State, there would be problems. This has been going on for 3 years. That sewer water has been going in the back yard watering trees and grass and all sorts of other things in the back yard. Mrs. Rex felt as though she had to be the policeman on her street. She had to turn in an abandoned vehicle without a registration that was parked in front of their house with stuff stored in it and it had been there for 2 years.

Councilmember Burrows questioned Mrs. Rex wondering if her complaint was just about the business then. Mrs. Rex stated that it was not. If the Council says that her signs are fine; her signs are not fine. That Daphne’s Doggie sign may be in her front window, but it is too big. There is another sign about pets and children playing right there on public property because her property does not begin for 4 feet pass the sidewalk edge and the sign is within the area and it is too big. There is another sign that goes across an arch that says “entrance.” These are nitpicky things to the Council, but she has to look at them all day long.

Judsen Rex stated that the point is that this is a business in a residential district and you cannot get past that. These nitpicky problems are always going to be there as long as the business is there. He realized that there are probably an unknown numbers of other dogs grooming businesses, so the Council needed to look at these because they are businesses in a residential district. You can argue the points about the criteria and some of it is subjective, but it is a business. The other thing is that the protective covenants for this subdivision prohibit business and he asked if the City wanted to go against the protective covenants of the subdivision. He knows it is not the Council’s job to enforce those.

Mrs. Rex stated that these are on file in the courthouse. Mayor Ogden stated that we are discussing what one person can do with their own personal property and how it affects the neighbors. He believed that the Council was sympathetic to both sides of this issue. We have to ignore some things that our neighbors do, but also recognize that there are some things that become so egregious that we perhaps so what is being done here tonight. He does not know if the matter needed to go back to the Planning Commission because he thought what they recommended was pretty straight forward.

Ferron Rex noted that he would like to be a peace maker, but one of the things that he found and he went around and talked to the people on Ogden Drive is that ultimately we need to stand for truth and what is right. To make peace, he asked Mrs. Duhart if there was some way that they could get her a business location that would meet the requirements and give her the opportunity to expand her business. Could we not get Mrs. Duhart into a place that would do all of the things that she needed to accomplish. That is what he thinks the community needed to help Mrs. Duhart do. Their letter is to help the Council understand that businesses should not be in residential areas. Councilmember Nielson told Mr. Rex that the City does allow businesses in residential areas. Ferron Rex argued that this kind of business is not compatible with the residential area. If the Council has read his letter, then they are missing the point because this business is not compatible with residential areas.

Judsen Rex stated that there is a difference between a business and a home occupation. A business should be in a commercial zone.

Councilmember Christensen indicated that the City has over 500 businesses and about half of them are home occupation businesses. Councilmember Burrows named several kinds of businesses in the community that are home occupations. He asked Judsen Rex if he would shut down 250 businesses in his community. Mr. Rex stated that they would have to do what is being done right now in looking at the ones that are causing nuisances. That is why there is a conditional use process so that restrictions can be placed on the businesses that make sense.

Councilmember Burrows wondered if Mrs. Duhart were to comply with the conditions and the things that have been discussed it the Rexs would still want the business moved. Mrs. Rex stated that she heard the words at the Planning Commission meeting, “cease and desist” and wondered if Councilmember Burrows had heard those same words. Councilmember Burrows did not hear any members of the commission say those words and it was not in the minutes. Mr. Creamer stated that there was some wording in one of the letters of complaint.

Councilmember Burrows wanted some time to think about this. Councilmember Barnett stated that he was not of a mind to accelerate what the Planning Commission has requested under no circumstances that he saw at this point. He did, however, what to know from the Planning Commission if their intent is that Mrs. Duhart is going to close down the business in 90 days no matter what, which is seemed to be what they said, but he wants to know for sure if that is what they are saying. The Planning Commission gave Mrs. Duhart instructions as to what to do and Councilmember Barnett wanted to know what the Planning Commission’s actual and effective end game is with this. Councilmember Arrington agreed that the Council needed a clarification.

Mrs. Duhart stated that when she was initially in the Planning Commission meeting she was fully prepared to move her business because she loves her neighbors and she does not want contention, but she did not take into account her kids. So she made an agreement with the Planning Commission to move her business without even thinking ahead because she was blind-sided and she did not realize the extent that she was aggravating her neighbors. She believed that this is the reason why the Planning Commission ruled that way. She thought if she had been a little more prepared, they probably would not have made the decision to make that call at that time. Having realized her mistake, she knew that she needed to appeal that decision. If that means going back to the Planning Commission and appealing that decision, then she is happy to do that.

Councilmember Burrows remembered that conversation and Mr. Duhart saying that he felt that this was beyond repair and that perhaps it was time for them to move and leave the neighborhood and it was at that point that the Planning Commission moved toward that 90 days. Councilmember Arrington felt that there still needed to be some clarification that if she meets the conditions, her business could remain in her home.


Motion: Table that matter until further clarification from the Planning Commission, Action: Tabled, Moved by Bryan Burrows, Seconded by Kathy Christensen. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yea = 5). Yea: Kevin Arrington, Bryan Burrows, Richard Barnett, Kathy Christensen, Connie Nielson.


10. DAPHNE DUHART TO APPEAL THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S DECISION ON A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT TO CONDUCT A HOME OCCUPATION. (See discussion in item #9) Motion: Tabled the matter until further clarification from the Planning Commission, Action: Tabled, Moved by Bryan Burrows, Seconded by Kathy Christensen. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yea = 5). Yea: Kevin Arrington, Bryan Burrows, Richard Barnett, Kathy Christensen, Connie Nielson.


11. BID AWARDED FOR A WATER LINE REPAIR AND REPLACEMENT PROJECT. Mr. Creamer mentioned this matter to the Council a few weeks ago and as discussed, this project would replace water lines on Main Street from Sevier Valley Oil up to 1000 South, 1000 South to 100 East, and 800 South over to 100 East. This is the area where there have been several significant leaks this summer. It is old pipe that is disintegrating and staff felt that it was important to get this taken care of.

Councilmember Barnett asked if the new residential development on the east side of Main Street a contributing factor since it is right there. Is there a whole lot more water coming through these pipes than there used to be? Mr. Creamer stated that the increase in the water coming through those pipes could be a contributing factor. Councilmember Barnett noted that there is not a lot we can do about it even if that were the case.

Mr. Creamer indicated that we have had a terrible year as far as water leaks. It has been day after day after day that we have one. He noted that it was probably due to the age of the lines. The area that will be replaced is critical because any time there is a leak we have to dig up a State highway to try and fix it.

The low bid was from A&D Jensen with a bid of $58,010, the other bid was less than $2,000 more. The bid does not include materials, just labor. Motion: Award bid for the water line repair and replacement project to A&D Jensen for a bid of $58,010, Action: Approved, Moved by Kevin Arrington, Seconded by Bryan Burrows. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yea = 5). Yea: Kevin Arrington, Bryan Burrows, Richard Barnett, Kathy Christensen, Connie Nielson.


12. AMENDMENT TO JOINT USE AGREEMENT WITH THE SEVIER VALLEY CENTER APPROVED. Mr. Creamer explained that the City entered into a joint use agreement with the County, the School District and the College approximately 14 years ago when the Sevier Valley Center (hereafter “SVC”) was constructed. It has been amended a couple of times with some challenges that occurred in the last year with management, the Sevier Valley Board felt that it was appropriate to go back and look at this agreement to make sure that it said everything it needed to say. The College was concerned about it because it is a partnership, but the bottom line is that any loss for the SVC comes out of their budget.

Councilmember Barnett asked what was different between this agreement and the previous agreement. Councilmember Arrington stated that this was triggered by the internal audit. There were 2 items that the audit focused on the Joint Use Agreement and implementation of the policies and procedures specifically for the SVC. The previous agreement did not specify that Snow College had the final say as far as the contracts for the events that are held there. The Board and the director of the SVC were able to enter into contracts without them passing through the College. Councilmember Barnett asked if the School District still had any interested in that. They sold their interest, but they still have a board member. Mr. Creamer thought that the changes are for the better in terms of making things more clear. Councilmember Arrington stated that the College’s biggest concern was that the previous executive directors were allowed to sign contracts regardless of the risk without running it by the board or the College. The board will now be aware of the decisions that are being made as well as the College’s risk management, finance office and attorney. Motion: Approve the Amended Joint Use Agreement, Action: Approve, Moved by Richard Barnett, Seconded by Connie Nielson. Councilmember Arrington declared a conflict of interest since he is the director at the SVC. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yea = 5). Yea: Kevin Arrington, Bryan Burrows, Richard Barnett, Kathy Christensen, Connie Nielson.


13. OTHER BUSINESS. Councilmember Barnett reported that his annual Barnett Orthodontics Appreciation Pool Party was a nice success and he wondered if the attendance at the pool was up since we got the new inflatable. Mr. Creamer stated that some preliminary numbers show attendance is up some, but not a lot. Councilmember Barnett stated that the kids seem to be enjoying it. There is also a new slide, so he wondered if this had any kind of a positive effect on attendance.

Councilmember Barnett asked what the City’s policy is about commercial advertising on City property such as the parks. The City’s policy has been that use of public facilities cannot be associated with a particular business.

Councilmember Barnett had to rent a pavilion in a park in Oregon for a wedding rehearsal dinner and since they do not live there, the rental fee for 4 hours was $125.

Councilmember Nielson wanted to finalize the policy and procedures.

Councilmember Nielson also wanted to look at some ordinance for parking on Main Street for the 4th of July parade.

Mr. Creamer reported that Sherri Christensen was contacted by an individual who wanted to hold a multi-family yard sales on the park. It sounded like this was not a onetime thing; that they may have wanted to turn it into a weekly thing. He would recommend against allowing this type of use.

Mr. Creamer reported that the canal maintenance agreement for Flat Canyon that the Council approved in a previous meeting has been changed. UDOT found that they cannot participate in a maintenance agreement like that, so they sent the County a check for $25,000 instead, which would have been their share for the next 5 years.

Mr. Creamer informed the Council that we had received 3 applications for the pool manager position.

Councilmember Barnett informed the Council that he has asked Mayor Ogden and Mr. Creamer to submit his name to the Utah League of Cities and Towns to serve on their Board of Directors. The Board of Directors interview and vote on members. Mr. Creamer served for 2 years on that Board in the early 2000 and after he served Councilmember Larry Lunnen served, so it has been a while since someone for our City has served.

Mayor Ogden informed the Council that the Governor has asked him to serve on the State Water Board. Mayor Ogden thought it would be good to have a representative from Southern Utah.


14. MEETING ADJOURNED. At 9:17 p.m., Motion: Adjourn, Action: Adjourned, Moved by Kathy Christensen, Seconded by Connie Nielson. Vote: Motion carried by unanimous roll call vote (summary: Yea = 5). Yea: Kevin Arrington, Bryan Burrows, Richard Barnett, Kathy Christensen, Connie Nielson.

PASSED and APPROVED this 12 day of September, 2017.

Richfield City Corp

75 East Center