Impact Fees Could Raise Hundreds of Thousands

As Heber Light and Power considers increasing rates on the smaller rate payers, they should FIRST consider raising Impact Fees.

Hired consultant ($20K ?) Pender's Cost of Service study report explained that part of any rate determination was to consider 'Cost Causation.'  Impact fees are designed to do exactly that - recover some of the the cost associated with new development, either commercial or residential.

The current Impact Fee rate collected by HL&P  is reportedly 41% of  the maximum allowable.  A simple raise to 60% would garner $230K, 100% would have yielded $700K.  These rates have been in effect since at least 2006, during some of the largest growth period.  This could be considered the cause of the current shortfall AND debt incurred,

If the cost of new infrastructure is not collected from the developments which are causing it, the remaining costs must be borne by current ratepayers.

Is that 'fair and equitable'? - another determining factor for rate calculation.

"For (HL&P) infrastructure projects beginning in 2012 through 2015 amounting to $6,959,000, only $3,542,000 is eligible for impact fees.  Of this eligible figure only about 41% is being recovered in impact fees. This is the same percent impact fee recovery for new businesses, subdivisions etc."

That means only $1.45M will be collected, increasing to 60% would raise $700K, to 100% = $2Million over 3 year. Why should current rate payers be subsidizing new developments????

A brief Impact Fee overview for the first five months of 2014 can be seen here.

New School Budget and Public Hearing

Addendum 6/13  Board member responses added - My thanks for the prompt answers 

Since the passage in 2007 of a near 50% local property tax increase, the Wasatch School District has been flush with cash.

Budgets have increased FAR more than student enrollment for over ten years.  FY 2015 is no exception, with enrollment projected up by 3%, expenditures are proposed up by 5.5% over the original FY 2014 budget.

Last year (2013) WSD collected nearly 7% more than budgeted.   The solution - amend the 2014 budget to spend it.   Proposed increase almost 9%  (resulting in a $9 Million increase from FY 2013 to 2014.)

The money is still there - no tax decrease even remotely considered.  Some may remember the REQUESTED TAX CUT by the Taxpayers' Association because of excessive reserves.

There will be a Public Hearing on the budget next Tuesday.  A "complete" budget, highlighted for anomalies and inconsistencies, with percentage changes,  is available here.

Raise some questions and comments for the hearing.  In the past, very few answers are ever given to public budget queries, here are a few that might be proposed:

District officials indicate wage and benefits are 95% of the general fund and 65 % of the entire budget, a closer look raises some questions, a few random observations:

In this FY 2015 Budget, it appears all of the state retirement budget items have increased by about 24%.    Is that a requirement due to the recent study on the optimistic growth factor that had been assumed?   If so, is this a one-time correction or a continuing cost factor?  Can anything locally be done to ameliorate this extra expense?    Any time the state retirement increases, we are by state statute required to pay that increase for all eligible employees in the district.  The state used to fund that program, but hasn't funded the increase for several years.

Under the category "District Administration," the total salary has remained about the same, but retirement, Social Security and group insurance DROPPED drastically 2014 to 2014 (amended) and for 2015.    The district administrative decrease was a result in the new reporting procedures because of the new software by the Utah Public Education FInancial System.

Benefits for " Elementary PE Specialists" seem to be twice as high as other positions.  We only apply the benefits toward the Elementary PE Specialists wages, but that section also includes the wages paid for stipends. . .  .

"Group insurance" seem to be somewhat inconsistent in

HLP Rate Increase, Part II

The Public Hearing was held last week, a few questions were answered by HL& P management.  The Fact Sheet presented by two board members is available here, some meeting videos can be seen here

HL & P DID post some salary and benefit info on their website, however it's projected 2014 figures, rather than actual 2013 which for many individuals was much higher.   The figures are also only Gross pay and benefits.  For a clearer presentation of the benefit package see a more complete view here showing how generous the benefit package really is.

In that hearing on the rate increase, the consultant listed some criteria for determination of the rate.   One was to be "fair and equitable," another was "cost causation."

The proposed increase was portrayed as a straight 4.5% increase for all rate payers.  In fact, it would be - for residential customers ONLY.   For small commercial users, that is only true for the example given (3600 Kwh/month) for the "average" small commercial.  Those using LESS power would get a HIGHER percent rate increase, all using MORE get a SMALLER percent increase.  

Similarly, for this "average" LARGE commercial user it may also be true for the given parameters, but that it somewhat complicated by understanding, and determining, their "peak power" demand.

However, it appears that for the eleven large customers involved there, could and probably will, be SAVINGS of perhaps $50,000 per year.   Is it "fair and equitable" for a 4.5% residential increase and $50K decrease for large commercial?

Then, of course, the last rate increase (a service charge, imposed three years ago) imposed a larger relative burden on the LOW usage customers.    That regressive fee is ALSO proposed to be increase, in addition to imposing one one the small commercial user.

Finally, the rate consultant suggested that rates should be used to decrease peak power and to cause use in the off-peak hours.   How will lower rates for MORE usage, decrease the use or switching to lower use time periods.   HL&P spent over a million dollars on new 'smart meters' which apparently have not yet been 'trained' to offer the supposed benefits.    Time of service use charges might effect tim of usage,

The "Fact Sheet" indicated that only 41% of possible impact fees are being charged.  The impact fee is the cost to Heber Power CAUSED by NEW service.   If less than half of that cost, which is directly attributable to new construction, that means the remainder of the cost is being borne by the current rate payers! 

Increasing the impact fees would garner 100's of thousands of revenue, thus minimizing, or eliminating, the need for a rate increase.

I won't even mention the large amounts of money lost in the credit card fraud and investigation and resultant bonuses, nor will I comment on the faux health care pay fiasco again, but I would mention this comment from HLP management in the recent audit:

3. "We acknowledge our responsibility for the design, implementation, and maintenance of internal control to prevent and detect fraud."

See all the new proposed rates here

How's the Event Center Doing???

Addendum May 22, answers to some questions included below
           (Apparently, It's doing "better than it was.")

After ten years and a several million dollar investment, many wonder how's it doing (for the taxpayers)?    (Click here to See Some 12 year old History)     (It wasn't several.  How much was it? Maybe a few.  How much is a few?  Less than several)

For many years, we've been told that the County Council (aka Parks and Rec SSD Board) receive periodic reports about the events.   For many years, a profit and loss or revenue and expenditure statement has been requested.    A few promises, but no results.

A couple of months ago, an additional request was made to get the revenues and expenditures for each event held over the last year of so.  The response was revenues would be easy, but expenses are harder to define to each individual event.   The request was modified to ask about providing it within six months.

About two weeks later, some revenues were given, with the comment that the public should really have all of this information and they would work to get it made available.   As usual, the data raised a few questions.     Data was provided for not only EVENTS, but, apparently, the entire Event Center/Rodeo Complex.  A summary of the data is presented here:

	2012	2013	1st qtr 2014
Outdoor Facility	$1,500.00	$3,900.00
Shavings	$2,894.25	$1,940.00	$440.00
Stall Rentals	$11,803.00	$28,306.85	$2,380.00
Ride Passes	$192.00	$1,677.00	$1,175.00
Misc Revenue	$1,535.00	$5,491.00	$1,964.05
Events	$28,324.50	$77,994.50	$11,265.00
Cowboy City (RV park)	$470.00	$6,005.00
Concessions	$10,009.67	$5,384.72
Advert Sponsor		$7,418.00
Sponsorship & Advertising		$59,590.00	$7,812.00
Membership		$175.00
Totals	$56,728.42	$197,882.07	$25,036.05

On May 4, this Email was sent, with a few of the questions:

"Thank you for the revenue data.  I had actually requested a profit and loss statement for individual events over the last couple years, but this was also of interest.

hopefully you can enlighten me, as I assume you would have an idea about these items:

• If the revenues were only $57K in 2011, what  were they in previous years?
• 1. The event complex was put into the parks and recreation department in 2011 and only have records from that time forward.
• How much has been invested in the Event Center?  (They are working on that one, see the History 
• What caused the LARGE increase from 2012 to 13?  What caused the event revenue increase?
• More events, larger events. Started an advertising and sponsorship program for businesses to advertise at events and the Events Complex on a yearly basis. Wasatch County parks and Recreation received monies from TRRT for two (2) large events. The Wilderness Circuit Rodeo Finals and the Professional Bull Riders event along with percentages of tickets sales from these events.
• What was the cost of the marketing?   Where are those cost in the budget?
• 1. The cost are on an event by event basis. The Mountain Valley Stampede has an advertising budget the County Fair has an advertising budget. They are listed as advertising in the area of the budget listed Rodeo and County Fair. Events are required to pay for their own advertising for their specific event. Wasatch County Parks and Recreation does not pay for advertising for event that are not Wasatch County Parks and Recreation sponsored events. Events may apply for grants thru the Wasatch County Tax advisory Board for advertising their events.
• Why did the concession revenue drop drastically? 12 to 13?
• 1. The concessionaire contract expired at that the end of 2012. The previous concessionaire was paying 15% of gross income. An RFP was put out and the new concessionaire that received the bid is required to pay 8% in the new contract. Midway Food Services was awarded the bid from the Wasatch County Parks and Recreation Board and the new contract to runs thru December 31, 2018.
• When was Cowboy Village enlarged or improved, is that the cause of the 12/13 increase?
• 1. Cowboy Village has not seen any capital improvements since it was completed. The revenue difference is from the LDS church. We rent the village to the church camp missionaries when they are unable to get up to the camp due to weather. In 2012 they did not need the village and in 2013 they paid $5640.00 for the services.
• How many people are involved with "Ride Passes"?
  
• No response
• What's the difference between the two 'advert sponsor' and 'Sponsorship and Advertising' categories?  
• 1. 1 is for the Event complex and 1 is for the Recreation Center. We just started the Recreation Center this year. The $7418.00 was put into the wrong account number and has been transferred to the correct account. The Event Center total for 2013 was $67008.00.
• Is the increase in stall rentals due to new construction?    At what cost?
• 1. We have not added any stalls on the Events Complex recently. The revenue increase is due to added and larger equestrian events. 
• What are the projections for 2014?
• 1. The adopted 2014 budget has projections as followed
  Revenue: $2,434,361.00
  Expenditures: $2,351,062.00
• Does the P&R 2014 budget include all expenses and revenue for the event Center? 
  
• If not, where is the Event center budget?
  
• If so, how can it be determined? 
  
• 1. Yes, The Wasatch County Events Complex is part of the Parks and Recreation budget as of January 1, 2012. It also includes Parks, Recreation, Recreation Center, Wasatch County Fair, Demolition Derby, Memorial Day Celebration and the Mountain Valley Stampede.

In searching for more info, I tried Transparent Utah, SAO audits, UASD,  the county website and, even, the Utah Public Meeting Notice website..  Could you tell me why there is no information from the Wasatch Parks and Rec SSD?  

  ("We obey all the laws.  We trust our managers."   answer, Trust - but,verify.   We have payroll on utahsright.com.   answer, that's a private website.
I assume . . .  that you are familiar with the "Little Manual" for SSD's. "

Answers received May 22,  posted Above under each question :

• PS: There ARE still 5 mos. to fulfill the 6 mo. request 
• PPS:  The 2014 Parks and Rec SSD proposed budget is $2.4 Million (up 17% in one year) - For comparison, the entire COUNTY budget is $16.5 M (which does NOT include P&R, which is a separate government entity)
• PPPS:   The proposed Aquatic Center will be under Parks and Rec. 

HL&P 4.5% Rate Increase

Heber Light & Power is proposing a RATE INCREASE for all users.    (Well, it may be for all users, except the large ones.)  
PUBLIC HEARING   May 29

Apparently , this increase was approved in the budget by the previous Board (You know the one with the faux PAY increase, which they were required to return.)

While analyzing the proposed rate structure a few questions arise:

Why are rates for residential going up by 4.5%, while commercial seems to be less?

In the rate examples given, residential rates are a constant 4.5%, 'small' commercial increases 4.5%, but that percentage decreases with increases usage above the 3,600 Kwh example.   The 'large' commercial' example at 4.3% increase also appears to decease with increase usage.   In fact, in the given "large" commercial example showed a peak of 250 kW vice the 370 kW used the monthly rate

I'm unsure of the rate increase goals (except for revenue increase) of this complex rate structure are (other than the general "shift demand, green energy supply, economic development"), nor am I certain how, when or if the proposed changes will accomplish those goals.

It appears the examples given might have been chosen to demonstrate an 'equal' % increase, but usage will modify that.  The rate increase appears to benefit increased usage.

(HL & P  Interactive rate computer  This spreadsheet should allow you to create your own suggested rate structure and SEE the results.)

Columns K, L and M of the rate spreadsheet, compiled from the proposed rates, offer a simple two tiered systems which creates a similar proposed rate schedule and a third tier could be added to further reduce the high end users' costs, if needed for 'economic development' and accomplishing your goals.   (Various cells can be modified to determine the results.  As the formulas achieved the same results as the HLP presentation, I assume they are correct.).

It appears the intent is to lower modify the peak DEMAND, but not necessarily the usage.  There could be a HUGE disparity between a 249kW demand and a 251kW (small vs large) bill at marginal rates of $0.0805 vs $0.037 per kWh, thus benefiting a larger peak demand.

It seems like the small households get the most relative dollar hurt - mainly because of the Service charge. 

Rather than raising that service charge by 4.5%, lowering it to, say $5, would help out the 'average' resident by 10 to 20%, -  AND would only decrease HLP revenues by $70K (assuming 10K accounts)

Last comment/question: do hookup, or impact, fees for new connections cover the actually increased cost or is new growth being subsidized by current residents?

One response: "For infrastructure projects beginning in 2012 through 2015 amounting to $6,959,000, only $3,542,000 is eligible for impact fees.  Of this eligible figure only about 41% is being recovered in impact fees This is the same percent impact fee recovery for new businesses, subdivisions etc.  We would never charge %100 because at least 25% of necessary upgrades for these new builds benefits the whole system."
 
If HLP had NOT spent $200 (?) for the new "super" meters ($2,000,000), it may not have needed a rate increase.   Are they really paying for themselves?  If so, how?

My second guess is that there are areas are continuing costs that might be reduced.   Has the money from the loans and credit cards misuse been recovered? 

Reports are circulating that some higher echelon employees receive high six-figure salaries with bonus and 'comfortable' benefit packages.

If HLP had NOT spent $200 each (?) for the new "smart" meters ($2,000,000?), it may not have needed a rate increase.  Have they actually proven their value?  If so, how?

Have the dividends to the cities increased for 2014?   (apparently not = $300K)

Who is actually paying for street lights?   Is the $73,819 'donated' by HLP?  For what lights? What determine who pays the other $20K? (see *below)   Do 'rural' developments get donated light electricity?   If so, why not let the HOA pay?

 *WHEREAS the Heber Light & Power Company (“the Company”) practice is not to
charge municipalities or the county for the energy charges for street lights (“energy charges for
street lights”).
 
 WHEREAS, to implement this practice, the Company records the estimated energy
charges for street lights but annually writes-off these charges.
 
 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE
HEBER LIGHT & POWER COMPANY AS FOLLOWS:
 
 The Company hereby writes-off the 2013 energy charges for street lights in the amount of
$66,963.

 I appreciate slide 29 ("? ? ?") pg 54

In short, my suggestions are reduce expenses, eliminate the service charges, implement a simpler rate structure and ensure that growth is covering its costs.   All these proposals for no extra cost.

PUBLIC HEARING   May 29 6:00 PM,   Heber City Council Room      Click on the link for MORE info.

Tax Receipt Bonanza

What do you call it when you receive more property tax money than requested or budgeted?

• Very good planning
  
• The joy of growth
• Magnificent management
• Inflation
• Pure luck
• More money to SPEND
  
• Time for a tax CUT
  
• Shh, don't tell anyone

In 2013, most Wasatch governmental entities collected between 5 and 12% MORE than budgeted.
WCFD, which is requesting a near 80% tax increase, received 6.61% over budgeted.

Here are the figures for the largest recipient of property taxes:

The Airport Advisory Bored

Update 11 Mar:  Feb 12 board minutes contain this statement - 

"280  Chairman Rowland proposed that the Board’s composition be looked at because right

281 now the bylaws are fairly vague. Other than the requirement of residing in Wasatch 
282 County there are no other requirements." 

If it is now agreed that residence in Wasatch County IS a requirement, how can the board operate with three current members???  Reportedly Mr. AbuHaidar lives in summit Co, Mr. McQuarrie in Salt Lake.   (Mr. Rowland's term expired in 2013, or possibly earlier)

Further in the minutes 

379 MOTION 
380 
381 Boardmember McQuarrie made a nomination, he said, “I’ll take the seat and he (Dave Hansen) 
382 can be the vice”. 
383 
384 Chairman Rowland summarized the motion; we have a motion to accept Mel as the chair and 
385 Dave as the vice chair. Voting Aye: Board Members McQuarrie, AbuHaidar, Rowland, McFee, 
386 and Hansen. Voting Nay: none. The motion passed.

End of the addendum

**************************************

This is a review of the rules of the Airport Advisory Board and terms of office from a search of minutes and other web information. Some minutes may not show properly due to the vagaries of various document formats, thereby possibly missing some appointments)

The apparent key to the current appointment controversy might be found in this excerpt from the minutes of 11/17/2011:
"The Airport Board was also considering an upgrade to the airport from B2 to C2, and wanted to get input from the Council.     
Council Member McDonald stated the upgrade would be a substantial cost to the City and it would take out hangar row. Council Member Horner asked what would happen if the Council was against it. Anderson stated the upgrade would be taken from the Master Plan.  Council Members Horner, McDonald, and Mergist stated they were against upgrading to a C2 size airport."

The expansion of the Airport was an issue most residents of Heber City (and Wasatch County) was thought to be an issue that was laid to rest over ten years ago.   Apparently not so!

The Heber City Airport Advisory Board consists of:

• Nadim AbuHaidar    (2011?)
• David Hansen         (2010/14)
• Jeff Mabbutt           (2011)
• Mel McQuarrie       (2012)
• Kari McFee           (2012)
• Erik Rowland         (2009)
• 
  

  Tom Melville (No longer listed on the website, but was  a member in 2013)

Appointment dates were not listed, but added from info below:

History:

July 3, 2003 Heber General Plan Future Vision 2020 “Heber City owns the Heber City Airport, and is responsible for all planning issues surrounding airport and related businesses. The airport should be self sustaining. Revenues from the airport need to support maintenance and development. This includes both short range and long range goals. Recognizing the important role the airport plays in the community; Heber City created an Airport Advisory Board to assist in this planning.”

5/18/2006 “Koze Hallows has resigned from the Airport Advisory Board: It was explained Koze Hallows had resigned from the Airport Advisory Board. Mayor Phillips said there was a need to find someone to fill his term. He asked for recommendations from the Council. They recommended whoever was appointed be a citizen of Heber without economic ties to the airport”

01/15/2009: Appointment/Reappointment to the following Boards:

Airport Advisory Board 4-year term (Norm Eiting 2009)

Airport Advisory Board 4-year term (Kathryn Berg 2009)

Airport Advisory Board (David Remington 2011) remaining two years of Remington term

3/5/2009 “Mayor Appointment to Airport Advisory Board: Councilmember Hokanson moved to approve the appointment of Erik Rowland to serve on the Airport Advisory Board as recommended by Mayor Phillips.”

2/18/2010 Steve Capson appointed (no term listed)

1/21/2010 Dave Hansen appointed (no term listed)

1/6/2011 Jeff Mabbut appointed (no term listed)

10/20/2011 Mayoral Appointment – Heber City Airport Advisory Board Member: Mayor Phillips stated Tom Melville was being recommended as a member of the Airport Advisory Board. He also recommended that Nadim Abuhaidar or one of his associates from the FBO be appointed to the Board. (no term listed), and it's unclear if this was the actual appointment for Abuhaidar, as this does NOT seem like a proper motion!  No further appointment has been found.    BUT on 8/16/2012: “Jim Morgan, Park City, stated it was his intention to move to Heber. He remarked that the 75x75 hangars were built for big business jets. Then the prices and the market declined. He thought the lease fee should not matter to the hangar sale because a buyer for that size would not be renting it. He was also concerned that the FBO owner was on the Airport Advisory Board.”

6-21-2012 Mel McQuarrie appointed (no term listed)

“Appointment of Airport Advisory Board Member: Council Member Mergist asked if Melvin McQuarrie owned a hangar at the Airport. Mark Anderson said yes he did. Council Member Mergist asked how many board members owned hangars at the airport and Anderson replied there were three board members that owned hangars and one that leased a hangar. Council Member Mergist voiced concern over whether ownership mattered while serving on the board. Council Member Rowland answered that while serving on the board he had noticed most of the time the board members did have some ownership in the airport hangars, etc. Recusal, etc. has been implemented in order to avoid conflict of interest, etc” . . . Mayor Phillips also mentioned the City needed someone to serve on the Board of Adjustment, as well as an Airport Advisory Board Member”

May 17, 2012 Kari McFee appointed (no term listed)

01-16-2014 Dave Hansen reappointed (no term listed)

Of the board members listed on Heber City's website:

One current member is not “from throughout the cities and suburbs in Wasatch County.” and has a clear and continuing 'conflict of interest.”

A second member is not “from throughout the cities and suburbs in Wasatch County.” and has possibly failed the attendance requirements.

A third member (and 2013 Chairman) has reportedly completed his term of office.  

A fourth member has also possibly failed the attendance requirements.

Up until 2014, there was little controversy over Airport Board appointments, certainly no refusals to consent to the Mayor's recommendations.

It appears that the Bylaws of 2011 have been virtually ignored - perhaps rather than rewriting the bylaws, it might be helpful to try to USE them.

By apparently not following the Bylaws of 2011, this current membership does not appear to be an appropriate group to “Discuss the makeup of the Airport Advisory Board” or even to elect a Chairperson as noted in the Public meeting notice for Feb 12. 
 In fact, it may be an improperly constituted board, which could have bearing on past actions of the board.  But, as they are an advisory board, all "decisions" should have been brought to the Council.

2013 Attendance

	Jan 9	Feb13	Mar	apr	May	Jun12	Jul10	Aug14	Sep18	Oct15	Nov13	Dec11
Nadim AbuHaidar		1	1		1	0		1	1	1	1	0	7	78%	Non Resident
David Hansen		1	1		0	1		1	0	1	1	1	7	78%
Jeff Mabbutt		0	0		1	0		0	1	1	1	1	5	56%	Below 60% ?
Mel McQuarrie		0	0		1	1		0	1	1	1	0	5	56%	Non Resident
Kari McFee		1	1		1	1		1	1	0	1	1	8	89%
Erik Rowland		1	1		1	1		1	1	1	1	1	9	100%	term expired 2012 ?
Tom Melville		1	1		0	1		1	1	1	1	0	7	78%
	not avail	5	5	none?	5	5	cx	5	6	'oct 9	7	4
										cx

Meeting notices (and packets) are now found on Utah PMN http://www.utah.gov/pmn/index.html#

Appointment notices should be found in Heber City Council minutes.

Heber City Airport, Rules and Regulations – Adopted by the City Council November 17, 2011

EXCERPTS:

Article 3:

15 Appointment and Terms of Members

16 A. The Airport Advisory Board shall consist of (7) members;

17 B. Membership shall be as follows:

18 1. Membership will include persons of diverse interests from throughout the

19 cities and suburbs in Wasatch County.

20 2. A Technical Assistance Committee will be formed as needed to help

21 understand technical and other issues associated with the Airport or other

22 entities that might be affected by it.

23 C. The Airport Advisory Board will interface with and be supported by the City

24 Manager, his designee, and/or the Airport Manager. Heber City will also

25 provide a secretary and staff support as needed.

26 D. The terms of office for the seven appointed Airport Advisory Board members

27 shall be four years. The initial appointments shall be for, three positions two

28 years, two positions three years, and two positions four years from January 1,

29 2005.

(i.e. 3 terms expired in 2007, 2 terms in 2008 and 2 in 2009, then 2011, 2012, 2013, etc.)

Any vacancies in these positions shall be filled by a recommendation

30 from the Mayor and confirmation by the City Council. The appointment will be

31 for at the remaining time of the member whose vacancy is being filled.

32 E. Improper conduct and non-performance of duties shall result in a

33 recommendation to the Heber City Council for removal of said member.

34 Members may be removed after a public hearing, by a majority vote of the City

35 Council.

36 Article 4:

37 Airport Advisory Board Officers and their Duties

38 A. Chairperson

39 1. The Airport Advisory Board shall elect a Chairperson and a Vice-

40 Chairperson from among its members at the first regular meeting in

41 January.

42 2. The Chairperson and Vice-Chairperson shall serve for a term of two years,

43 beginning the first regular meeting in February.

44 3. The Chairperson shall preserve order, and decide all points of order, subject

45 to appeal of the Airport Advisory Board membership. Such appeal shall be

46 decided by a majority vote of the members present. The Chairperson may

47 vote on all matters before the Airport Advisory Board.

48 a. The Chairperson with the concurrence of a majority vote of the

49 Airport Advisory Board and the City Council may create such special

50 subcommittees as he/she may, from time-to-time, deem necessary

51 or desirable.

52 b. In the event of absence or disability the Chairperson, the Vice-

53 Chairperson shall preside. In the absence of both, the members

54 shall appoint a Chairperson for that meeting.

55 B. Vice-Chairperson

56 1. Perform all of the above duties in the absence of the Chairperson;

57 2. Conduct the annual review of the Airport Advisory Board actions;

58 3. Coordinate and conduct the annual meeting of the Board; and

59 4. Provide orientation to new Airport Advisory Board Members.

60 C. Secretary Article 12:

61 1. Assure true recording and maintenance of the public record, record the

62 proceedings of all hearings and meetings; and prepare the minutes of the

63 Board. Minutes shall include:

64 a. The date, time, and place of the meeting;

65 b. The names of members present and absent;

66 c. The substance of all matters proposed, discussed, or decided, and a

67 record, by individual members of votes taken;

68 d. Findings and conclusions;

69 e. The names of all citizens who appeared and who gave comments

70 and the substance in brief of their testimony;

71 f. Any other information that any member requests be entered in the

72 minutes.

73 2. All recommendations to the City Council, involving changes in the City

74 ordinances shall be submitted by the Secretary to the City Attorney for

75 review. After the review, the proposed ordinance shall be returned to the

76 Airport Advisory Board to evaluate any comments or suggestions before

77 being submitted to the City Council.

179 Conduct of Members of the Airport Advisory Board

180 A. Members of the Airport Advisory Board shall prepare themselves for hearings

181 and meetings.

182 B. Appointed members of the Airport Advisory Board shall attend at least 60

183 percent of all meetings within a calendar year. Failure to do so may be deemed

184 by the Airport Advisory Board as cause for removal.

185 C. An Airport Advisory Board member with a conflict of interest in a matter before

186 the Board must state that such a conflict of interest exists and withdraw from

187 participation in the public hearing, work session, or regular meeting on such

188 matters. Participation of a member of the Airport Advisory Board with a conflict

189 of interest may be cause for removal. The interests of that Airport Advisory

190 Board member may be represented before the Board by agenda or legal

191 representative at the public hearing, regular meeting, or work session and

192 entered into the public record. The prohibition from “participation” does not

193 exclude an Article 7.B.2 presentation or a response solicited from one of the

194 other Board members.

Meeting Excerpts

Wednesday, March 13, 2013

4:00 p.m.

Regular Meeting

Members Present: Nadim AbuHaidar Airport Advisory Board

Dave Hansen Airport Advisory Board

Kari McFee Airport Advisory Board

Tom Melville Airport Advisory Board

Erik Rowland Airport Advisory Board

Absent: Jeff Mabbutt Airport Advisory Board

Mel McQuarrie Airport Advisory Board

APRIL = No meeting???

Wednesday, May 8, 2013

4:00 p.m.

Regular Meeting

Members Present: Nadim AbuHaidar Airport Advisory Board

Jeff Mabbutt Airport Advisory Board

Kari McFee Airport Advisory Board

Mel McQuarrie Airport Advisory Board

Erik Rowland Airport Advisory Board

Absent: Dave Hansen Airport Advisory Board

Tom Melville Airport Advisory Board

Wednesday, June 12, 2013

6

7 4:00 p.m. - Regular Meeting

8

Members Present: Dave Hansen Airport Advisory Board

Kari McFee Airport Advisory Board

Mel McQuarrie Airport Advisory Board

Tom Melville Airport Advisory Board

Erik Rowland Airport Advisory Board

Alan Robertson Airport Advisory Board for Nadim

AbuHaidar

Absent: Nadim AbuHaidar Airport Advisory Board

Jeff Mabbutt Airport Advisory Board

Public notice is hereby given that the July 10, 2013, Heber City Airport Advisory Board Meeting has been cancelled.

October 9, 2013 | 4:00 PM

Description/Agenda:

MEETING CANCELLED

Airport Advisory Board Meeting

6 Tuesday, October 15, 2013

7

8 4:00 p.m.

9 Regular Meeting

10

Members Present: Nadim AbuHaidar Airport Advisory Board

Dave Hansen Airport Advisory Board

Jeff Mabbutt Airport Advisory Board

Mel McQuarrie Airport Advisory Board

Tom Melville Airport Advisory Board

Erik Rowland Airport Advisory Board

Absent: Kari McFee Airport Advisory Board

November 13.2013 http://www.utah.gov/pmn/files/83337.pdf

All present