[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},"mediaId",6083777,"mediaKeyId","2927275-d561c1ff4e735f99d651117d08d9417d","parentId",2927275,"title","Votes at a glance: Fruit Heights meeting actions and recorded outcomes","audioSeconds",17,"startMs",7186000,"endMs",7203000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2927275-d561c1ff4e735f99d651117d08d9417d&start=7186&end=7203","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2927275-d561c1ff4e735f99d651117d08d9417d/thumbnail_7186000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6083777/Utah/Votes-at-a-glance-Fruit-Heights-meeting-actions-and-recorded-outcomes","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6083777-24d326d7cf09f79fcbc57176670b2ee2/orig.mp4?Expires=1770971527&Signature=H-y5BhQEtugmU95xdMctX0TzZVskmIcoYMaP3CwYGOomfu1gtjGXt-HZshc0ADD-RJybhFvv4Kqfsi~GmkMdX5ilKcwz-5zG9JbT~FJ0yGqz7FZjrisswD2ux0Y7HZWouCiPhBr-N2MdLihFq7XP8bFTXL3O~z-HyfJHFSBZiRcBKhYOqMzKt6VSflPeSeUn0utR7-qnFbItIhCsKn94O7WIvryJIfimkjnS22eDqrKlC0KolwWUN39PgBQbPPXGcUeOC11GEaVZD5MQLbP0AtZGGtIva6lfCfTORUy0BFfzxQK~OXvEy4PUhr90XW7eQxq-koDV3oRiJE5iMRkl2Q__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","","date","2025-04-09T03:21:50Z","article","This meeting transcript records the following formal actions and outcomes.

Approved
- Resolution 2025-04 (solid-waste update and consolidated fee schedule matters). The transcript records roll-call “Aye” votes from Council member Eileen Moss, Council member Gary Anderson and Council member Sean Stevenson. The transcript records the resolution as adopted by those recorded ayes.

Approved
- Approval of minutes for 03/18/2025. A motion to approve the minutes was made and seconded; the chair called for the ayes and the motion carried (the transcript records the approval but does not show a member-by-member roll-call for that vote).

Proposed, outcome not recorded in transcript
- Motion to table Ordinance 2025-02 (Title 2A, Chapter 3 — elections and qualifications) for two weeks. A motion to table was made during the meeting; the transcript does not capture a final roll-call or recorded outcome for that motion in the excerpt provided.

Other procedural motions
- Motions to open and close public hearings and to move into public comment were made and executed as part of the meeting’s procedural flow; those procedural actions are recorded as having been taken but in most cases the transcript records only the motion and the chair’s acknowledgment rather than a detailed roll-call.

Documentation note: This summary reflects only votes and formal outcomes recorded in the provided transcript excerpt. If the council recorded other formal votes in the official minutes or on the published agenda packet, those would be the authoritative record.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council 4.08.25 (Public Hearing)","oneSentenceSummary","Summary of formal actions recorded in the meeting transcript: approval of Resolution 2025-04 related to solid-waste updates and approval of minutes for 03/18/2025. Other motions (including tabling of the elections ordinance) were proposed but the transcript does not record final roll-call outcomes for those items.","taxTitle","Fruit Heights City Council, Fruit Heights, Davis County, Utah","taxId",21255,"location","Utah","headline","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6083782,"Fruit Heights debates consolidated fee schedule and proposed citywide recycling program; staff lays out costs and pilot details",168,2578000,2746000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2927275-d561c1ff4e735f99d651117d08d9417d&start=2578&end=2746","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2927275-d561c1ff4e735f99d651117d08d9417d/thumbnail_2578000.jpg","/articles/6083782/Utah/Fruit-Heights-debates-consolidated-fee-schedule-and-proposed-citywide-recycling-program-staff-lays-out-costs-and-pilot-details","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6083782-284bd33bb1b281aaae046d2bd22bd81f/orig.mp4?Expires=1770971527&Signature=PibwcjLi00RSq3GzBM9eVvYd7zfDrdtVxvMMB~PMX9rlW0zr688Er22tj6RMDTEzI3Tb4ZL0-4P3IWg-jr-hFL2OL4mKwaVWDhAuihjua0ZQwI7VTp1inkfQVuaYVvARFw~L2H6orDUqIj-NJA5Y7IA4qFojLvo7tPzxPrVdjZiPPMoaXCfE~~9theIIG7ruuOkQ3vDovSSBFlfSL59DjDSXBOfjGRB022BY8L~k89xsQ2tMB2bhrY8t4QkuB~eOzcVh55GEmw7XFywINgmyswRp8Mf7oJulPKz6gB8Xc~h5nvuSiKUeKET6X8zhQx6lpmvawds5zn2fb0~DcjaaYw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Fruit Heights City Council held a public hearing on updates to the consolidated fee schedule that would bundle a citywide curbside recycling program into the municipal solid-waste service.

City staff and district representatives described the proposed program, its costs and operational details. The proposed fee model would add $5 to the current first-can garbage fee, raising that service to $20.50 per billing period; the fee would cover one regular garbage can and one recycling cart. Staff described the bundled model as “all-or-nothing” (no opt-out after adoption) and said participation rates affect per-household unit costs: higher participation lowers unit cost.

Key program details presented to the council and public:
- Cart and startup costs: Staff estimated purchase of 2,000 recycling carts would cost about $120,000; integrated planning or bundling discounts could reduce the city’s net cart purchase cost by roughly $30,000 in negotiated terms with the district/hauler.
- Pricing model: The proposed first-can fee would increase by $5 to $20.50; a second regular garbage can would increase by about $2; a second recycling cart would cost $5 each.
- Hauler guarantees and credits: City staff reported negotiations with the city’s current hauler (identified in meeting materials as Robinson/Robson Waste) to guarantee a fee for multiple years to limit increases. The district also offers diversion credits for green waste and recyclable material that reduce net landfill transport costs.
- Collection and material handling: District representatives explained the program would use a single-stream cart; material recovery facility sorting would separate recyclables after collection. Glass is handled separately in some facilities and is not always collected curbside due to safety and market value concerns.
- Education and rollout: The district described an outreach package that would include mailed notices, FAQs, stickers on carts explaining acceptable materials, a landing page, and facility tours for residents. Staff said the district would provide educational materials when carts are delivered.

Public reaction: Several residents spoke in favor of recycling as a worthwhile quality-of-life service; others questioned the mandatory, bundled approach and whether low-income households or older residents should receive discounted or opt-out options. Council members asked whether the fees would affect other city taxes or require additional budget adjustments; staff said the fee is designed to cover solid-waste program costs and not to change tax rates.

Council direction and votes: The council conducted the public hearing and closed it at the end of public comment. During the meeting the council later considered and adopted a separate resolution (Resolution 2025-04) related to solid-waste updates (roll-call recorded) — see votes summary. Staff said council would consider public input prior to final adoption of any ordinance changes required to implement a recycling program.","At a public hearing the council reviewed a proposed consolidated fee schedule that would bundle a city recycling program into solid-waste fees. Staff presented cost estimates, cart purchase costs and program design; residents expressed both support and concern for the mandatory, bundled approach.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":72,"_73":56,"_74":56},6083787,"Fruit Heights holds public hearing on proposed switch from caucus to primary elections",5822,1057000,6879000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2927275-d561c1ff4e735f99d651117d08d9417d&start=1057&end=6879","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2927275-d561c1ff4e735f99d651117d08d9417d/thumbnail_1057000.jpg","/articles/6083787/Utah/Fruit-Heights-holds-public-hearing-on-proposed-switch-from-caucus-to-primary-elections","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6083787-da212e0323d60f3bd954e1eaae3a8834/orig.mp4?Expires=1770971527&Signature=ZEXGNN8AyTHJPXavl-4eb00K5pdRovBhzO5cSYsaUdU5fToRddBMpHM9xMe4thzSzaX8jly1tQESVsll852S36iTNI1wx4JpIdQxolcyAHfZXEKD64XFd1sC~h17xqMS3MtxYh7wRrlNkjeKTSa-0GEGCkzLUCjF6irqkjMoHe0GF4rFG0phzeE4TitvLBpMX7FPtF~GAAv~wllUnegZDoCHPJhCTrTd~ksSYJA6zQs0OVZVWKxebx8HqE-lBxli6sBGD1xQc-FextfnClIKlDpOyqfogSeKyZ5f-6JqqxskZ3X676jrYEYTiEKi51kCiq~tb3gs7hW~-Z1RFVe4Zg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Fruit Heights City Council opened a public hearing on Ordinance 2025-02, Title 2A, Chapter 3 (elections and qualifications), allowing residents to comment on a proposed change from the city’s caucus-based candidate-selection process to a primary election.

The proposal was prompted by staff research and a city survey: 72 residents responded and about 7% indicated they favored a change to a primary system, city staff said during the hearing. Council members and residents discussed trade-offs including turnout, cost and how candidates are vetted.

Why it matters: the change would alter how Fruit Heights residents nominate and select municipal candidates, shifting the deciding body from relatively small caucus meetings to a broader primary ballot that would be open to more voters. Supporters argued a primary would let more residents cast ballots; opponents said caucuses produce more engaged, informed participants and keep costs down.

During the hearing, a city staff member summarized staff outreach and the survey results and explained that, if the council adopted a primary, Davis County Elections could run the primary election. The council and residents referenced details provided by the Davis County Elections Office and the lieutenant governor’s office about differences in participation and cost.

Residents and council members raised these points:
- Participation: Several commenters said caucus turnout is small (dozens of attendees) while a primary would reach hundreds. One resident quoted Thomas Jefferson: “We in America do not have government by the majority. We have government by the majority who participate,” to emphasize turnout and participation concerns.
- Accessibility and candidate vetting: Supporters of a primary said it lets residents who cannot attend a single caucus night still vote; supporters of caucuses said caucus nights allow voters to meet and question candidates directly.
- Partisanship: A staff summary noted Fruit Heights is currently running a partisan-style caucus process for municipal seats; commenters and council members discussed options to keep nominations effectively nonpartisan while increasing access (examples included renaming caucus lists to “Nonpartisan 1/Nonpartisan 2” or allowing candidates to file without attending caucus night).
- Cost and barriers: Council members raised that primaries impose filing costs and other expenses on candidates, potentially disadvantaging lower-income residents; others suggested using city funds or waivers to mitigate that effect.

Council direction and next steps: The council held the required public hearing and several members proposed possible changes to the existing caucus system as an alternative to a full switch. At one point a council member said they would like to table the ordinance for two weeks; a motion to table was made during the meeting, but the transcript does not record the outcome of that motion or any final adoption vote for the ordinance. The transcript also contains statements that the ordinance had been prepared and discussed earlier; however, the meeting record here does not show a completed formal adoption roll-call vote for Ordinance 2025-02.

Because the hearing included extended public comment and several follow-up questions from council members, the council indicated it would consider public input and staff research before taking final action. If the council schedules a future adoption vote, more formal documentation and a roll-call vote will appear in the council’s official minutes.","The Fruit Heights City Council held a public hearing on an ordinance (2025-02 Title 2A, Ch. 3) proposing a move from a caucus-based candidate selection to a primary election. Residents and council members debated participation, cost and partisan effects; no final adoption vote is recorded in the transcript.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Votes at a glance: Fruit Heights meeting actions and recorded outcomes

Fruit Heights debates consolidated fee schedule and proposed citywide recycling program; staff lays out costs and pilot details

Fruit Heights holds public hearing on proposed switch from caucus to primary elections