Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the General Plan Mih topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Fruit Heights council sends MIH strategy review to planning commission, denies single‑vendor survey
Summary
After heated public comment, the Fruit Heights City Council voted 3–2 to ask the planning commission to return recommended Moderate Income Housing strategies by August and declined to award a city survey contract to a single vendor, directing staff to solicit multiple bids instead.
The Fruit Heights City Council voted Tuesday night to send a focused review of Moderate Income Housing (MIH) strategies to the planning commission and to open the city survey process to competitive bids after residents raised transparency and conflict‑of‑interest concerns.
The substitute motion, which passed by voice vote 3–2, instructs the planning commission to evaluate MIH options and return prioritized recommendations by the council's first meeting in August. Council members also directed staff to solicit multiple proposals for a city survey rather than awarding a single‑vendor contract that had been listed on the agenda.
The move followed more than a half‑hour of public comment. Tara Larkin, who identified herself as a Fruit Heights resident, urged the council to "table this item and direct staff to open this contract up to a standard competitive public RFP," saying county and regional vendors often use survey templates she described as skewed toward regional goals. "To ensure absolute public trust," she said, the city should "look at our options openly and transparently." Matt Van Drimelin, another resident, warned that altering the general plan to allow development on the golf course "signals to developers that our intent is for it to be developed," even if officials say they do not plan to sell.
Council member Blake Winslow led the substitute motion that narrowed the council's direction: rather than immediately adopting a long list of plan changes, the council asked the planning commission to compile MIH strategy recommendations over the coming meetings and to return with survey‑bid options within a month. Mayor Jeanne Groberg and council staff agreed the approach gives the commission and staff time to analyze dozens of potential strategies while keeping a clear timeline.
Council members who opposed the substitute said the original, lengthier motion from Council member Eileen Moss— which included specific requests such as creating an "Open Space Reserved" designation and removing the Davis Park golf course and Harvey Park from development designations—was substantive and deserved more time for review before being superseded. Moss said her motion was intended to "bite the elephant one bite at a time" by giving the planning commission specific tasks and deadlines, including an open house in August and a public hearing later in the fall.
On the survey issue, the council voted to deny awarding the city survey to Y2 Analytics and instructed staff to prepare an RFP and return bid estimates and subject recommendations. Councilors stressed the RFP should require respondents to disclose conflicts of interest, explain methodology, and show how survey questions will avoid inadvertently steering respondents toward preselected regional outcomes.
The planning commission is expected to study MIH strategies and report back under the timeline set by council direction, and staff will return with vendor options and cost estimates for the survey for the council to review before contracting.
The substitute motion passed 3–2; the original motion was treated as superseded. The council also asked staff to invite a county CDBG expert to a future meeting to answer technical questions about federal grant requirements.
