River Heights City
City Council Agenda
Tuesday, September 15, 2026
Notice is hereby given that the River Heights City Council will hold their regular meeting at 6:30 p.m., at
the River Heights City Office Building at 520 S 500 E.
Pledge of Allegiance
Adoption of Previous Minutes and Agenda
Mayor, Councilmembers, and Staff Reports
Public Comment
Adoption of an Ordinance to Rezone Parcel 02-025-0015, Owned by CH Champlin LLC at
Approximately 700 East 600 South from R-1-8 Zone to Senior Citizen Planned Unit
Development Zone
Chaiya Wimber BooFest Presentation
Discuss 600 South COG Project
Resolution Adopting Impact and Connection Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units
Readopt a Resolution to Adjust Solid Waste Fees
Resolution to Update 911 Communication/Dispatch Services Fee (per Interlocal Agreement with
Logan City Dated Feb 18, 2025)
Adjourn
Poste this 12th day of September 2026
Sheila Lind, ecorder
Attachments for this meeting and previous meeting minutes can be found on the State's Public Notice Website (pmn.utah.gov)
and at riverheights.gov.
In compliance with the American Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliary
communicative aids and services) during this meeting should notify Sheila Lind, (435) 770-2061 at least 24 hours before the
meeting.
520 South 500 East River Heights, Utah 84321 Phone & Fax (435) 752-2646
River Heights City
Council Meeting
September 15, 2026
5 Present: Mayor Blake Wright
6 Council members: Kandi Evans
7 Mark Malmstrom
s Chris Milbank
9 Lance Pitcher
10 Steve Roberts
11
12 Public Works Director
13 Recorder
14 Treasurer
Clayten Nelson
Sheila Lind
Michelle Jensen
15
16 Others Present:
17
is
19
Rick Champlin, Chaiya Wimber, John Dorn, Holly
Peterson, Jeff Smith, Zack Rhodes, Shellie Giddings,
Brittany and Bryan Cascio, Makayla Graham, Engineer
Eric Dursteller
20
21
The following motions were made during the meeting:
22
23 Motion #1
Councilmember Evans moved to "approve the minutes from the September 1, 2026
Council Meeting, and the evening's agenda." Councilmember Milbank seconded the motion which
passed with Evans, Malmstrom, Milbank, Pitcher, and Roberts in favor. No one opposed.
26 27
29 30 31 32 34
36 37 3s 39
41 42 43 44
45
46
2s Motion #2
Councilmember Milbank moved to "approve Ordinance # 10-2026, An Ordinance to
Rezone Parcel 02-025-0015, Owned by CH Champlin LLC at Approximately 700 East 600 South
from R-1-8 Zone to Senior Citizen Planned Unit Development Zone." Councilmember Evans
seconded the motion which passed with Evans, Malmstrom, Milbank, and Roberts in favor.
33 Pitcher opposed.
35 Motion #3
Councilmember Pitcher moved to "approve Resolution 13-2026, A Resolution to Adjust
Solid Waste Fees" Councilmember Malmstrom seconded the motion which passed with Evans,
Malmstrom, Milbank, Pitcher, and Roberts in favor. No one opposed.
40 Motion #4
Councilmember Pitcher moved to "approve Resolution 15-2026, A Resolution to Update
the Logan City Dispatch Services Fee." Councilmember Milbank seconded the motion which
passed with Evans, Malmstrom, Milbank, Pitcher, and Roberts in favor. No one opposed.
520 South 500 East River Heights, Utah 84321 Phone & Fax (435) 752-2646
49 Proceedings of the Meeting:
50
51 The River Heights City Council met at 6:30 p.m. in the Ervin R. Crosbie Council Chambers
52 in the River Heights City Building on Tuesday, September 15, 2026, for their regular council
53 meeting.
54 Pledge ofAllegiance
55 Adoption of Previous Minutes and the Evening's Agenda: Minutes for the September 1,
56 2026 meeting were reviewed.
57 Councilmember Evans moved to "approve the minutes from the September 1, 2026
58 Council Meeting, and the evening's agenda." Councilmember Milbank the motion which
59 passed with Evans, Malmstrom, Milbank, Pitcher, and Roberts in favor. No one opposed.
60 Mayor and Staff Reports:
61 CouncilmemberEvans
62 • She received an email from Ron Gonsalves about Emergency Preparedness. He sent
63 information about grants that he was looking into for River Heights. She would forward the
64 email to the mayor and attorney for their review before the applications were sent.
65 Councilmember Pitcher
66 • He was still working with Google Fiber on getting the contract worked out.
67 Councilmember Milbank
68 • He reported that the tree planting event planned for service day fell through. They were
69 working to reschedule for October 10, in conjunction with BooFest.
70 Public Comment: John Dorn read the email he had sent earlier in the day to the Council
71 regarding ADU impact fees and utility charges. He wanted to know how the fees were decided
72 upon and asked to see the analysis the city used to come up with the fees.
73 Shellie Giddings asked for further explanation on the $2 administration fee attached to the
74 Waste Management trash charge and said she still didn't have an answer to the 911 Logan radio
75 fee.
76 Brittany Casio had concerns about ADU utility charges. She suggested that if the double
77 rate on monthly water was reduced, the city wouldn't need to police whether an ADU was vacant
78 or not. If the rate was based on usage the city could still recover their revenues.
79 Holly Peterson, who lived west of the Champlin parcel, said she had reviewed the Senior
80 Citizen Planned Unit Development (SCPUD) Zone and other codes. She found that one of the
81 city's goals was to match new development density to the surrounding area. It also stated there
82 should be 20% green space in SCPUDs, which she hadn't seen on the rough draft. She asked
83 the Council to look at the number of residents this development would bring into the city. She said
84 one of the benefits of smaller lots was to provide affordable housing, which this development
85 would not meet. Based on the rough draft of the subdivision, she didn't feel the zoning should be
86 approved until they presented a plan that would conform to the city's code. She was concerned
87 about the development of 700 East, which she knew was shown in the city's general plan. She
88 hadn't yet heard it was going to be considered a minor or collector road and who would bear the
89 cost of development. To her knowledge, none of the existing property owners on the west were
90 seeking access. It would take a large chunk of their land. She said there was often flooding on the
91 Champlin property, and the road would need to be built up so her property wouldn't end up
92 flooding too. She felt her property and neighbors shouldn't have to bear the burden of additional
93 water and residents.
94 Adoption of an Ordinance to Rezone Parcel 02-025-0015, Owned by CH Champlin LLC at
95 Approximately 700 East 600 South from R-1-8 Zone to Senior Citizen Planned Unit
96 Development (SCPUD) Zone: Mayor Wright stated that the Planning Commission had held a
River Heights City Council Meeting, 9/15/26
Q7 public.hearing and passed the rezone request onto the Council. He emphasized that the
evening's discussion was only regarding a rezone, not the development.
5y Rick Champlin (developer) reminded that one of the city's goals was to remain primarily a
100 residential community of single-family homes. One of the citys strategies was to develop a
tot SCPUD zone, which they had worked on over•the pastiwo years, which allowed 6,000 sq foot
102 lots, and required 20% open space. The property had a density cap, which'would only add 2-3 '
103 lots over what the 8,000 square foot zone would allow. He said their communities have low traffic
104 impact and good upstanding citizens who move in. ` `
105 Steve Roberts asked Mr. Champlin to address the concerns expressed by the citizens. He
106 replied that they had dealt with high water tables before. Their engineers could design it so there
107 would be no negative impact on neighbors: They had performed preliminary designs on this
108 property to make sure it could work and were confident they could take care of the water.
109 Councilmember Malmstrom asked how their open space would benefit current residents.
110 1 t 1 Mr. Champlin said the City of North Logan asked them to make their open space accessible to'
the public. They were okay with designing trails which would be available'to the public.
112 113 Councilmember.Eyans. asked about the density cap. Mr.. Champlin explained that the
SCPUD code limited them on the number of dwellings and the number of.residents allowed per
114 dwelling. She asked if'the.SCPUD zone would allow internal ADUs. Mr. Champlin said their
115 clients don't typically want this. `
116 Councilmember Roberts asked what the homes would look like. Mr. 'Champlin said they
117 would look like single-level homes. Occasionally a client might want a bonus room in the attic.
118 They had a variety of styles and colors to choose from and wouldn't do two homes together with
119 the same design or color. The homes would look similar, but each have their own character.
l2r Councilmember Milbank asked how they'would manage the ground water. Mr. Champlin
said they wouldn't build basements. They would rely on their engineers. They would also bring in
122 fill to .raise the homes and follow city code on water retention.
123 Open space was addressed. Mr. Champlin informed th'at:they would include more than
124 was shown on their previous draft. .
i25 Councilmember Pitcher askedaheir intent on the development of the 700 East road. Mr.
126 127 Champlin said they would do what was required of them, by developing their half. Mayor Wright
said 700 East had been on the General Plan for decades. Some of the properties to the west
128 even had it designated on their plats as a future road. Now wasihe time to put it in. The city
129 would work with. them to determine how it would be paid for.
130 Councilmember Roberts asked Holly Petersen if herquestions had been answered. She
131 said she still had questions ,.. Mayor Wright.cut her off, stating the meeting wasn'ta public
132 hearing, but a Council discussion. The hearing was held with the Planning Commission. Tonight.
133 they were only addressing, the rezone. The Development Review'Committee (DRC) would
134 address the design details, which was made up of professionals who would make sure all the City
135 Codes were met. He assured there would be plenty of public meetings ahead to express
136 concerns. . .
137 Councilmember Milbank moved to "approve Ordinance # 10-2026, An Ordinance to
138 Rezone Parcel 02-025-0015, Owned by CH Champlin LLC at Approximately 700 East 600
139 South from R-1-8 Zone to Senior Citizen_ Planned Unit Development Zone." Councilmember
140 Evans seconded the motion which passed with Evans, IVlalmstrom, Milbank, and Roberts
141 in favor. Pitcher opposed.
142 Chaiva Wimber BooFest Presentation: Ms. Wirnber explained the 2024 event recap and
143 2026 requests she emailed to the Council earlier. Discussion was held on' insurance for the event..
Ms. Wimber said she was told she may not need it; it was based on certain events she mayor
.; may not bring in.
River Heights City Council Meeting, 9/15/26 3
146 147 Mayor Wright said he noticed the food trucks were moved from west of the park to 600
East. Ms. Wimber said they would have better visibility in that location. It was a request from the
148 vendors two years ago.
149 Councilmember Pitcher asked if she had checked to see if there were any other events
150 going on that day. Ms. Wimber said the county had something going on that day, but didn't think it
151 would be a conflict. She said they weren't allowed to have a medical tent, but they could supply
152 water bottles and band aids. If more was needed, they would call 911. Vendors would park at the
153 elementary school (she had permission). She was planning on 60 vendors; last time she had 40.
154 She wasn't planning on having parking attendants this year, because they weren't necessary last'
155 time.
156 Ms. Wimber asked if she could use the city dumpsters. She was told they were emptied on
157 158 Friday. PWD Nelson said the city usually ordered an extra dumpster for fall clean up in October,
so he didn't see an issue if she wanted to use it. She asked if she could post signage about the
159 event on oity property. Mayor Wright thought it would be ifne since the City Youth Ambassadors
160 were involved in the event.
161 Restroom availability was discussed. PWD Nelson'said they close them when it started to
162 163 freeze. He thought they would still be open on October 10. They discussed electricity that she
could use to plug in her music.
164 Councilmember Malmstrom said the tree board wanted to do'a tree planting event onihe
165 166 same day. Ms. Wimber was very supportive and offered to advertise it with Boofest. They would
let her know once a time was decided. Councilmember Evans said pumpkin painting would be
167 held from 1:00-3:00.
168 Councilmember Pitcher asked Ms. Wimber, to let the tenants at the old school know about
169 the event in case it might conflict with something they were ,doing.
170 Ms. Wimber asked if the sprinklers could be turned off during the event. She also asked if
171 a couple of the Council members would be willing to judge the costume contest. They would think
172 about who would do it.
173 'Discuss 600 South COG Proiect: Mayor Wright explained that when last year's application
174 didn't work out he and .Engineer Rasmussen made sure to get the 600 South project on a
175 176 transportation plan with the CMPO which would allow them eligibility for more funding. Now they
177 were finding out the project was on.the 2055 list. This meant that this year they could only.apply
again for a spot improvement, which would require matching funds and a maximum grant of
178 $400,000. They found out that it was going to become more difficult to get funding than they had
179 thought.
180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 Engineer Eric Dursteller further explained how the project was not on the list they had
thought it was on. He asked if the city had any projects they wanted on the 2055 list. If so, they
should get them added. He noted if the project had a safety factor to it, it would rank higher.
The mayor and engineers recommended pulling the application this year and trying again
next year. It was noted that for populations less than 5,000, cities were considered rural. There
was different money set aside for rural cities. '
Mayor Wright said politically they should pull the application if they knew they weren't
going to get what they needed. He discussed the "safe sidewalks to school" grant which they had
been awarded for another project. It wouldn't work this time because the north side of 600 South
already had a sidewalk, however, it didn't help the children who lived on the south side.
Engineer Dursteller mentioned that the COG was looking to fund roads which moved a lot
of traffic. Decisions were becoming more dictated by guidelines than chosen by the committee.
Councilmember Pitcher asked if 800 South could be added to the list. It would be
designated as a collector road because it would tie into 100 East.
River Heights City Council Meeting, 9/15/26
194 Mayor Wright asked if the Council would support pulling the application this year. They
did.
Shellie Giddings suggested they consider asking Representative Blake Moore about
197 funding appropriations. She offered to help set up a discussion with him.
198 Resolution Adopting Impact and Connection Fees for Accessory Dwelling Units:
199 Councilmember Roberts expressed appreciation for John Dorn's comments. He had been doing
200 further research on impact fees for ADUs. He had also found there were state codes which didn't
201 allow charging impact fees for internal ADUs. He recommended tabling the discussion until after
202 getting input from the city attorney. All agreed to Mr. Roberts' recommendation.
203 Readopt a Resolution to Adiust Solid Waste Fees: Mayor Wright explained that the
204 resolution had been revisited since the last meeting to make it clearer how the charges were
205 determined. He also explained the two-dollar administration fee. The one-dollar dispatch fee was
206 removed and incorporated into the 911 fee (billed as a separate line item).
207 Councilmember Pitcher moved to "approve Resolution 13-2026, A Resolution to
208 Adjust Solid Waste Fees:" Councilmember Malmstrom seconded the motion which passed,
209 with Evans, Malmstrom, Milbank, Pitcher, and Roberts in favor. No one opposed.
210 Resolution to Update 911 Communication/Dispatch Services Fee (per Interlocal
211 Agreement with Loaan City Dated Feb 18. 2025): Mayor Wright explained that last year the city
212 negotiated with Logan City Police Department, who took care of the dispatch center, which took
213 care of all 911 calls in the valley. They had been charging $3.00/mo/resident for .many years.
214 They proposed a 3% yearly increase. He further explained the proposed figures in the resolution.
215 Councilmember Malmstrom questioned the 10% River Heights administration fee. He
216 asked if administering the dispatch fee caused an additional burden on the city. Treasurer Jensen
217 explained that Recorder Lind managed the revenue side of it. The city received an itemized bill
from Logan City which she must compare to the number of residents getting. billed. Ms. Jensen
pays•the bills and keeps track of revenue equaling expenses.
220 Councilmember Pitcher moved to "approve Resolution 15-2026,,A Resolution to
221 Update the Logan City Dispatch Services Fee." Councilmember Milbank seconded the
222 motion which passed with Evans, Malmstrom, Milbank, Pitcher, and Roberts in favor. No
223 one opposed.
224 The meeting adjourned at 7:55 p.m.
225
226
227
22S
229 Sheila Lind,;Reco er
230 -
231
232
233 Bake1Vright, yor
1
River Heights City Council Meeting, 9/15/26
9/15/26, 12:20 PM .Afew questions regarding Resolution 142026 before tonight's meeting - Sheila Lind - Outlook
Outlook
A few questions regarding Resolution 14-2026 before tonight's meeting
From John Dorn
Date Tue 9/15/2026 10:55 AM
To Sheila Lind
Cc Blake Wright ; Chris Milbank ; Steve Roberts
; Kandi Evans ; Lance Pitcher ..
; Mark Malmstrom
You don't often get email from dornjohn@gmail.com. Learn why this is important
Mayor Wright, Councilmembers, and Ms. Lind,
My name is John Dorn. I'm a River Heights resident, and I plan to attend tonight's meeting.
wasn't able to attend the earlier meetings,where the ADU ordinance and proposed fees were
discussed, so I've spent some time reviewing the ordinance, Resolution 14-2026,. the City's Impact Fee
Analysis, and several related meeting minutes.
know there has already been a lot of discussion and work put into this, and I may be missing some of
the context from those meetings. As I worked through the documents, though, I came across a few
things I wasn't able to reconcile. I wanted to send my questions ahead of tonight's meeting rather '
than raise'them for the first time during public comment.
1. Internal ADU impact fees
Resolution 14-2026 appears to include approximately $10,000-$11,000 in impact fees for an Internal
ADU.
When I reviewed Utah Code §11-36a-202(2)(a)(vi), I read it as saying that a political subdivision may
not impose an impact fee on construction of an Internal ADU within an existing. primary dwelling.
I'm wondering if there is another provision, exception, or interpretation that I'm missing. .
Could the Council or City Attorney help explain how the proposed Internal ADU fees fit with
that section of Utah law?
would especially appreciate clarification on this before the Internal ADU portion of the resolution is
finalized.
2. How the 75% impact-fee amount was determined:
The proposed resolution uses 75% of the normal impact fees for ADUs. -
My understanding from reading Utah's Impact Fees Act is that impact fees are intended to correspond
about:blank 1/3
9/15/26, 12:20 PM A fewquestions..regarding Resolution 14-2026 beforetonight's meeting - Sheila Lind - Outlook
to the proportionate infrastructure impact created by the development.
reviewed the City's 2026 Impact Fee Analysis, but I wasn't able to find an ADU-specific calculation
that led to the 75% figure.
Could you help me understand how the 75"% amount was determined for Internal and Detached
ADUs, and whether that analysis is contained in the Impact Fee Analysis or another study
residents can review?
For Internal ADUs, I realize this is also tied to the separate legal question above about whether an
impact fee can be imposed at all.
3. Utili,ty base rates when the service remains shared
also had a question about the recurring utility charges in Ordinance 7-2026.
As I read the ordinance, both Internal and Detached ADUs are expected to share the existing water
and sewer service with the primary home to the maximum extent allowed, with one billing point.
So in many cases there would still be:
• One water meter
• One water connection
• One sewer connection
• One utility account
• One City bill
At the same time, the ordinance appears to add another full water base rate and sewer rate,for the
additional dwelling unit.
completely understand that additional residents may use more water and create more sewer
demand, and I agree that people should pay appropriately for the services they use.
What I'm.having trouble understanding is what additional fixed cost the s@cond full base rate is
intended to represent when the physical connection and billing relationship have not changed.
For example, households in River Heights can have large#amilies. A household with two parents and
four to nine children could have six to eleven people using one utility connection and pay one base
rate. Another home might have only three or four people total, .but if some of those people occupy an
Internal or Detached ADU, the property could pay two full base rates.
I'm not suggesting that larger families should pay more. I'm using the example only because it made
me question whether the number of dwelling units necessarily reflects the actual burden on the utility
system..
If increased consumption is the concern, that usage can be measured at the meter. If there is an
additional fixed cost created by the ADU, I'd simply like to better understand what that cost is.
Could the City share the cost-of-service or rate-setting analysis used to support the additional
full base rate when the property continues to use a single shared utility service?
In Closing:
My intent with these questions isn't to oppose ADUs, reasonable City fees, or residents paying their
fair share. I'm trying to better understand how the proposed .fees were arrived at and make sure I'm not overlooking something in the law or the City's analysis.
y_
Because., public comment occurs before Resolution 14-2026 on tonight's agenda, I would appreciate it
if this email could be shared with the Mayor and Councilmembers before the meeting, and included
about:blank . - 2/3
9115126. 12:20 PM A few questions regarding Resolution 142026 before tonighfs meeting - Sheila Lind - Outlook
with the written comments for tonight's discussion, if appropriate.
plan to attend as well if I can get off work in time and will keep my public comments brief.
Thank you for taking the time to consider the questions.
John Dorn
River Heights Resident
about:blank 313
RESOLUTION 15-2026
1 A RESOLUTION TO UPDATE THE LOGAN CITY DISPATCH SERVICES FEE
WHEREAS, River Heights City (RHC) has an interlocal agreement with Logan City for dispatch
services; and
WHEREAS, the Interlocal Agreement was updated on February 18, 2025, and
WHEREAS, in the past the dispatch service has been called "911 Communications Fee"; and
WHEREAS, Logan City charged River Heights City $3.30/month per residence in 2025 for dispatch
services and will continue to raise their rate by 3% each year on July 1 until 2029; and
WHEREAS, River Heights passes this fee on to its residents, and adds a 10% administrative fee.
THEREFORE, be it resolved that the monthly Dispatch Service/911 Communication fees will be
adopted and passed on to each resident utility bill as follows:
r
2026 2027 2028 2029
Logan Fee $3.40 $3.50 $3.61 $3.71
RHCAdmin Fee $0.34 $0.35 $0.36 $0.37
TOTAL $3.74 $3.85 $3.97 $4.08
Effective October 1, 2026.
PASSED BY THE RIVER HEIGHTS CITY MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, STATE OF UTAH, THIS 15TH DAY OF
SEPTEMBER 2026.
Blake Wright, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sheila Lind, Recorder
ORDINANCE 10-2026
AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE PARCEL 02-025-0015, OWNED BY CH CHAMPLIN LLC
AT APPROXIMATELY 700 EAST 600 SOUTH FROM R-1-8 ZONE TO SENIOR CITIZEN
PLANNEDUNITDEVELOPMENTZONE
WHEREAS, CH Champlin is the owner of parce1.02-025-0015, which totals 5.75 acres, and
WHEREAS, this property is currently zoned R-1-8, and
WHEREAS, CH Champlin has requested their property be rezoned to Senior Citizen Planned
Unit'Development (SCPUD), and
WHEREAS, a public hearing was held by the Planning Commission on September 9, 2026, to
address the request, and
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended to the City Council that the above stated
parcel be considered for the SCPUD Zone, and
WHEREAS, the City Council agreed to rezone the property to SCPUD.
THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED BY THE MUNICIPAL COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF RIVER HEIGHTS, that the above property be zoned SCPUD.
t.
ADOPTED BY THE RIVER HEIGHTS MUNICIPAL COUNCIL THIS 15 h DAY OF
SEPTEMBER 2026.
Blake Wright, Mayor
Attest:
Sheila Lind, Recorder
RESOLUTION NO. 13-2026
A RESOLUTION TO ADJUST SOLID WASTE FEES
WHEREAS River Heights City has contracted with Waste Management (WM) through the Cache Waste
Consortium, for solid waste services, and
WHEREAS trash and recycling service are both required, and
WHEREAS greenwaste is optional and picked up weekly, April 1 -November 1, and is billed 12 months
of the year, and
WHEREAS Waste Management has other trash associated fees, and
WHEREAS Waste Management increased their fees by 4.9% on October 1, 2026, and
WHEREAS River Heights City (RHC) charges each resident with trash service a $2.00 utility billing
administration fee.
THEREFORE, the River Heights City Council adopts the following solid waste schedule, effective
October 1, 2026:
Container Rates per month:
WM Recycling RHC Total
64 Gallon Trash $17.38 $5.79 $2.00 $25.17
96 Gallon Trash $18.53 $5.79 $2.00 $26.32
Greenwaste $12.17 $12.17
Extra Recycling $3.48 $3.48
Extra Trash $9.56 9.56
Ancillary Service Charges (rounded up to the nearest dollar)
Can Exchange $53.00
Can Removal/Delivery/Resume $29.00
Contamination Charge $ 6.00
Overage Charge $ 6.00
Can Replacement $87.00
PASSED BY THE RIVER HEIGHTS MUNICIPAL COUNCIL, STATE OF UTAH, THIS 15th DAY OF
SEPTEMBER, 2026.
Blake Wright, Mayor
ATTEST
Sheila Lind, Recorder
Things I would like for 2026:
• I was not allowed put trash in the dumpster on the park property. I would like to be able to use. it this
year instead of taking all trash off site to the dump after the event.
• I would like to not have parking attendants. Since they didn't end up doing anything accept for sit
there, I would rather not pay for one.
• I would like to put a few signs up on the River Heights property. Near the entrances of our town, in
Front of the city building, in the park, etc.
- would like to have 60 vendors. 50 paying adult vendors, 10 that are a mix of kid vendors and
nonprofits.
• Use of the bathrooms again
• eletrical access for my speaker to hook into. This will be just for me, none of the vendors
• Use of the parking lot across from the old school house. I wasn't sure if we could use it because
sometimes there are "no parking" signs in the lot.
l
Important things we learned
from 2024:
• The police will not have presence in the park unless it is over 1000+ attendees.
• The Fire department said that if their is minimal changes from our original event (2024), and that this
were is no fencing around the park to limit emergency exits, then we do not need to have a walk through
of the park.
• We are not allowed to offer medical assistance. We can only offer water and bandaids in case of minor
needs. This is for liability issues. If we offer anything more, then we open ourselves up for lawsuit. We
will have the same individual (Kristin Scott; certified nurse) located in the park at our disposal'for minor
first aid needs. These items will be available at the information tent.
• Parking attendants were not necessary. Signage was more than •enough and we had plenty of parking
around the park and at the old school house parking lot that there was no issue with self parking.
• We can easily fit more than 40 vendors in the park.
RESOLUTION 14-2026
A RESOLUTION ADOPTING IMPACT AND CONNECTION FEES FOR ACCESSORY
DWELLING UNITS
WHEREAS, the City of River Heights (City) has enacted impact fees by ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the City Code allows for the development of Detached Accessory Dwelling Units
(DADU) and Internal Accessory Dwelling Units (IADU) which contribute to the impact on City parks,
sewer, water, and roads; and
WHEREAS, the size of an ADU doesn't merit the full cost of impact fees; and
WHEREAS, the City agrees to charge impact fees at 75% for ADUs; and
WHEREAS, inspections by City employees must be performed for connections to water and sewer
services.
THEREFORE, the City of River Heights adopts the following impact and connection fees for
new ADU development:
All Other
Areas
Area Serviced
by 600 South
'Riverdale
Area
800 South Area
Detached ADU
Parks Impact Fees $1,488.00 $1,488.00 $1,488.00 $1,488.00
Roads Impact Fees $2,004.00 $2,004.00 $4,548.00 $2,004.00
Water Impact Fees $2,945.00 $3,562.00 $2,945.00 $3,664.00
Sewer Impact Fees $1,747.00 $2,099.00- $1,467.00
Sewer and Water Inspection $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00 $1,200.00
Logan City Wastewater
$2,676.30 $2,676.30 $2,676.30 $2,676.30
Treatment Impact Fee
Total DADU $12,060.30 $13,029.30 $12,857.30 $12,499.30
Internal ADU
Parks Impact Fees $1,488.00 $1,488.00 $1,488.00 $1,488.00
Roads Impact Fees $2,004.00 $2,004.00 $4,548.00 $2,004.00
Water Impact Fees $2,945.00 $3,562.00 $2,945.00 $3,664.00
Sewer Impact Fees $1,747.00 $2,099.00 $0.00 $1,467.00
Logan City Wastewater
$1,873.00 $1,873.00 $1,873.00 $1,873.00
Treatment Impact Fee
Total IADU $10,057.00 $11,026.00 $10,854.00 $10,496.00
ADOPTED AND PASSED by the River Heights City Council on this 15°i day of September 2026.
Blake Wright, Mayor
ATTEST:
Sheila Lind, Recorder
2
