[0:00] I think we're going to go ahead and get
[0:01] started. Um, so we have a planned use
[0:05] work session
[0:07] to help address some of the concerns of
[0:09] the ordinance 569.
[0:14] Yeah. Well,
[0:20] Sarah, you're going to try and lead us
[0:22] on this first part.
[0:24] » Yeah. Once I figure out the microphone,
[0:25] I'll I'll be all ready to go. Like I
[0:28] can't see it. Hopefully they taught that
[0:30] to you in the engineering class.
[0:32] » Didn't teach me because the problem I
[0:36] can't see it.
[0:41] » All right. Yes. So, um I know I received
[0:45] some comments from Commissioner
[0:46] Montgomery. He's not here yet and I
[0:49] don't know if those are distributed to
[0:51] everyone for discussion or Okay.
[0:53] » Yeah. So we can go through those. Um or
[0:56] if you have any um concerns or questions
[1:00] or thoughts before we go into those. Um
[1:03] I'm I'm happy if you you've read this
[1:05] unless you want me to kind of give a
[1:06] presentation on I can do that.
[1:07] Otherwise, I can just address your
[1:10] concerns.
[1:11] » I think I mean you guys might have
[1:13] questions regarding it. I don't know if
[1:16] you want to ask those now and then she
[1:18] can help cover all those.
[1:23] Yeah.
[1:27] » Start good.
[1:28] » So, why don't you go ahead and just kind
[1:30] of give us a presentation over.
[1:34] » So, um the state has um wanted us to
[1:39] implement uh accessory dwelling units.
[1:42] We implemented the internal accessory
[1:44] dwelling unit and that was statemandated
[1:46] two or three years ago. I'm thinking now
[1:48] I wasn't a part of that but now um this
[1:51] year they just passed that we need to
[1:52] have some sort of a detached ADU
[1:54] ordinance and the state gave us some
[1:56] guidelines things we could consider some
[1:59] things we were not allowed to consider
[2:01] kind of typical boundaries and it is
[2:03] something I think as a city we were
[2:05] talking about before the state
[2:07] implemented it so um
[2:11] essentially what we've created is an
[2:13] ordinance that defines what an internal
[2:16] and a detached ADU is we talked about
[2:18] some lot sizes um and limitations that
[2:23] we were allowed to implement from state
[2:24] code. Um we determined we just wanted or
[2:28] this is what when I say we I'm talking
[2:30] about working with the planning
[2:30] commission. This is what they they
[2:33] proposed and that's what you're seeing
[2:34] in the proposed ordinance is one ADU per
[2:37] primary dwelling. So if you have an
[2:39] internal ADU, you wouldn't have an
[2:41] external ADU. Um, a prop property owner
[2:45] would need to live on the property means
[2:47] they could live in the ADU or in the
[2:49] main dwelling. They just need to be on
[2:50] the property. Um, no short-term or
[2:53] vacation rentals. Uh, we have we looked
[2:56] at addressing utilities permitting
[2:58] licensing requirements in this. And then
[3:02] I think most importantly the design the
[3:04] height setbacks compatibility um so that
[3:08] we
[3:10] may we allow ADUs with the least amount
[3:13] of impact surrounding properties. So in
[3:16] coming up with this ordinance I or the
[3:19] draft that we've been through I looked
[3:22] at statewide what are people what have
[3:25] people implemented for accessory mall
[3:27] units? What's working? what's causing
[3:29] complaints and frustrations. The the
[3:33] biggest complaints we're seeing were
[3:34] mostly like ADUs right next to a
[3:37] property line where the inhabitants can
[3:40] look into someone's property where they
[3:41] can see everyone. And you'll see some of
[3:43] the limitations are based on that
[3:45] feedback that people really felt a
[3:47] twotory ADU right next to their property
[3:50] line. It's one thing if it's a barn or
[3:53] uh any any sort of accessory structure
[3:56] where people aren't living, but once
[3:58] people are living in that space, it's
[4:01] like having someone live right on your
[4:03] property line. So, we tried to figure
[4:06] out how can we allow these with a lot of
[4:08] latitude without introducing too much um
[4:12] infringement on people's um privacy. So,
[4:16] uh, looking through,
[4:20] so our our general limitations, what we
[4:22] came up with at the planning commission,
[4:24] uh, no internal ADUs on parcels 6,000
[4:29] square ft or less and, um, no detached
[4:32] ADUs on parcels that are less than
[4:35] 10,000 square ft.
[4:38] It's been a while now. I should have
[4:39] looked this. I'm trying to remember what
[4:41] the state code allowed. That's something
[4:43] I should have printed out. So I thought
[4:45] we went with the safe coat on that the
[4:48] minimum sizing minimum lot size. So a
[4:51] quarter acre but with that there also we
[4:55] the size of the ADU be tied to the lot
[4:58] size. So that's where um we see the
[5:01] maximum gross floor area of a detached
[5:04] ADU should not exceed the lesser of 10%
[5:07] of the lot area or the gross floor area
[5:10] of the primary dwelling. So, um, and it
[5:14] has to be the lesser of those two. So,
[5:16] if you have a 10,000 square foot lot,
[5:20] you could only have a 1,000 square ft
[5:22] ADU. And then like a third acre lot, you
[5:25] could have a 1500 ft ADU. Sorry. Yeah,
[5:29] 1500. Making sure I did the math right.
[5:32] um up to
[5:35] um you know a 40,000 would be limited to
[5:38] a 4,000t ADU, but that would that's only
[5:41] if there's a 4,000 ft² or larger home on
[5:44] the property. So that's that's where
[5:46] we're getting the the size limitation.
[5:49] Um
[5:50] we limited to 30 consecutive days or
[5:53] longer and not be used as a vacation
[5:55] rental or short-term rental. That was
[5:57] the prohib the what we saw in internal
[6:00] ADUs. um from the state. And something
[6:04] Grover brought up it, not Grover, sorry,
[6:06] Grace brought up a different different G
[6:09] like what
[6:11] um was we could increase that to 90 days
[6:14] for the detach if we wanted to. Um so
[6:17] something to keep in your mind if if you
[6:19] want to do that, but it seems that we
[6:21] found that if you limit it 30 days,
[6:24] people aren't going to use that as a
[6:25] short-term rental in general. But
[6:27] something to think about just for
[6:29] simplifying the code. Um so and like say
[6:32] the property owner needs to occupy the
[6:34] primary dwelling or the ADU. One of them
[6:40] and uh of course they need all their
[6:44] permits, inspections, approvals, all
[6:46] sorts of life safety things that we'd
[6:48] expect from any sort of new building.
[6:50] And um and they cannot be created a full
[6:54] home park. And that's something the the
[6:58] state um allowed as well. So going on um
[7:05] for licensing, if it is going to be
[7:07] rented, they would need to have a
[7:09] business license
[7:11] and um utilities. We looked at
[7:16] um we didn't want to create a situation
[7:18] where people were putting in detached
[7:21] ADUs on failing septic lines or failing
[7:25] infrastructure. Am I missing something?
[7:27] No, this I just Thank you. Thank you. Um
[7:37] for the lot size.
[7:38] » Oh, the lot size. So the state said it
[7:40] at 11,000 square feet was the largest
[7:44] you could go and we went with 10,000
[7:46] square feet. So the state would let you
[7:48] go as low I mean as high as 11,000 ft.
[7:52] We did 10,000 so that that was the
[7:54] recommendation so that we could do the
[7:56] quarter acre lot so people would have
[7:57] small ADUs. But that's so that's what we
[8:00] » Now is that minimum or is that like the
[8:03] » Um that's the the minimum lot size that
[8:07] you can have a detached ADU.
[8:09] » Yeah. So then it would be
[8:12] » Above that you could do one as well but
[8:14] below that you could
[8:15] » Exactly.
[8:16] » Exactly. Um okay I should pause and
[8:20] breathe and see if you have any
[8:21] questions.
[8:22] » Okay. So we go back to the question of
[8:26] two story.
[8:27] » Oh yes. So is that an accumulative when
[8:29] we start talking about square footage
[8:31] first floor second floor has to be 12
[8:33] level.
[8:34] » Yeah it's a so the way it's written
[8:38] » That's nice I am
[8:40] » So max gross floor area
[8:43] » Max floor okay
[8:45] » Shall not exceed that
[8:47] » Yeah it's500 and 750 per level.
[8:50] » Yeah.
[8:52] » Any other questions? Uh, how do the tiny
[8:55] homes fit into this?
[8:57] » They fit just fine.
[8:59] » Well, they fit just fine because I know
[9:01] we have one person up around the corner
[9:02] here that has a tiny home and he's
[9:04] parked it and I know he's used it and
[9:07] now it's gone. So, I assume it's in a
[9:09] summer place or whatever. However,
[9:12] how does that fit into this ADU? If they
[9:14] park, pull something like that in and
[9:16] classify that as their ADU.
[9:18] » Oh, I see. If it's mobile,
[9:20] » Yeah,
[9:20] » That's not something we've addressed.
[9:22] So, that's something we probably want to
[9:23] look into.
[9:23] » I think you need to look into it because
[9:25] » Well, wasn't that your last statement?
[9:27] No mobile home.
[9:28] » Oh, it's slightly different. It can't be
[9:30] in a mobile home park.
[9:32] » Oh, sorry. Got you.
[9:33] » Um, but if someone wants to park their
[9:37] ADU temporarily, we probably should put
[9:40] some code in if that's what we want to
[9:42] allow on where it goes, what the hookups
[9:45] are, and it's just up to you. We want to
[9:48] allow temporary
[9:51] like
[9:52] tiny homes or do you want only permanent
[9:55] temporary homes? So, we were assuming
[9:58] only per permanent temporary homes. Um,
[10:01] the design standards would prohibit
[10:03] someone from just parking their RV and
[10:07] calling that an accessory dwelling unit.
[10:11] Um,
[10:13] » I think that's I mean to my mind it when
[10:15] you start looking at a tiny home is even
[10:18] the RV world now are they're building a
[10:22] lot of
[10:24] park model type tiny home uh
[10:30] kickoffs if you will,
[10:31] » You know, with some of them have two
[10:33] stories in them but there won't they
[10:35] more look like a mobile home still on
[10:38] wheels. still similar to what a tiny
[10:41] home is being built like.
[10:43] » And I guess that's the question. Do we
[10:44] regulate the tiny homes on wheels as
[10:47] mobile homes or do we regulate them as
[10:51] um accessory dwelling units? Do I mean
[10:54] right now if someone wants to live in
[10:55] their mobile home on the property that
[10:57] would be just complaint driven of what
[11:00] happens for that situation. Uh if
[11:03] they're not hooking if these tiny homes
[11:05] are not hooking up to the utilities of
[11:07] the property. I mean, those are those
[11:10] are thoughts. Do we want to just leave
[11:12] it the way it is and they continue to
[11:14] operate as mobile homes that people own
[11:18] or do we want to actually make it a
[11:19] permitted use to have
[11:22] a mobile tiny home? I don't know how
[11:26] » My question would be since we're doing
[11:27] this to comply with state law,
[11:29] » They have anything to say about that?
[11:31] » I I don't think anything was addressed
[11:34] that. No, Grover's ahead of the curve
[11:36] thinking of all these good things. Yeah,
[11:38] I
[11:39] » Well, I'm getting old. I may want to put
[11:40] something with my property because of
[11:43] this.
[11:45] » Um I I think what does cover it though?
[11:49] » Um I don't know if
[11:52] it's the language though, Sarah, that
[11:54] talks about it has to be hooked up to
[11:56] the utility. So the issue becomes health
[11:59] and safety with
[12:00] » Well that's that's the other part of
[12:02] this whole
[12:03] » Is is if we're going to be putting a
[12:05] permanent or even a semi-permanent
[12:08] uh structure on your home how does that
[12:11] tie into your electrical how does it tie
[12:12] into your sewer because because right
[12:16] now as I look at it just again a tiny
[12:19] home it's just parked there uh you know
[12:22] does it have its own tanks how does it
[12:24] do it because I know this tiny home
[12:26] Somebody may be living in it, but I can
[12:28] guarantee they're not doing their, you
[12:31] know,
[12:31] » Due diligence on that.
[12:32] » Due diligence on that. And I'm sure that
[12:34] individual goes and uses all the
[12:36] utilities and facilities inside the
[12:38] house, which for family, you could get
[12:40] away with, but if you're renting it, you
[12:42] know,
[12:43] » So the way the ordinance is currently
[12:45] written, you would not, it would have to
[12:47] be a permanent structure to be allowed
[12:51] as an accessory dwelling unit the way
[12:53] that we've currently proposed the
[12:54] ordinance. Um, so that's something if
[12:58] you wanted to look into allowing
[13:00] something, it would require significant
[13:03] I would really have to dive in and look
[13:05] at what kind of regulations we'd need in
[13:07] order to allow that. And I don't it it
[13:10] kind of gets more into an RV park or um
[13:14] a totally different area. So I don't
[13:16] know. I I really have to research that.
[13:19] I guess the question is is that
[13:21] something you want to allow? A lot of
[13:23] these tiny homes can be moved, but
[13:26] they're permanently affixed for the
[13:28] period of time. And then every time a
[13:30] home comes in, it would have to go
[13:32] through building inspection and
[13:34] permitting, make sure it's um meeting
[13:37] all of the utility requirements.
[13:40] So, is there a way of wording it in the
[13:42] in one sense to I mean, I've seen some
[13:46] buildings that are are pretty nice that
[13:48] have that were on wheels at one time
[13:52] that they haul up to the mountain and
[13:53] they put skirting around them and, you
[13:57] know, some 10 12 ft wide
[14:01] » And and they put it on, but yet they're
[14:03] also permanently connected to the sewer,
[14:06] » Permanently connected to the power, not
[14:09] by an extension core but by
[14:12] you know meter base and all those
[14:15] things. Um is there wording in our in
[14:19] this when now where it states about the
[14:22] requirements of those or just is it kind
[14:23] of a general statement? So it it says
[14:27] that they must um
[14:33] trying to think basically the um
[14:38] in design standards it must meet
[14:40] existing standards for residential homes
[14:42] as set forth in the Harrisville city
[14:44] code. So,
[14:45] » I think one way we can get around that
[14:48] is uh or fix that is anything that's
[14:51] registered to the DMV is not a permanent
[14:54] home. So, anything on wheels is
[14:57] registered at the DMV. Just so
[14:58] everybody's aware of that.
[15:00] » Yeah.
[15:00] » Um and
[15:01] » Including tin
[15:02] » That wouldn't count. What?
[15:03] » Including tiny homes.
[15:05] » Uh they should be if they're on wheels
[15:06] still. They're they're registered the
[15:08] DMV. that once they take them off the
[15:10] wheels and as long as they meet the
[15:13] building standards, they can be wheeled
[15:15] to the property permanently affixed, get
[15:18] their building permit, and meet all the
[15:20] standards and be a tiny home. So, they
[15:22] can be constructed offsite and then
[15:25] they'll just go through the building
[15:26] process to be um permanent fixtures on
[15:29] site. So, that's currently how it's
[15:31] written. We wouldn't even have to add
[15:33] anything about the DMV. Currently, they
[15:35] have to meet building standards. And
[15:38] there are a lot of pre-manufactured
[15:39] homes, large and small, that are made to
[15:43] be transported and then permanently
[15:46] affixed to a site.
[15:48] » I think if they follow the building
[15:50] standards, I'm okay with
[15:54] I guess what is the whole purpose of the
[15:56] state wanting to bring this ordinance
[15:58] in? What's the idea behind it versus how
[16:02] is Harrison looking at it? Is it helping
[16:05] our citizens?
[16:06] » So your kids can live in your house.
[16:10] » So your kids or your parents can live
[16:12] with you but not in your house or else
[16:14] living?
[16:14] » Well, that's fine.
[16:16] » It's that what the state's saying we
[16:18] ought to do.
[16:19] » Sorry. Go ahead. So what we found is
[16:22] that they do increase housing
[16:23] opportunity, but where you have a
[16:26] permanent the a resident in charge of
[16:29] maintaining it on site, it reduces a lot
[16:32] of the problems we see with rental
[16:33] properties while providing the benefit
[16:36] of additional housing and income
[16:38] opportunities for the residents. So the
[16:40] balance I would say Grover is yes we
[16:43] want to give ample opportunity that when
[16:45] we were talking with the planning
[16:47] commission it's like how do we give an
[16:48] opportunity to all the residents without
[16:50] creating something that is detrimental
[16:54] to their neighbor. So is a home on
[16:56] wheels detrimental to the neighbor? is
[16:59] that
[17:01] um that would be the question. Would you
[17:04] expect to have a home there and gone and
[17:05] there gone? And to your point before, if
[17:08] we allow something like that, and I
[17:10] still not sure we could, how do we
[17:12] regulate it if someone's septic and
[17:14] sewer and water and and things like that
[17:16] or it's hard to regulate those on a a
[17:19] mobile structure? Well, and that's just
[17:21] fine. But now you kind of and now you
[17:26] start watching people play the
[17:28] borderline.
[17:30] » What is the structure? What is not? It's
[17:31] like an electric bike. What is it
[17:33] classified as?
[17:34] » Sorry.
[17:35] » Yeah. And
[17:36] » Nobody knows.
[17:37] » Yeah. And right now I think it is well
[17:38] defined that it has to meet um standard.
[17:42] So I think we do have a a good standard
[17:44] for that.
[17:45] » Okay.
[17:46] » If you're comfortable with it.
[17:47] » I am. I'm fine. I just I just know.
[17:50] Okay,
[17:50] » Question after question after question
[17:52] is going to come up.
[17:53] » How does it fit in? Well, if it has to
[17:55] be tied to sewer and it has to be tied
[17:56] to main electrical.
[17:58] » Uh, and then, you know, you got to
[18:00] figure out a way to get it in the back
[18:02] of your property because at this point
[18:03] in time, I'd have to tear down fences or
[18:06] get uh rightways
[18:08] » Or crane,
[18:10] put it on a crane, put it up over and
[18:11] park it.
[18:12] » Yeah.
[18:12] » I mean, that's the only way it is.
[18:13] » Yeah. But I think the other thing is
[18:16] regulating it so that we can monitor
[18:18] what's going on. When you start saying
[18:20] this is a a rental unit, does that open
[18:23] up the fact is it it it can't be a a
[18:26] summer rental or a twoe rental. Even
[18:28] though it says this, how do we monitor
[18:31] the other side of it?
[18:32] » And that is always the problem with the
[18:34] short-term rental market.
[18:35] » Yes, it is.
[18:36] » And really,
[18:39] it's it's complaint driven. Um, the
[18:42] state has given us a little more leeway
[18:44] at looking at what people are listing it
[18:46] as, but if your neighbor is renting it
[18:47] out, you can complain and and you can
[18:51] find um legitimate reasons, you know, to
[18:54] to make sure that those are not being
[18:55] used as short-term rentals. We we didn't
[18:57] require licensing unless it was rented
[18:59] because we wanted to avoid unnecessary
[19:02] we would like to know about all of the
[19:04] homes being registered uh as ADUs, but
[19:07] there was a concern that that might be
[19:09] burdensome for someone who's building it
[19:10] just for their family or just for a
[19:12] guest house or something that's just
[19:15] personal use, not as a business. Um and
[19:20] so that was the concern was PL from
[19:21] planning commission. They didn't want to
[19:23] require all of them except if they were
[19:26] going to rent them outside for money.
[19:29] And so,
[19:29] » But I guess that brings up the question
[19:31] is, okay, we build it for a family down
[19:33] the road and few years from now it
[19:35] changes hands.
[19:36] » Mhm.
[19:37] » Okay. So, how do we know that person's
[19:40] going to come in and do we have, you
[19:43] know, what ordinances and sent, okay,
[19:46] this is now yours, but you need to know
[19:48] how to register this if you're going to
[19:50] use it for anything but family. So, it's
[19:53] the same as if with your primary
[19:54] residence. You can you don't have to
[19:57] live not primary residence, but any home
[19:58] you buy, someone can rent it out
[20:01] illegally or legally. We're going to
[20:02] have the exact same problem with ADUs.
[20:04] Sometimes they're going to be rented
[20:05] legally, sometimes they're going to be
[20:06] rented illegally. So, a building,
[20:10] they're going to have to have a building
[20:11] permit for every ADU they build. Uh, so
[20:14] we will have a and to get a building
[20:16] permit, they'll have to meet the ADU
[20:18] standards. So, we will have a record of
[20:20] the ADU being compliant because of the
[20:23] building permit. Okay.
[20:25] » But I know Rober mentioned some sort of
[20:28] um document going with Sorry, Craig.
[20:32] That is the worst
[20:34] two. Craig mentioned something about
[20:37] that. And we could put
[20:39] » It right next to each other.
[20:40] » I know.
[20:42] So, we could put something on the um the
[20:46] plat, I guess. I'm trying to think. uh
[20:48] or the title or something that says it
[20:51] does have an ADU, but I'd be more
[20:53] nervous doing that because then if it is
[20:56] destroyed and they want to rebuild, do
[20:58] they know they have to come in and go
[20:59] through the building process? Cuz the
[21:01] idea is the building process is the the
[21:04] vetting to make sure it's compliant. And
[21:07] I don't necessarily want to give them
[21:08] the right to tear it down and build it
[21:11] and build it again without going through
[21:13] the building process again.
[21:15] » If that makes sense. Yeah, that's what
[21:17] I'm saying.
[21:18] » Okay.
[21:19] » Okay. Other thoughts
[21:23] » On Greg's questions?
[21:25] » Yes.
[21:27] » Questions of the text and
[21:30] item
[21:31] » Item. Let's see. Got here.
[21:38] » I thought I thought your original
[21:39] comment was is that the ADU had to be
[21:43] smaller than the current
[21:45] existing proposed
[21:47] » All I remember this um
[21:50] so
[21:53] the planning commission was it it it is
[21:56] limited in size but the actual ADU
[22:00] portion of it but if you had like a
[22:02] detached garage with an ADU above it the
[22:05] full structure could be larger in square
[22:09] footage. So, what we allowed for, and
[22:12] this is something we spoke to them
[22:13] specifically about cuz they had been
[22:15] next door to properties that had done,
[22:17] you know, the apartment above the
[22:18] garage. And if you did that in your
[22:21] backyard, we wanted to make sure that
[22:25] it it didn't encroach on the neighbor.
[22:27] And that's why we did the the limit of
[22:30] one and a half stories, I guess, because
[22:31] you can build in the attic um in your
[22:34] backyard or if you can meet the setback,
[22:37] you can go higher. Um,
[22:40] so, so anyway, it the provision I'm
[22:43] trying to think what he was addressing.
[22:46] » He talks about zoning papers. That was
[22:48] the next question we had.
[22:50] » Yeah. Um, yeah. So, it it's all this
[22:53] one. So, I think it was just
[22:56] zoning. Yeah. Um
[23:00] » So
[23:00] » So the home it has to maintain the
[23:02] setbacks of the the lot and either the
[23:06] set for a detach it can maintain the
[23:08] setbacks of the lot
[23:11] or the accessory dwelling structure.
[23:14] Um if it's going to meet the accessory
[23:16] dwelling structure setbacks there are
[23:18] further limitations. If you're going to
[23:20] meet the zoning setbacks there are not
[23:22] those same limitations.
[23:24] » But if you wanted to if you had a multi
[23:27] acreage property.
[23:29] » Mhm.
[23:30] » And you want to does it does the
[23:32] regulations stop at one ADU or can you
[23:36] have two or three ADUs?
[23:38] » So right now you're limited to one ADU
[23:40] for primary dwelling and you are limited
[23:43] in that gross floor area. It cannot be
[23:46] more than the primary dwelling.
[23:47] » Okay. So it is limited there and he's
[23:51] concerned about it not so in the
[23:56] design standards it says uh scale and
[23:59] massing detached ADUs shall be
[24:02] subordinate in scale and massing to the
[24:04] primary dwelling which should naturally
[24:06] occur because they're supposed to be
[24:08] smaller but if they did a bigger roof
[24:09] pitch or you know there's ways to make
[24:11] it look bigger the the except on larger
[24:15] lots that's made the exception so
[24:16] someone could have a barn and put the
[24:19] ADU within it. So even though the whole
[24:23] area would not be con considered, the
[24:26] building that it's in would be larger in
[24:30] size than the primary building.
[24:32] » So one other question I this probably a
[24:35] two-part question.
[24:37] So when when you go through the design
[24:40] standards of a zone of a particular
[24:43] zoning area or how many homes are
[24:46] potentially going to be built in, you
[24:49] take into account sewer line sizes,
[24:52] water line sizes, all those types of
[24:54] things. Um
[24:57] so when when you add an ADU, is that tip
[25:01] of that scale, if you will? And you know
[25:04] the um it's like right now in the bottom
[25:07] Vista water per state standard we we
[25:11] allow 34
[25:14] it's 34 acre feet of water per unit.
[25:17] » Mhm.
[25:18] » Um but yet if you have an ADU unit on
[25:21] there does that 34 still pertain to that
[25:25] one lot? Right.
[25:26] » Does it not?
[25:28] » So
[25:28] » How do how does that
[25:29] » How do we accommodate that? How do we
[25:31] protect that from having a lack of water
[25:34] or that one
[25:37] lot going over the 341 that's allowed?
[25:40] » Yes. So that's where in utilities um we
[25:44] this we want to have ADUs and the state
[25:47] also said we need to have them. So
[25:49] figuring out how that fits with our
[25:50] infrastructure was definitely a concern.
[25:53] I mean one note most how much water is
[25:56] provided is one thing. the
[25:58] infrastructure in general,
[26:00] a lot of it is minimum sizing, which is
[26:03] plenty of size to add a few in. Um, and
[26:07] we if every single home has an ADU, it
[26:09] might be starting to look different. Uh,
[26:11] and and where it is. So, that's why we
[26:13] put in that um the detach ADUs must have
[26:18] adequate access to required utilities.
[26:20] So first access and then a detached ADU
[26:23] application may be rejected if a utility
[26:25] service to which the ADU must make a
[26:27] connection does not have sufficient
[26:29] capacity to support the addition of the
[26:30] ADU. So we did put a caveat that if like
[26:34] Bonabus is going to be telling us yes or
[26:36] no and we won't be able to decide that.
[26:40] Um we've made determinations on sewer.
[26:42] Uh so they will be required to be
[26:44] connected to utilities and a utility
[26:47] provider may reject them based on um
[26:50] capacity.
[26:52] » So do we know if Bonist
[26:54] Bon Vista is addressing the same issue?
[26:58] » So that's something we discussed.
[27:00] » No, we don't know.
[27:01] » I can tell you we're not.
[27:03] » Okay.
[27:05] In the end, that's why we put the caveat
[27:07] there that was really that gave
[27:09] Bonabistant blanket consideration for
[27:12] rejecting them because we don't know
[27:14] what their situation is and we have to
[27:17] pass some we have to pass an AD
[27:19] ordinance. So this way they can take it
[27:22] on a case-byase basis and determine
[27:25] what's required and and how to address
[27:28] it from their end.
[27:31] So,
[27:33] I mean, this is kind of a
[27:37] interesting question. I would put it
[27:38] that way. Not not that I'm trying to be
[27:41] discriminatory to anybody wanting to
[27:43] build an ADU,
[27:45] » But in trying to restrict the number of
[27:47] ADUs that might be put in in a in a
[27:50] subdivision,
[27:52] » Are have we looked at the standards and
[27:56] such that it makes it a little more
[27:58] complicated to put them in?
[28:01] That makes sense.
[28:03] » I don't know if I follow.
[28:04] » So, if I had a lot size, maybe say I
[28:06] have a subdivision and I have 15,000
[28:09] square foot lots. So, every one of them
[28:11] could have an ADU if they really want
[28:13] one,
[28:13] » Right?
[28:14] » Or even we'll take this development
[28:17] right across the street.
[28:18] » Mhm.
[28:19] » There's what 32
[28:22] houses or something like that in there.
[28:24] » 23.
[28:25] » 23. So 23 houses and half of them
[28:29] decided to put a use in it and now it
[28:31] becomes
[28:32] » Not 23 houses but it becomes 50 houses
[28:36] » Or
[28:38] just went way out of
[28:40] » But roughly 33 houses or 32 houses.
[28:44] » Mhm. Um, and yet still you have the same
[28:48] infrastructure in there and yet the city
[28:51] I I don't want to be in the position of
[28:54] well fortunately your neighbor was able
[28:57] you know first come first ser was able
[28:59] to get ADU and you can't go
[29:01] » It it may come down to that but really
[29:03] when it comes to capacity on the smaller
[29:06] unless it's already
[29:08] as in this city right now and I haven't
[29:12] looked as closely at it as Matt Um,
[29:15] generally there are undersized lines
[29:17] that need to be improved no matter what
[29:20] and are part of the city's plan to
[29:22] improve. Um, but a minimum size line can
[29:25] handle a lot more capacity than the
[29:27] density of Harrisville is using right
[29:29] now. So, I don't see that becoming a
[29:32] huge issue except for localized areas
[29:35] where we do have undersized for anything
[29:38] kind of issues or um failing. And that's
[29:41] why I put that caveat in. There may be a
[29:43] few roles where we're thinking we we
[29:46] need to address that issue which is an
[29:49] ex existing issue.
[29:51] » I think clarification on that rather
[29:53] than ambiguity helps give some
[29:56] direction.
[29:57] » Okay. So my house, you know, is a newer
[29:59] house. I know that it could comply as
[30:01] far as that, but some other house that's
[30:04] been in Harrisville that wants to put
[30:06] one in, you know, that's a 60 or 70 year
[30:09] old house may not comply to that. So, is
[30:13] that ordinance allow for that type of
[30:16] verbiage to be put in there to help it?
[30:18] So, it helps clarify and stream that.
[30:21] » So, we do have the verbiage about a
[30:23] failing septic tank. um there there
[30:26] isn't anything to prohibit um
[30:31] or a failing lateral utility line. So if
[30:34] a home has a failing lateral utility
[30:36] line um they would need to address that.
[30:39] And so I so we do have that in the code
[30:44] that if you have a failing septic tank
[30:46] like served by a failing lateral utility
[30:49] line. Did we just put Oh, we don't have
[30:52] septic tanks in Harrisville. That's why
[30:53] I was like we changed it. We don't have
[30:55] » Going to say I don't know.
[30:57] » Sorry. Yeah. So, if you're if your
[31:00] primary dwelling is served by a failing
[31:03] um lateral utility line, then you would
[31:05] need to address it, especially if you're
[31:07] doing an internal ADU.
[31:10] And if your home's new or old, that's
[31:13] going to be a problem whether you have
[31:15] an ADU or not. So,
[31:18] » I don't know what other is there further
[31:20] language you'd like to see. No, I just
[31:22] want to make sure it's covering. When
[31:23] you say utilities, is that covering
[31:25] electrical, sewer, and water?
[31:28] » Those are generally,
[31:30] » You know, when you say utilities in
[31:32] general. Okay. So, you can have not
[31:34] enough power. That's understandable
[31:36] because you're going to have to have
[31:37] that regulated before you can have cut.
[31:39] » Yeah.
[31:40] » Okay. But water, we're back to the water
[31:42] issue again. And now you've got more
[31:44] people on the same amount of acreage,
[31:46] foot acreage. That that one probably
[31:49] concerns me more. I realize where you
[31:51] put something. Okay. Bonavista could
[31:53] say, "Nope, it's not going to happen."
[31:55] Uh, but at the same time, do we need to
[31:58] cover Harrisville a little bit better in
[32:01] blinding rather than to say it's up to
[32:04] Bonavista to tell us no?
[32:06] » I don't think, and I'll have to look at
[32:08] the state code again. I don't know that
[32:09] we can ask for anything further than
[32:12] that.
[32:12] » And that's fine. I'm just asking
[32:14] questions.
[32:14] » Yeah, but I don't think there's I don't
[32:16] think we need are allowed to, but I'll
[32:18] I'll look. They
[32:22] We're looking at um
[32:26] » Yeah, I I can look and see if that's
[32:28] something that could be allowed. The use
[32:30] of
[32:30] » I want to make sure it's clear. Is that
[32:33] » Yeah, the Well, right now it's clear.
[32:35] You It's It's served. It's um we're
[32:40] talking about the lateral utility 9, not
[32:43] the actual water. And so, we haven't
[32:45] said anything about providing water. In
[32:48] general, our indoor use is so small
[32:50] compared to the outdoor use that
[32:54] especially in these ADUs, it'll be
[32:57] fairly negligible on the on the large
[32:59] scale until we have every single home
[33:02] with large ADUs.
[33:04] » Sure.
[33:04] » Coming in. And that might be when Monav
[33:06] Vista starts asking for more water.
[33:09] » Okay.
[33:11] And that's fine. I just I you know I
[33:14] realize this is a a network of er
[33:19] and it's it's going to not we know that
[33:22] » But I want to make sure that as we look
[33:24] at the holistic of it we're trying to
[33:26] take care of the needs of the city as
[33:29] well as the needs of the citizens that's
[33:31] all I'm confident
[33:35] » I mean I have this I had this discussion
[33:37] when my garden my backyard my wife said
[33:41] absolutely Not you're not putting water
[33:43] out there and now I need to have it
[33:45] humidified
[33:47] because I have dry it's a dry barn and I
[33:50] have instruments that are suffering
[33:52] during winter time.
[33:53] » So what do I do?
[33:55] » Yeah.
[33:55] » Because as soon as I add water, I've
[33:57] already got utility. I know I got
[33:59] electric out there.
[34:00] » Water. Oh, I need sewer and I can go
[34:04] ahead and take my barn and it could be
[34:06] an ADU.
[34:08] » Exactly. And I know um Greg mentioned
[34:12] this. Uh I should call him commissioner
[34:14] Montgomery mentioned this. Uh anyone who
[34:18] wants to
[34:20] or council member, not commissioner get
[34:23] all my cities mixed up. Council member
[34:25] council, I just came from the planning
[34:27] commission meeting. Um
[34:28] » Let's just go back to Greg.
[34:30] » Greg's fine. Okay.
[34:32] So he mentioned that anyone can convert
[34:34] their accessory dwelling unit as long as
[34:36] it meets the requirements. So if it's if
[34:40] it's placed close to that property line,
[34:42] it's got to meet the height in the
[34:44] window requirement. If it's far enough
[34:46] away, then it'll meet the setback
[34:48] requirements for the lot. So but and it
[34:51] has to build the livable building
[34:53] standards of a primary dwelling. It
[34:55] would have to meet those.
[34:56] » Sure.
[35:01] I have an unrelated question if we're
[35:03] ready for that.
[35:05] » It's about parking. So, after I read the
[35:07] part about parking, I was pretty
[35:09] confused.
[35:10] » Okay.
[35:10] » Are we saying that they do need
[35:13] additional parking or if they want
[35:15] additional parking, these are the rules?
[35:18] » No. Um,
[35:20] it's required. So, I'll see it's
[35:23] required. um regardless of whether the
[35:27] primary dwelling is existing or new
[35:28] construction. So, we wanted to make sure
[35:30] they knew that if you build a new home
[35:32] or if it's an existing home, you need
[35:34] one additional lot, one additional
[35:36] on-site parking space requires an
[35:38] internal ADU or a DTAU with less than
[35:42] 650 ft of living space. Now, the um the
[35:47] 650 came from just what we felt was
[35:51] reasonable to ask for size-wise for a
[35:54] detached and internal ADU. We cannot by
[35:58] state law ask for more than one
[35:59] additional parking space. And then the
[36:01] two additional parking spaces are for
[36:04] any detached ADU exceeding 650 ft of
[36:07] living space. Um
[36:10] the part that Oh, is it required ADU? Is
[36:12] that the next one? I guess the question
[36:14] is it it says additional
[36:18] parking but I'm not sure if that
[36:21] additional be above and beyond what so
[36:23] what already exists may be that there's
[36:26] a side driveway or something. So can
[36:28] that be counted toward this requirement?
[36:31] if it meets the parking requirements
[36:33] that we have in the um that are in the
[36:37] other part of the code if it they what
[36:40] we're trying to do in additional is
[36:42] making sure they're not taking the
[36:43] required parking for the primary
[36:45] dwelling and counting it as the ADA
[36:47] parking as well.
[36:48] » Yes. So then my question is if the
[36:50] existing primary residence already has
[36:53] extra parking.
[36:54] » Yes, they can use that.
[36:55] » They can use that. And so what's
[36:57] considered extra
[36:59] like additional.
[37:01] » Yeah. So, let's say the primary
[37:03] residence has a twocar garage plus a
[37:06] driveway that's the same width.
[37:08] » Yes.
[37:09] » Is then is it additional beyond that
[37:11] that's required? But what if they
[37:13] already had say a side driveway that
[37:15] goes to the side of their garage? Does
[37:17] can that be counted towards?
[37:19] » Yes.
[37:19] » I'm I'm not following if it's what
[37:21] already exists. We have to build beyond
[37:23] that or we can count what already
[37:25] exists. If it's above what?
[37:27] » Yes. So, and we can look and I can work
[37:30] on the language here. Uh,
[37:35] so right here I just say additional, but
[37:37] I could say additional to required
[37:38] parking and that might make it more
[37:40] clear.
[37:42] » So, so I guess part one is what's
[37:44] required if they're going to build an
[37:46] ADU.
[37:48] Um,
[37:48] » And part two is if they want more
[37:50] parking, then this is what they have to
[37:53] follow.
[37:53] » Oh, A and B. Those Oh, you're talking
[37:56] about 09.04. 040 is that parking
[37:59] regulations
[38:01] 4040.
[38:02] » Oh, is Oh, just the parking b the code
[38:04] itself.
[38:05] » Yes, the code.
[38:06] » Okay. Yes. Um,
[38:08] » So part one is this is what is required
[38:10] if you build an ID.
[38:12] » Oh, part one is the parking regulations
[38:14] for all single family homes.
[38:16] » Okay. So, it's just a restatement of
[38:18] what already exists.
[38:19] » It it's just referring So, these um
[38:22] these code revisions are actually a
[38:24] separate part of the code from the ADU.
[38:26] They were ones that were revising that
[38:28] applied to all of our residential lots
[38:31] because they were non-compliant.
[38:34] » Okay.
[38:34] » Does that help?
[38:36] » Yes, I think that helps.
[38:37] » Sorry.
[38:38] » Yeah. So, the additional off street
[38:40] parking is most likely what they'd be
[38:42] looking at because they're trying to
[38:44] most likely add parking for their new
[38:46] residence.
[38:46] » Perfect. Yes.
[38:47] » Okay. But so then the requirements are
[38:50] that they have
[38:52] two required off-street parking spaces
[38:56] and access to those parking spaces is on
[38:58] a concrete or asphalt driveway
[39:02] off. So you're saying that an ADU can
[39:05] only have but it says minimum. That's
[39:08] what confused me. Is this not a maximum
[39:10] two
[39:14] » Or are we talking about the average?
[39:15] Okay. going to be out.
[39:17] » Addition A part I
[39:20] » The dwelling unit has the minimum number
[39:22] of two required off streetet parking
[39:24] spaces. Yes. So if it has the minimum of
[39:29] two
[39:29] » The original dwelling unit.
[39:31] » Yes. The original dwelling unit must
[39:32] have the two that are required
[39:34] » And that would count. A driveway would
[39:36] count for that.
[39:37] » No, the driveway is specifically
[39:39] excluded because it's in the front yard
[39:42] set back. The only part and there's that
[39:44] diagram. The only part of the front yard
[39:46] setback that's allowed for parking and
[39:49] this is what's currently in the code is
[39:51] anything from the side of the house to
[39:53] the sideyard. So to the side of the
[39:56] driveway. So the driveway needs to well
[39:59] remain clear so people can enter the
[40:01] garage or they can park in the driveway
[40:05] but it's not counted as their parking I
[40:07] guess. Okay.
[40:09] So, this part A of section two about
[40:13] additional off street parking. Sorry, I
[40:15] feel like I'm really slow on this, but
[40:17] » This is confusing to me.
[40:20] » They may not park or store additional
[40:23] vehicles unless there are two parking
[40:27] spaces aside from the driveway
[40:30] » On the original building.
[40:31] » Yes, this is saying. So, the original
[40:34] building would have to have a twocar
[40:35] garage at a minimum or a twocar parking
[40:39] space that's unobstructed that they can
[40:41] get to. That's why the driveway doesn't
[40:43] count is you have to be able to get to
[40:46] that. Um, well, it doesn't count cuz we
[40:49] said we don't want it to count basically
[40:51] by the front setback ruling. Um, we used
[40:55] to in the code say um they had to be
[40:58] side by side, not tandem parking. Um but
[41:01] the state got rid of that allowance and
[41:03] said you had to allow tandem parking.
[41:06] Okay. In my experience, nobody uses
[41:08] tandem parking and so we um made sure
[41:12] that the front yard setback couldn't be
[41:14] used and that eliminated that access
[41:16] requirement for the side by side or for
[41:20] if someone has
[41:21] » It seems like the goal of this is to
[41:22] make sure that there's adequate parking
[41:24] for the ADU that doesn't obstruct the
[41:26] original primary residence and doesn't
[41:31] allow them to park just in the yard in
[41:34] the backyard. Uh
[41:36] » Unless it's uh
[41:39] there are recreational vehicle.
[41:42] » Yes,
[41:43] that's what it seems like from here. I
[41:45] don't we don't really rec regulate the
[41:47] backyard as much. So I there won't be as
[41:50] much regulation on where it happens in
[41:52] the backyard, but we really do want to
[41:54] control the front yard and make sure
[41:56] that there is a place for the cars to
[41:58] park so they're not forced to park on
[41:59] the street that they have an option off
[42:01] the street. But it also has to have did
[42:03] it have to have hard surface
[42:05] » Only only for access
[42:08] » So not so it could be parked on gravel
[42:11] » And that's what the planning commission
[42:13] was hoping for is the allowance for
[42:16] gravel. Um, we we ended on um
[42:25] I'm trying to put the two codes
[42:29] together, but yes. Um,
[42:38] » Yes, it's it just needs to meet the off
[42:41] streetet parking which does allow for a
[42:44] gravel space. So, as long as the very
[42:46] first part as you pull in is
[42:48] » Yeah. You pull into the driveway that's
[42:50] hard surfaced and then you can go onto
[42:52] the gravel.
[42:53] » Okay.
[42:55] » So, my side driveway right now is all
[42:57] gravel. So, that wouldn't count.
[42:59] » The side driveway is the one exception
[43:02] um allowed in the code in the front set
[43:04] back just that side driveway.
[43:06] » Perfect. Thank you.
[43:07] » As long as it's not a corner lot and
[43:09] that's not adjacent to the street.
[43:11] » Yes. Then they can't park there. So
[43:13] parking is just I think as a neighbor
[43:16] that's one of the biggest headaches if
[43:18] your neighbor has maybe you and their
[43:20] cars are everywhere that so that's why
[43:23] this matters to me and so thank you for
[43:25] taking the time to explain I think it
[43:28] matters to everyone I think it's
[43:29] important
[43:37] » So talking about parking sorry
[43:41] talking about parking one of the
[43:42] questions
[43:44] And I'm referencing your diagram for
[43:46] something like this. You show the two
[43:48] sides of the home. What do you do in the
[43:51] instance where there's not a drive cut
[43:53] in? Are we going to allow more cutins to
[43:56] the streets
[43:58] » There? We already have an ordinance
[44:00] about how close the cutins can be. Yeah.
[44:03] So that's already regulated. It'd be the
[44:05] same as if they wanted to put a cut in
[44:07] for access to an accessory building in
[44:11] the back. So we follow those samples.
[44:14] » Remind me what that is if you
[44:16] » Know I'm not positive. I
[44:18] » Foot to the property line for storm
[44:21] water.
[44:22] » So they can do a curb cut. Is that is
[44:24] that what you're referencing? The curb
[44:25] cut can be within one one foot of the
[44:28] property line.
[44:30] » And the driveway width they have a
[44:32] maximum of 32 ft.
[44:35] » So in many instances like for example
[44:38] where I live there's only 8 ft.
[44:41] So there's not half that space to add an
[44:44] additional parking.
[44:46] » Oh, where the cut in is only 8 ft
[44:48] » From the property line to the edge of
[44:50] the house is 8 ft.
[44:51] » Oh, yeah. If your setback's only 8 ft,
[44:54] you would be limited there. Yeah.
[44:57] » But you could we'd assume a lot of
[44:59] people you can access you can go on the
[45:01] driveway and then to the sideyard
[45:03] without creating a new cutting.
[45:06] Oh, the only the only other option would
[45:07] be to do a driveway on the other side of
[45:10] the house.
[45:13] » Oh, homes that are in in that portfol.
[45:33] » I'm trying to remember. Especially
[45:35] mine's right next to a utility box.
[45:38] » Yeah, I think I think it's as long as
[45:40] you're within the foot for the
[45:41] encroachment permit. We just require
[45:43] that you have an encroachment permit to
[45:45] do that currently.
[45:46] » Okay. So, you can if you get
[45:48] » Yeah. Okay.
[45:49] » I'll look into that. But I believe it's
[45:51] pretty liberal. I mean, I was when I was
[45:52] reading through it, it's been probably a
[45:54] year since I looked at that.
[45:56] » Unless Unless you deal with your dog on
[45:57] my way.
[45:59] » Sorry.
[46:02] » And I apologize that I'm a little late.
[46:04] I had a late appointment at work that
[46:06] went way long, but I have I did have a
[46:09] couple questions. Um,
[46:12] so the questions that I have were about
[46:15] um, and you may have already discussed
[46:17] these, so if you have, please let me
[46:19] know and I'll I'll just catch up later,
[46:22] » But we talked about um, restrictions as
[46:25] far as um, short-term rentals um, and
[46:29] that. And I'm I'm just wondering if you
[46:33] know when we're when we're talking about
[46:34] enforcement,
[46:36] how do you enforce something like that?
[46:39] » Currently, it is difficult. It's it's
[46:41] complaint driven. It's it's just
[46:44] something that um the state has eased up
[46:46] a little bit. They used to not even let
[46:49] you look at the listings, but now you
[46:50] can identify them through the listings,
[46:52] but it would be complaint driven.
[46:55] » Okay. And is there a reason why we
[46:59] wouldn't allow that?
[47:01] » The goal is to provide more housing and
[47:05] we wouldn't be meeting the additional
[47:09] housing for Parisville. We'd be
[47:11] providing extra income for the
[47:13] residents, but we wouldn't be providing
[47:16] more housing necessarily. I think the
[47:18] biggest um the biggest issue would be
[47:21] the when you're changing changing
[47:24] occupants often that creates a greater
[47:26] nuisance. So in the scale of balancing
[47:28] things out that would be something to
[47:30] consider is new continual new residents
[47:33] when they don't live there and they're
[47:34] leaving the next day. They're not as
[47:37] great of neighbors to have.
[47:40] Well, but if it's the ordinance is
[47:43] already requiring that you have an owner
[47:45] occupied that's at the
[47:47] » Oh, and I forgot to say by state law
[47:50] they cannot have I'm trying to think if
[47:53] this was mandatory. I guess I'd have to
[47:55] look this that um I thought the state
[47:58] law made it mandatory that you cannot
[48:00] use them as
[48:03] Jenny. You're going to have to pull this
[48:05] up for me again
[48:08] cuz I'm trying to remember if it said we
[48:09] could we could restrict it or we had to
[48:12] restrict it. Do you remember?
[48:15] » I'm trying to remember from the
[48:16] ordinance. I just need your face.
[48:20] » I can't remember if the ordinance stated
[48:21] that we could restrict it or we had to
[48:24] restrict it from um short-term
[48:27] » Rentals.
[48:30] Uh let's see. I'm pretty sure it said we
[48:34] could
[48:34] » It's not my understanding is it's not
[48:36] applicable for short-term rentals.
[48:39] That that would be a separate if we
[48:41] wanted to allow short-term rentals. That
[48:43] would be a separate.
[48:45] » So it doesn't mean that they couldn't
[48:47] happen. It just means that it would be a
[48:49] part of this.
[48:50] » I understand.
[48:51] » Okay. I I was just curious because I I
[48:54] think my number one concern is having
[48:56] something that's a a law. what this are
[48:59] going to be. Well, you can we can
[49:00] approve an accessory dwelling unit, but
[49:02] only if Well, I'm like, well, how's that
[49:05] enforceable? Because I I hear people all
[49:08] the time say it's we have ordinances on
[49:11] the books, but yet we can't enforce
[49:13] those. And I would like to know
[49:16] enforcement,
[49:17] how enforcement would happen on things.
[49:21] And it's, you know, it's it's one of
[49:24] those things that we want to make sure
[49:26] we're not just having a law that is on
[49:28] paper but not enforceable.
[49:31] » Well, it just comes down to funding to
[49:33] be quite honest at city level. This city
[49:35] can enforce as much as they want to fund
[49:38] and as much as they're able to fund, I
[49:40] think, and and then you just end up in
[49:42] that in that balance. So, not
[49:45] introducing the ordinance, I I don't
[49:47] know if that really solves the problem.
[49:48] We do have a lot of ordinances and we we
[49:51] operate on kind of a platform of trust
[49:54] in communities. Um but it would just
[49:56] depend on how much of the city's
[49:58] resources they would want to dedicate to
[49:59] enforcement. But absolutely they could
[50:09] have
[50:11] run out of time.
[50:17] Greg, do you have any you'd like to
[50:19] follow up on? We did follow up on
[50:22] yours.
[50:24] » You didn't just you didn't hear the
[50:25] answer.
[50:26] » Oh, no. I did hear the answer. So, yeah.
[50:28] I don't know what what to say. I guess
[50:30] it was just public meeting. I'll just
[50:33] » Okay.
[50:33] » See in the presentation what's to cover.
[50:37] All right.
[50:41] » We got like three minutes.
[50:46] If not, we'll close the work session.
[50:49] » You're the boss.
[50:50] » Okay, let's do it.
[50:59] » We need a motion to
[51:01] make a motion to close the work session.
[51:03] » I'll make a motion to close the work
[51:05] session.
[51:05] » So, I have a motion and a second. I'll
[51:07] second. All in favor?
[51:12] Okay, we're going to start by having the
[51:14] pledge of allegiance by
[51:18] » Council member.
[51:21] All right, everyone please stand.
[51:26] » Ready, begin.
[51:28] » I aliance to the flag of the United
[51:31] States of America and to the republic
[51:34] for which it stands. One nation under
[51:37] God, indivisible, with liberty and
[51:40] justice for all.
[51:50] Our dear father in heaven, we are so
[51:51] thankful to be gathered here this day as
[51:53] as residents of Parisville and the city
[51:56] council. We pray that we will be guided
[51:58] by thee and by thy spirit. that we will
[51:59] make wise decisions that are pleasing
[52:00] unto thee and that we will do what is in
[52:03] the best interest of the residents and
[52:04] we say these things in the name of Jesus
[52:06] Christ. Amen.
[52:07] » Amen.
[52:10] » Our next item on the agenda is public
[52:12] comment before we go up and have a
[52:15] public comment. I would like to make one
[52:17] comment
[52:19] well a few comments but one try to keep
[52:21] it to three minutes. You're more than
[52:22] welcome to come up and share your
[52:24] thoughts.
[52:26] We did hear that there may have been
[52:29] miscommunication that has occurred
[52:31] somewhere down the line and there is not
[52:34] a public hearing today for anything to
[52:36] do with West Harrisville Road or the
[52:39] rideway. It's strictly a discussion that
[52:42] goes amongst the council that the
[52:44] council brought up regarding want to see
[52:47] some of the avenues there. But there's
[52:49] not any decisions going to be made
[52:51] tonight. There's no no public hearing,
[52:55] but if you want to comment it, you're
[52:56] more than welcome to comment.
[52:59] So, if you'd like to comment, please get
[53:01] up, state your name, email address, and
[53:05] your email address, and uh your concern.
[53:12] » Good evening. My name is Mike Dere. I am
[53:15] a trustee of the um property at 5967
[53:18] West.
[53:20] Um, email is miked debris 670gmail.com.
[53:24] What else would you like to know?
[53:26] » You got your name. You got the email
[53:27] address. That's good. Y
[53:30] » And I'll try to keep this real brief for
[53:32] you. So, Mayor Sham, members of the city
[53:35] council, tonight I want to share with
[53:36] you some concerns that many residents
[53:38] have regarding the widening of the road.
[53:41] My dad and brother recently met with
[53:42] Shannon Wix, some of the avenues
[53:43] consultants of Cody and Cody from ESI to
[53:46] discuss the impact of the property.
[53:48] During the meeting, Cody laid out a
[53:50] tenative design plan detailed and the
[53:52] impact it would have on the property.
[53:54] There are a couple of questions that we
[53:55] have regarding the project. First, the
[53:57] easement or ride ofway. If the city has
[54:00] a 99 ft rightway then that they maintain
[54:04] then in fact then why is the city
[54:07] offering just compensation for taking
[54:09] out trees, grass, sprinklers, fences,
[54:11] etc. that are impacted by the
[54:13] development but not offering
[54:14] compensation for the actual taking of
[54:15] the land itself. The question was posed
[54:18] to both Shannon and Cody during the
[54:19] meeting and the response was the city
[54:21] wanted to be good neighbors by helping
[54:23] out impacted landowners. Why would a
[54:25] city spend limited taxpayer dollars on a
[54:28] select few people simply to be
[54:30] neighborly? This approach does not seem
[54:32] equitable for the broader taxpaying
[54:33] citizens of Harrisville City. Also, if
[54:36] the city has a right of way that they
[54:38] think they have, then why would the
[54:39] property owners be asked to sign a
[54:41] warranty deed transferring their
[54:42] property to Harrisville City and then
[54:44] reported to the county? A valid right
[54:46] ofway does not require a transfer of
[54:48] property. Nor does it require consent
[54:50] from current owners. If the city wanted
[54:52] me to transfer my property to them, then
[54:55] I need to be properly compensated for
[54:57] that property at fair value. I have yet
[55:00] to receive the city's survey showing
[55:01] where the easement even exists. We have
[55:03] requested that.
[55:06] Second, um current design project room
[55:09] for improvement. A bike lane. I
[55:11] understand the six foot bike lane was
[55:12] part of the grant proposal by putting um
[55:14] a bike lane for less than a half a mile
[55:17] in the current scenario and it doesn't
[55:20] connect to anything. It seems seems like
[55:22] a pretty big waste of uh federal and
[55:24] state tax dollars. I also recognize that
[55:27] one could argue the project could simply
[55:29] be in phase one and the future projects
[55:30] or phases could connect the bike path
[55:32] further, but that might take decades for
[55:35] that to even happen. I would ask the
[55:36] council to reconsider the inclusion of a
[55:38] bike lane. sidewalks. The tenative
[55:41] design also calls for a current 7 foot
[55:43] wide sidewalk. By the way, the standard
[55:44] sidewalk is 4 ft um west of of all of
[55:47] that new development potentially. Why is
[55:49] such a large sidewalk necessary in
[55:51] keeping with agriculture residential
[55:53] zoning in the neighborhood? With the 700
[55:55] ft sidewalk, the irrigation head gates
[55:57] would physically sit in the sidewalk.
[55:59] This design creates a safety hazard for
[56:01] those who end up using the sidewalk. Not
[56:02] to mention, it could be costly to
[56:04] repair. Additionally, all the resident
[56:06] mailboxes would physically be located in
[56:08] the sidewalk. again creating a safety
[56:10] hazard for those um using it. Lastly,
[56:14] when it shows the walk needs to be
[56:16] cleared, there's an increased burden for
[56:18] residents to clear such a large area
[56:20] with snow. The snow plows will push the
[56:22] snow right up into that sidewalk area
[56:24] because there's nowhere else to put it.
[56:26] So, the ask is simply, would you please
[56:30] slow down and reconsider what we're
[56:33] doing as a long-term
[56:35] process? So, thank you for your time.
[56:41] Hi, Danny Hammond with the Young
[56:42] Automotive Group. I'm not here to talk
[56:44] about Harrisville Road, but I am here to
[56:45] talk to you about what the Young
[56:47] Automotive Group can do here for you as
[56:49] a city. I up until July of this year, I
[56:52] was a municipal employee. I was in
[56:54] charge of a fleet and I know what that's
[56:56] like. I also served in my city council
[56:58] and on the planning commission and
[57:00] Syracuse where I grew up. So, I kind of
[57:02] know what it's like to be in your shoes
[57:04] and to be looking at how you can use
[57:05] your best use of tax dollars and when it
[57:07] comes to tight budgets, how you make
[57:09] that all work. And a lot of times when
[57:10] people see the Young Automotive Group,
[57:12] they see the buildings, they see how big
[57:13] they are, and they think, "Oh, they got
[57:14] to be the most expensive." And the
[57:16] reality is that's just not the truth.
[57:18] So, in October 1st, all the new state
[57:20] contracts are going to go into effect
[57:21] for automotive prices, and we would love
[57:24] for a chance to earn your business. Um,
[57:27] and in addition to uh the automotive
[57:30] side of buying and selling vehicles, we
[57:33] also do some other things that could aid
[57:34] in your municipal uh endeavors there.
[57:37] The next of which would be collision
[57:38] services. So, we're on state contract
[57:40] for collision services in Weaver County.
[57:42] We have a facility out on 24th Street or
[57:46] uh we can take care of any of your
[57:48] vehicles you have. Anything that's
[57:49] police or fire or something you can't go
[57:51] to enterprise and rent, we'll get you
[57:53] first available bay, get your vehicle
[57:54] in, get it fixed at the safe contract
[57:57] prices, which in Wever County are some
[57:59] of the best there are, and get you back
[58:01] on the road and taken care of. In
[58:03] addition to the collision services, we
[58:05] also do upfitting. And so when you comes
[58:08] to your public works vehicles, you've
[58:09] got your service trucks, you need a
[58:11] truck that has a boom on it, so you can
[58:13] put up Christmas lights and trim trees
[58:14] and things like that. We do all of those
[58:17] trucks right at our uh center in
[58:19] Cisville where we'll put where we'll
[58:21] build them. We'll get a cabin chassis,
[58:23] we'll build a service body, we get all
[58:25] the stuff on there and we do it all at
[58:27] that state contract price. And so we're
[58:30] for you guys and kind of the educational
[58:32] side of things is you'll hear a lot from
[58:35] various vendors of state contract price,
[58:37] state contract price, and they notice
[58:38] you have your your audit here today. And
[58:41] one of the things that I used to do is
[58:42] I'd sit down with our auditor and talk
[58:44] about all the things I used to be over.
[58:46] And my auditor always wanted me to have
[58:48] state contract or three bids. And so I
[58:51] would go out and get three bids and have
[58:53] to play the big game and then state
[58:55] contract. And then I got hired in my
[58:57] capacity here. And then I come to
[58:59] realize that not all state contract
[59:00] pricing is the same. And the Young
[59:03] Automotive Group when it comes to their
[59:05] business model is they make their money
[59:07] in volume. They don't make their money
[59:09] by coming in and charging different
[59:11] cities and people a lot of money and
[59:14] large markups and things so that they
[59:16] take all this money from any one
[59:17] individual entity. They make their money
[59:19] by doing volume. Last year, the group
[59:21] that I'm in sold almost 9,000 vehicles.
[59:24] And when you look at all of our state
[59:26] contract pricing and the services we
[59:28] provide to you as a city, you'll see
[59:30] that our margins are thin, our prices
[59:32] are low, and we would love for the
[59:34] opportunity to build a relationship and
[59:35] earn your business. So, good luck
[59:37] tonight and thank you for your time.
[59:53] » I'll try to get this done with a little
[59:55] bit of here. Good evening, mayor. Good
[59:59] evening, members of the council and
[1:00:00] planning commission. My name is Kevin
[1:00:02] Barb. I live and I'm an owner on North
[1:00:04] Harrisville Road. I'm here tonight to
[1:00:06] enter a formal public objection to the
[1:00:09] uh uh permanent record regarding the
[1:00:13] cascading impact of ordinance 575 and
[1:00:15] the West Harrisville Road widening
[1:00:17] project. Historically, both West and
[1:00:19] North Harrisville Road have been an
[1:00:21] agriculture backbone of the community.
[1:00:24] Our properties are active use
[1:00:25] agriculture atmosphere. This uh city,
[1:00:29] excuse me, the city owns this city, this
[1:00:33] city general plan exclusively uh pledges
[1:00:36] to protect for us. First, we are facing
[1:00:39] immediate crisis regarding municipal
[1:00:41] overreach and property line
[1:00:43] manipulation. The city is attempting to
[1:00:45] assert an outdated
[1:00:48] historical 99 foot county right away
[1:00:52] claimed along the corridor. This
[1:00:54] directly contradicts the decades of
[1:00:56] legal records uh private subdivision
[1:00:59] plots and established a narrow 66 to 86
[1:01:03] ft reality by using an unproven
[1:01:06] historical claim to push construction
[1:01:08] boundaries into our front yards without
[1:01:11] formal
[1:01:12] uh amendment domain filing
[1:01:16] and adverse
[1:01:18] excuse me
[1:01:21] a just compensation city open itself
[1:01:24] up to serve to serve legal exposure and
[1:01:28] reverse uh condemnation lawsuit. We have
[1:01:30] already seen independent utility
[1:01:32] districts digging trenches and damaging
[1:01:35] yards without providing property owners
[1:01:37] with timely notifications. Second, the
[1:01:40] city is engaged in a dangerous uh
[1:01:42] engineering negligence by ignoring the
[1:01:45] uh unstudied funnel effect on North
[1:01:48] Harrisville Road. Utah land use law
[1:01:50] mandates that you evaluate and and
[1:01:54] communive impact of development. Yet the
[1:01:57] city has produced zero traffic modeling
[1:02:00] showing that how North Harris School
[1:02:01] Road will handle the in inevitable
[1:02:05] overflow bottleneck caused by West
[1:02:07] Harrisville Road construction and
[1:02:09] increased subdivision density. North
[1:02:11] Harrisville Road features zero
[1:02:13] sidewalks, zero structured gutters, and
[1:02:16] zero engineered safety setbacks, forcing
[1:02:19] high volume urban commuter traffic onto
[1:02:21] the narrow open shoulders where farm
[1:02:24] equipment, tractors, and livestock road
[1:02:26] creates an extreme public safety hazard.
[1:02:28] Third, the widening is a manufactured
[1:02:31] emergency. Independent data shows that
[1:02:34] West Harrisboro can easily handle its
[1:02:36] current localized volume. Over 81% of
[1:02:39] the areas community travel out of the
[1:02:41] city along for work. This expansion is
[1:02:44] not being driven by the needs of
[1:02:45] existing residents. It is being
[1:02:48] aggressively pursued solely to satisfy
[1:02:52] the future traffic model of developers
[1:02:54] like the 13 home layout on 640.
[1:02:57] Furthermore, and I'll finish up, uh
[1:03:01] my concern is there's just not enough
[1:03:04] evidence given to the citizens. There's
[1:03:06] if you go on public records, all the
[1:03:08] permits, all the studies, everything
[1:03:10] that's needed uh aren't being done.
[1:03:13] They're not filed.
[1:03:14] » We don't even we don't even have a final
[1:03:16] plan all the way.
[1:03:18] » We're at 90%.
[1:03:20] » I appreciate that, Mayor. That that I I
[1:03:22] do I really do appreciate that. I'm just
[1:03:24] bringing up things that people are
[1:03:26] coming to. I thank each of you and I
[1:03:29] just consider you to work on that.
[1:03:32] Appreciate you very much. Thank you.
[1:03:49] Marvin Ferrell. I reside at uh 2470
[1:03:53] North 750 West. Marvin Ferrell
[1:03:55] atmssn.com.
[1:03:57] I have a partial that is at 607 West
[1:04:02] Road. Uh again, West
[1:04:06] uh uh and I understand there's not a
[1:04:09] discussion for tonight, but this needs
[1:04:11] to be brought up and some information. I
[1:04:14] sent out a a email to each one of you uh
[1:04:17] if you had got it. So I'll just briefly
[1:04:20] uh go through this
[1:04:23] um that I that I have uh stating that uh
[1:04:27] six months approximately about six
[1:04:29] months ago uh we started a discussion on
[1:04:31] Westville Road and it was brought up
[1:04:33] that there was an 1885 uh right of way
[1:04:37] along the road. Uh looking into that it
[1:04:41] talks about the the road starting in in
[1:04:43] the town of Lynn at a sandstone monument
[1:04:46] which neither one of those exist today.
[1:04:48] And so the starting point uh is not
[1:04:51] there. So with the further discussion uh
[1:04:54] I contacted the state of Bunsman. Uh
[1:04:58] that was a transfer of uh emails back
[1:05:00] and forth from uh the city to Bunsman
[1:05:03] and back to myself. Uh nothing really
[1:05:06] got accomplished at that uh time uh that
[1:05:09] I filmed. And uh uh then then uh uh Cody
[1:05:17] from uh ESI and Shannon Wixon, they
[1:05:20] they've contacted me. We we've uh had a
[1:05:23] couple of discussions along there and
[1:05:25] I'd like to bring up the same uh
[1:05:27] comments that uh Mike did and one of
[1:05:30] those is the uh construction easement.
[1:05:33] Along with that is the um
[1:05:37] uh warranty deed that uh that we needed
[1:05:40] to sign that warranty deed. If we didn't
[1:05:42] then uh we wouldn't be paid for our
[1:05:45] fences or uh any of the other uh
[1:05:48] structures that that were there. Also uh
[1:05:52] in front of uh Mr. Dan Baitman's
[1:05:54] property uh there is a monument that is
[1:05:57] in the ground that says Utah State
[1:05:59] Rightway. Uh looking further into that
[1:06:02] with Utah, it shows that
[1:06:05] uh that is uh for an 80FT rightway uh
[1:06:09] along there and there's several there's
[1:06:11] a few other monuments along there but
[1:06:14] they've yet to be be found. Uh I'm
[1:06:17] running short on time.
[1:06:19] Um,
[1:06:21] so along West Seris School Road and and
[1:06:23] the setbacks, the the city has approved
[1:06:26] those and
[1:06:28] uh everything that I've been able to
[1:06:30] find is an 80ft road along with the
[1:06:32] setbacks. Um, if we do an 80ft roadway
[1:06:37] uh would allow for utilities, including
[1:06:39] air the irrigation ditch fit to fit
[1:06:42] appropriately with the uh corridor.
[1:06:46] uh the the seven side seven foot
[1:06:48] sidewalk I don't think is necessary if
[1:06:50] we have if we use a park strip then we
[1:06:52] could put the irrigation in there uh so
[1:06:55] I just ask the council and thank you for
[1:06:58] your time
[1:07:00] but anyway look at your look at your
[1:07:02] source and consider this please
[1:07:15] Any other public comment?
[1:07:18] If not, we'll close the public comment.
[1:07:25] Next item on our agenda is consent items
[1:07:27] of quarterly budget audit and financial
[1:07:29] review. Jill, if you leave us with that.
[1:07:34] » Um hopefully you were able to look
[1:07:35] through the um report I gave you guys.
[1:07:39] Um
[1:07:41] we had two dates given. I look through
[1:07:44] them. Everything
[1:07:46] besides our really seasonal type
[1:07:50] employees who are recreational and our
[1:07:52] parks um seasonal are actually
[1:07:55] electronic. All the seasonal ones are on
[1:07:57] paper. It's a little easier that way so
[1:08:00] we don't have to train them. But
[1:08:03] this was really focused on our
[1:08:05] electronic end. We have that new time
[1:08:07] card.
[1:08:09] The process was really run run very um
[1:08:14] smoothly except for the time card part.
[1:08:17] We kind of ran into some employees that
[1:08:20] kept forgetting to submit their time
[1:08:21] cards. So we have created a new process
[1:08:25] um that will hopefully
[1:08:27] make sure that they submit or else they
[1:08:30] might have to wait.
[1:08:32] Mhm. Um, we did have our little snafu
[1:08:36] with URS, but URS was closed for the
[1:08:39] month, so because they um received a new
[1:08:43] program called Aras, so we had to wait
[1:08:46] for them to get that up and going and
[1:08:47] then push everything through after.
[1:08:50] Other than that, everything went very
[1:08:53] well. There's some things that we can
[1:08:55] work on, which are time cards, and we've
[1:08:57] created the new process. Other than
[1:08:59] that, everything went great. We just
[1:09:01] wanted to make sure you guys were aware
[1:09:02] of our progress and yeah, you have any
[1:09:06] questions for me?
[1:09:07] » You have any questions?
[1:09:10] » No questions.
[1:09:12] » Thank you, Jill.
[1:09:13] » Yeah.
[1:09:14] » Next item on the agenda is approval of
[1:09:16] the meeting minutes for August 11th. I
[1:09:18] know Rick submitted some adjustments.
[1:09:22] You've already made those.
[1:09:23] » Yeah, I made those.
[1:09:24] » Anybody else have anything on that?
[1:09:26] » Yes, I had one. I'll just read it.
[1:09:31] Um, I had a couple spelling things, but
[1:09:33] then the third thing was in the budget
[1:09:35] approval discussion where it states that
[1:09:37] I was wanting my reservations to be
[1:09:38] noted. I believe I stated that the
[1:09:40] amendment I would like to see is to add
[1:09:42] funds to the sidewalk repair
[1:09:44] specifically. We are not getting
[1:09:46] necessary repairs done that are needed
[1:09:47] for the safety of the residents, which
[1:09:49] should be our priority over traveling to
[1:09:51] St. George for a training. I also
[1:09:53] recalled a comment from Brian Fe which
[1:09:56] said these sidewalk sidewalk repairs are
[1:09:58] expensive and we could easily spend
[1:10:00] 60,000 on them in one year. Those were
[1:10:03] my additions
[1:10:05] for those changes.
[1:10:07] Anything else? Okay. Can I have a motion
[1:10:10] to approve the minutes?
[1:10:15] » One or the other? I'll make a motion to
[1:10:18] approve minutes with the two revisions
[1:10:20] that have been noted.
[1:10:21] » Okay.
[1:10:22] Second.
[1:10:22] » I'll second.
[1:10:24] » So motion and a second. All in favor?
[1:10:28] » Okay.
[1:10:30] Next item on the agenda is the business
[1:10:33] items. First one is discussion and
[1:10:36] possible action to adopt ordinance 569,
[1:10:39] the ADU and parking amendment, which was
[1:10:41] part of our work session earlier. Um, so
[1:10:46] we're going to have Sarah and Jenny kind
[1:10:49] of take that one. You guys decide if you
[1:10:52] can fight over who goes first.
[1:10:57] » Grover, are you getting any feedback
[1:10:58] now? And can you hear me?
[1:11:00] » Okay, good.
[1:11:02] » Um,
[1:11:04] so we had a um work session before about
[1:11:07] this. For the sake of this meeting, I'll
[1:11:10] do kind of a quick overview of what
[1:11:12] we're considering. Is it okay if I'm
[1:11:13] here for this? Okay. So, um,
[1:11:18] uh, in in past years, the state has been
[1:11:20] looking to require cities to have
[1:11:24] ordinances for internal and external
[1:11:26] accessory dwelling units. Um, we adopted
[1:11:28] an internal AD ADU, accessory dwelling
[1:11:32] unit ordinance a few years back when the
[1:11:34] state um, asked for one and now they're
[1:11:36] asking for internal or external ADU
[1:11:38] regulations. This is something
[1:11:40] Harrisville has been considering outside
[1:11:42] of um state regulations.
[1:11:45] Uh so the ordinance that we're proposing
[1:11:48] it defines internal and external
[1:11:51] detached ADUs, minimum lot sizes and
[1:11:54] limitations of specifically one ADU per
[1:11:58] primary dwelling and requires that the
[1:12:00] property owner live on the property in
[1:12:02] one of the dwelling units. Um you sorry.
[1:12:07] Uh also we've addressed uh short-term
[1:12:10] rentals uh utility addressing permitting
[1:12:13] licensing requirements and also uh the
[1:12:16] design height setbacks and compatibility
[1:12:18] standards for ADUs.
[1:12:23] Um so I'm not going to go into a lot of
[1:12:26] detail of exactly what we've done. I
[1:12:28] think in our discussion we can do that.
[1:12:30] Um essentially though what we're trying
[1:12:32] to balance is we want to right now
[1:12:34] residents are not allowed to build
[1:12:36] detached accessory dwelling units. So uh
[1:12:39] residents may have accessory structures
[1:12:42] but they are not permitted to be
[1:12:43] habitable. We're creating an avenue
[1:12:46] where residents can have external
[1:12:48] detached ADUs that are habitable but
[1:12:51] trying to balance that with the um
[1:12:54] impact that it'll have on their
[1:12:55] neighbors. So, we've worked through
[1:12:57] different setbacks and other
[1:13:00] requirements for these detached ADUs to
[1:13:03] make sure that they um limit the
[1:13:07] exposure and impact on neighboring
[1:13:09] properties.
[1:13:10] So, with that, I think we can go into
[1:13:13] our discussion. Um, we had some
[1:13:17] discussion in our work session.
[1:13:23] » So, Craig, why don't you start? So if
[1:13:26] you're okay
[1:13:28] » Well because I have I have you know I
[1:13:30] mentioned the letter table. Yes, I have
[1:13:33] three basic concepts. One, formatting.
[1:13:37] And so in the formatting, I guess the
[1:13:39] first question I have is uh the 1120 in
[1:13:44] in the
[1:13:46] musical code talks about these
[1:13:49] provisions that are from 1120 are
[1:13:52] provide further restrictions from what
[1:13:54] is already stated in the ordinance. And
[1:13:56] so I raised the question, why not have
[1:14:00] ADUs defined as a land use and land use
[1:14:03] section and then make reference to what
[1:14:05] the standards are in the uh chapter 20.
[1:14:09] And so that that was the first concern I
[1:14:11] had is just the purpose of chapter 20
[1:14:13] versus the other provisions and both in
[1:14:17] the use being allowed and not allowed
[1:14:20] » And also then the definitions being also
[1:14:24] taken out of chapter 20 and put in the
[1:14:27] definition section.
[1:14:28] » And so I think those are great
[1:14:29] suggestions. Um especially the
[1:14:31] definitions can easily move because of
[1:14:33] our our last recommendation. They're not
[1:14:35] numbered anymore. So they can easily
[1:14:38] move into the alphabetical order. Um and
[1:14:41] then we can uh put that in the land use
[1:14:44] chart and then reference the um the
[1:14:47] section of code from there. It was in
[1:14:50] intentionally put in for just the
[1:14:52] internal, but now that we're really
[1:14:53] expanding on the accessory dwelling
[1:14:55] units, I I think that it has a logical
[1:14:58] pattern to it. Um whatever the other
[1:15:02] council members feel, but I think that's
[1:15:03] a a wise improvement. And then this may
[1:15:06] be for Brody, but as I was looking at
[1:15:08] the uh section going to land uses, we
[1:15:12] have references to three different land
[1:15:14] uses. And then when it says goes to
[1:15:16] code, those are the wrong code
[1:15:18] references. And so I know this is not
[1:15:21] part of the ADU discussion, but it's
[1:15:22] just an error that I I noticed there. Is
[1:15:25] that something to be done as part of
[1:15:26] this? Is that a separate item that's
[1:15:28] being looked at?
[1:15:29] » I can address.
[1:15:31] » Okay. So, we did public notice this one
[1:15:34] for land use changes and I think we've
[1:15:36] consulted with Brody with this on the
[1:15:37] past. So, you could override me, but
[1:15:39] because we are making other land use
[1:15:42] changes, I think it's appropriate to
[1:15:43] make those corrections.
[1:15:44] » Okay.
[1:15:45] » Any other thoughts?
[1:15:48] » The next one then is um
[1:15:52] » Well, it was just the in in section four
[1:15:57] we had two A's.
[1:15:58] » Yes, I saw that. So, we'll want to
[1:16:00] correct that. Okay. Then there were the
[1:16:04] next category policy questions and some
[1:16:06] of the uh items discussed I didn't see
[1:16:10] them discussed in the planning
[1:16:11] commission or in any memo having a
[1:16:14] discussion. Okay. Is this a a policy we
[1:16:16] want to make as a city regarding some of
[1:16:19] the requirements or not having
[1:16:21] requirements. So the first one was the
[1:16:24] uh
[1:16:26] the one provision of the state law says
[1:16:28] that communities can
[1:16:31] put up to a 25%
[1:16:34] limit on ADUs
[1:16:37] of all their residential land use areas.
[1:16:41] What's the thought about using that
[1:16:43] provision? I I know why it would it was
[1:16:46] created. Mhm.
[1:16:48] » So, in general, the planning commission
[1:16:50] didn't we discussed the ADUs in general
[1:16:53] and there didn't seem a lot to have a
[1:16:56] lot of appetite for restricting them
[1:16:58] really far as far as where they went
[1:17:00] other than the lot size. That was the
[1:17:02] main concern of the planning commission
[1:17:04] was not where they were, but more what
[1:17:08] the lot size were. We had a lot of
[1:17:09] discussion on what size lot would you
[1:17:12] want to see it on and then that would
[1:17:14] tie into kind of where they end up but
[1:17:17] there was a concern so it's not
[1:17:19] something we delved into. It's something
[1:17:21] the council could look into if they
[1:17:22] wanted to.
[1:17:23] » Okay. So that really wasn't discussed at
[1:17:24] all. Okay. No. Um the other one was
[1:17:28] about uh a certificate once someone gets
[1:17:33] their permit building permit suspected
[1:17:36] that the city can issue a certificate
[1:17:38] that's recorded with the property county
[1:17:42] alerting to future buyers
[1:17:45] um that this property has an ADU in it
[1:17:48] that it's not a duplex that it has
[1:17:51] provisions that you have to have on
[1:17:53] occupancy and other units.
[1:17:55] And then also put into it then that if
[1:17:58] if uh you know if you if you want to
[1:18:02] tear this down you've also lost your ADU
[1:18:05] right and you have to start over again.
[1:18:07] Those certificates I found been always
[1:18:09] helpful and it's amazing once once
[1:18:12] people know you have a certificate how
[1:18:13] my me time lenders and all that also are
[1:18:16] coming to the say show me your
[1:18:18] certificate that the city has allowed
[1:18:20] this not just something you've done and
[1:18:23] I think it's a good safety feature
[1:18:25] because you know sometimes we don't get
[1:18:27] to everything that's done and it may be
[1:18:30] an illegal ADU not meeting any of the
[1:18:32] standards and you want this as a second
[1:18:35] way to try to
[1:18:37] police legal ADUs and make people know
[1:18:40] I've got this right and lending that
[1:18:42] solution knows they have that right
[1:18:44] because they talk about doing something
[1:18:46] like that any certificates that the city
[1:18:48] would issue afterwards.
[1:18:49] » No. So we we discussed this a little bit
[1:18:51] in the premeating. Um and we can
[1:18:54] definitely look into certificates from
[1:18:56] from my standpoint. I saw the building
[1:18:58] permit for the ADU. what would be a
[1:19:00] specific building permit as the
[1:19:03] certificate in essence. And so we could
[1:19:07] do a specific certificate, but it I
[1:19:10] would be concerned that certificate
[1:19:12] might u lead people astray to think that
[1:19:14] they can demolish it and rebuild it. Of
[1:19:16] course, it would need to be stated in
[1:19:17] the certificate, but a building permit I
[1:19:19] think is pretty clear. If it's a
[1:19:21] permitted use, then it goes through the
[1:19:22] building permit process. Then that's
[1:19:24] kind of your stamp of approval. Um homes
[1:19:27] have the same issue. Is this is this
[1:19:29] permitted? Is this not? Um it it is also
[1:19:34] by the design standards we've included,
[1:19:36] it will look different than a duplex or
[1:19:39] a multifamily home because it it's
[1:19:43] specified in the ordinance that it needs
[1:19:45] to look um subordinate or it still needs
[1:19:49] to look like a single family home. So
[1:19:51] hopefully we can avoid that by the
[1:19:53] building standards and through the
[1:19:54] building permit process. But uh if the
[1:19:56] council would like to include a
[1:19:58] certificate and some language to that,
[1:19:59] that's absolutely something we can do.
[1:20:01] » Okay. I I think maybe for the other
[1:20:03] council members, my feeling on that part
[1:20:05] is the the the building license is fine,
[1:20:10] but that is not anything any lending
[1:20:12] institution will look at when they're
[1:20:13] making a new loan on on a new purpose.
[1:20:15] They don't look at building permits.
[1:20:17] They'll look at what is recorded with
[1:20:19] the title of the property. And that's
[1:20:21] why I think that certificate is very
[1:20:23] helpful. So people know, oh, this is a
[1:20:25] legal one. And let institutions will
[1:20:28] say, well, I'm not going to lose until I
[1:20:30] guess I'm from here saying this is still
[1:20:33] a legal unit because there's nothing to
[1:20:36] to indicate it is legal. And you know,
[1:20:40] there's some detached ADUs now,
[1:20:44] which are, you know, we don't have any
[1:20:45] permits. We don't have any uh notice
[1:20:48] because we didn't allow them to put out
[1:20:50] there.
[1:20:51] » So you would recommend we have a
[1:20:53] licensing section of to add a section
[1:20:56] that says um so
[1:20:58] » We would issue us a certain
[1:21:00] » Certificate through this through the
[1:21:01] city.
[1:21:02] » Yeah. Okay.
[1:21:03] » Record with
[1:21:04] » Recorded with it with the property.
[1:21:06] » Yeah. To the county recorder. Yeah.
[1:21:09] Kind of improves what state law says
[1:21:11] about an option we have.
[1:21:14] Well, that's just my opinion. The
[1:21:16] council hasn't weighed in on that yet.
[1:21:17] So,
[1:21:18] » No, but I just want to make it note so I
[1:21:20] know what may end up in your motion.
[1:21:23] Um the other one,
[1:21:26] and this kind of gets back into um
[1:21:30] that 25% rule, how do we plan to address
[1:21:35] if an ADU is allowed? Because we say
[1:21:37] they're allowed in a residential
[1:21:39] property, how do we do it in zones that
[1:21:43] uh a residential use is not conforming?
[1:21:46] And two examples is
[1:21:48] » Oh, yeah. One, we have residential homes
[1:21:51] that are in commercial zones. They're
[1:21:53] not allowed. They're not conforming.
[1:21:56] But the private division says if you're
[1:21:58] owner occupied, you could have an ADU.
[1:22:00] So, how do we address that? We also have
[1:22:03] the situation where we have some zones
[1:22:05] in the city where there are single
[1:22:07] family homes that meet the 6,000t
[1:22:09] requirement, but they're in a zone that
[1:22:12] is SAP or SA or whatever it is. um that
[1:22:17] also don't have the standards or or
[1:22:19] regulations that they those have also
[1:22:21] been eliminated from the text. If
[1:22:24] someone wanted to do something, how
[1:22:26] would we treat those properties?
[1:22:30] » So, I think your previous um suggestion
[1:22:32] to put it in the land use table if it's
[1:22:35] listed only for the residential
[1:22:37] properties to address the non-conforming
[1:22:39] uses, they would follow um what is it
[1:22:43] 1117. So there's a process they would be
[1:22:47] able to if they're if they're
[1:22:49] non-conforming in a commercial zone then
[1:22:51] and commercial zones do not allow ADUs
[1:22:54] then they would not be allowed to have
[1:22:55] an ADU because that would be
[1:22:57] non-conforming. Um
[1:22:59] » Well the home to begin that's
[1:23:00] non-conforming,
[1:23:01] » Right? But there 1117 goes through all
[1:23:04] the different iterations of what's
[1:23:06] allowed to do with a non-conforming use
[1:23:08] and what's not allowed for
[1:23:09] non-conforming use. um if it I guess if
[1:23:13] it stays where it's a different use and
[1:23:16] it's in the land use table that they
[1:23:19] would not be able to ask for a use that
[1:23:21] is not presented in that zone unless it
[1:23:23] was already in place before but where we
[1:23:26] haven't allowed them before we would end
[1:23:28] up in that situation um so I think it's
[1:23:33] covered in in the code
[1:23:35] » So how do we treat so I mean they're
[1:23:39] residential S is a residential zone.
[1:23:41] » Oh, for those Okay.
[1:23:42] » How do we treat them? Yeah,
[1:23:43] » Those are residential zones. Um,
[1:23:46] » It's not a residential zone we have
[1:23:47] listed in the ordinance.
[1:23:48] » So, that's on our um agenda to change
[1:23:52] the uh
[1:23:53] » SS.
[1:23:54] » No, just any of the repealed zones.
[1:23:56] We're working on replacement zones and
[1:23:59] so they'd be considered residential
[1:24:00] zones because it is an existing
[1:24:02] residential zone. The way that the code
[1:24:04] is kind of vague and that's why we're
[1:24:06] looking to address it and I think that's
[1:24:07] something you requested. So, um,
[1:24:09] something we want to do and we're
[1:24:11] working with the planning commission to
[1:24:12] put together replacement zones, but
[1:24:14] where it was an existing residential
[1:24:16] zone, and this is applying to all
[1:24:17] residential areas, I think it'd be easy
[1:24:20] to assume that those, as long as they
[1:24:22] meet the requirements, would be um,
[1:24:25] eligible.
[1:24:27] » So,
[1:24:28] would we want to do that? I mean, again,
[1:24:31] I'm taking like the call cottages.
[1:24:35] um
[1:24:38] corn cottages at Cornell Springs. So,
[1:24:41] it's a mixture of single family detached
[1:24:43] homes on 6,000 foot lots and then town
[1:24:45] homes.
[1:24:47] And so,
[1:24:49] again, we don't have that SAP zone in
[1:24:53] our land use regulation. So, you know,
[1:24:55] where it's permitted, it won't show up
[1:24:57] as permitted
[1:24:59] because it's not an SAP is not listed
[1:25:01] anywhere.
[1:25:02] » It's not. But right now it's being
[1:25:03] governed as a residential zone. Um we
[1:25:07] have some holes in the code and so there
[1:25:09] there are plenty of issues with the SAP
[1:25:11] zone I guess is what I'm saying. Right
[1:25:12] now it is a residential zone and we're
[1:25:14] working to patch that up but we probably
[1:25:16] won't patch that up through the ADU
[1:25:17] ordinance. We'll need to have a
[1:25:19] replacement zone for it. you have
[1:25:21] another
[1:25:22] » Or would it would it be
[1:25:24] better
[1:25:26] if we say okay in the following
[1:25:30] zones
[1:25:32] we will not allow
[1:25:34] a to use
[1:25:36] » Um you bring that up earlier that it had
[1:25:39] to be over 10,000 square ft
[1:25:41] » Anything under 10,000 ft for correct
[1:25:44] » No but internals
[1:25:47] » Oh external okay
[1:25:49] » Um but the internal No, we can't
[1:25:51] regulate that. That's the the state law
[1:25:54] says that it is anything 6,000 square ft
[1:25:57] or um larger we must allow them to have
[1:26:01] uh an internal ADU. So it'll be
[1:26:04] regulated for the detach through the the
[1:26:06] lot size and then internal we don't have
[1:26:08] control over.
[1:26:09] » Okay.
[1:26:12] So we'll just kind of let
[1:26:14] » If they have a homeowners association
[1:26:16] says well we don't allow you to do that.
[1:26:17] » Yeah. The Holders Association could
[1:26:19] absolutely regulate it,
[1:26:20] » Which they can. Okay.
[1:26:24] » Okay.
[1:26:24] » They want to.
[1:26:26] » Um, let's see.
[1:26:35] How do we make it clear that a town home
[1:26:39] cannot become an AU? Um,
[1:26:42] so the town home only has a lot size the
[1:26:47] size of the town home and the rest is
[1:26:49] common space.
[1:26:51] » Not necessarily.
[1:26:53] » Do you have larger town homes in on
[1:26:55] 6,000 foot lots?
[1:26:57] » We we It's interesting as I kind of
[1:26:59] looked at the different town homes.
[1:27:00] There's some that Yeah. the lot itself
[1:27:02] is the the the property,
[1:27:05] » But then there's somewhere there's four
[1:27:07] town homes and they're all described by
[1:27:10] a lot that's uh 8 or 9,000 square ft.
[1:27:15] » So that's figure out how how does that
[1:27:18] work?
[1:27:18] » We have set bath limitations as well.
[1:27:20] » Well, they're all built. It could be an
[1:27:22] internal dwelling unit.
[1:27:24] » This is for external.
[1:27:26] » No, this is
[1:27:26] » Oh, internal as well. Um,
[1:27:28] » Yeah,
[1:27:29] » I don't know that by state law we can
[1:27:31] regulate that. If I remember right, it's
[1:27:33] something we discussed, Jenny, about
[1:27:35] whether we wanted them in town homes or
[1:27:37] not. And I think the intention state
[1:27:39] code is that they can be allowed in the
[1:27:41] internal.
[1:27:42] » I thought we excluded any of those zones
[1:27:44] in our internal,
[1:27:46] but it's been too many years since we
[1:27:48] visited that. Pull up the code if you'd
[1:27:51] like.
[1:27:51] » Yeah, that's why I just with these
[1:27:53] revisions going on, I'm wondering, does
[1:27:55] that now open that up? Sorry. Yeah, I
[1:27:57] was thinking for detach, but internal I
[1:27:59] don't know that
[1:28:15] cuz I always talk about single family
[1:28:17] dwelling, but by definition,
[1:28:20] every town home is single family
[1:28:22] dwelling.
[1:28:25] It's just they share walls but not
[1:28:29] necessarily property lines or sometimes
[1:28:31] property lines. So it's specifically to
[1:28:35] the internal
[1:28:53] prohibit the creation of the internal
[1:28:55] accessory dwelling unit. The lot
[1:28:57] containing the primary dwelling is
[1:28:58] 6,000. So that's what your concern was
[1:29:00] that some of our lot sizes for the town
[1:29:03] homes are larger than 6,000.
[1:29:05] » Yeah. You may have four town homes on a
[1:29:07] lot that's 8,000. So there's one lot.
[1:29:09] » I think theation
[1:29:12] of an internal dwelling requires the
[1:29:14] primary residence to be detached.
[1:29:19] » I would hope I just couldn't find it. I
[1:29:21] hope that's I mean that's my assumption
[1:29:23] of what it is, but I just can't find it.
[1:29:25] » A single family dwelling that is
[1:29:27] detached. That's the definition of a
[1:29:28] primary grilling under the internal
[1:29:30] accessory unit.
[1:29:31] » Okay.
[1:29:32] » So, state code is
[1:29:33] » Preemptive state. Okay.
[1:29:35] » Okay. Thank you.
[1:29:38] » Thank you.
[1:29:40] Uh
[1:29:42] let's see the other
[1:29:50] then the one question I had was that 90
[1:29:53] days for uh external and 30 days for
[1:29:56] internal where the state law says you
[1:29:58] can do 90 for detach and 30 for
[1:30:02] internal. Um just the thought behind
[1:30:06] why everything's 30 or do you see any
[1:30:08] benefit one being 90 and one being 30?
[1:30:11] » I I think it was just for simplicity. We
[1:30:13] thought 30 days the planning commission
[1:30:16] thought that was sufficient to deter the
[1:30:19] short-term rental aspect of it. Um but
[1:30:22] the the council could add a provision
[1:30:24] for 90 days just for the detached if
[1:30:27] they'd like.
[1:30:30] » Discussion. Okay. Um,
[1:30:35] one of the other questions you're making
[1:30:36] that is not ADU related but in the other
[1:30:40] provisions is u
[1:30:42] uh taking out of course the the minimum
[1:30:45] block size or home size
[1:30:48] but then you also take out the maximum
[1:30:52] block size because where the state just
[1:30:54] deals with you can't regulate the
[1:30:56] minimums
[1:30:57] » Right
[1:30:58] » Is that's something again that's a
[1:30:59] discussion right now The owners has you
[1:31:02] a maximum home size of 40 4,000 square
[1:31:04] ft. Do we want to eliminate that? Say it
[1:31:07] doesn't matter whatever big we want big
[1:31:11] home or do you want the existing limit
[1:31:14] on the home size? That's just
[1:31:18] one of the things that wasn't discussed
[1:31:19] and I just didn't know what people's
[1:31:21] feeling is on that.
[1:31:23] » Yeah. Um it isn't something we discussed
[1:31:24] as a planning commission. of the
[1:31:26] council. It's it's something that when
[1:31:27] we were getting rid of all of the um
[1:31:32] all of the controlling factors, it
[1:31:34] seemed a little out of place that
[1:31:35] randomly you can't build a bigger
[1:31:38] footprint than 4,000 square ft, you
[1:31:40] know. Um if the council still sees a
[1:31:44] need for that, we can reinclude it. Um
[1:31:47] but it just seemed unnecessary. It
[1:31:49] didn't seem beneficial, I guess.
[1:31:52] And then the last set of questions I had
[1:31:54] were just text itself.
[1:31:57] » And the one is the definition of an ADU.
[1:32:01] » Yeah.
[1:32:04] » Where uh the word household is used
[1:32:06] rather than how the state uses as a
[1:32:09] single family dwelling. And our
[1:32:11] definition in both our local orders
[1:32:13] talks dwelling not household.
[1:32:16] » Because the definition of a household is
[1:32:17] just anybody put together. when we do a
[1:32:20] dwelling then it hits the family then it
[1:32:22] says foreign related or and I just
[1:32:25] wondered why it might be better to just
[1:32:28] keep with the language of
[1:32:30] » The dwelling unit rather than the
[1:32:31] household. So that all those other
[1:32:32] definitions apply of limiting unrelated
[1:32:35] people at that.
[1:32:37] » Yeah, I think I think that's a good
[1:32:39] idea.
[1:32:41] » And then the other part I mentioned in
[1:32:44] that was sometimes we say lot, sometimes
[1:32:46] we say parcel, but really it should be
[1:32:49] lot. Yeah.
[1:32:51] » Should be lot because that's how all
[1:32:53] properties are. Not everyone is not
[1:32:56] stuck by the partial property.
[1:32:59] Um
[1:33:02] then the second was where the detached
[1:33:06] ADU can be larger than the existing
[1:33:07] proposed home on larger lots. I just
[1:33:11] raised a question of how's that
[1:33:12] consistent with the intent of being
[1:33:14] subordinate to the main use.
[1:33:16] » So we discussed this briefly in the
[1:33:19] premeating. The idea is the square
[1:33:22] footage is limited to make it
[1:33:23] subordinate in in size, but we wanted to
[1:33:26] allow the external
[1:33:30] the detach ADUs to be maybe the upstairs
[1:33:35] of a large barn structure or in a large
[1:33:37] structure or maybe the ADU is taking up
[1:33:39] the entire structure but in size the ADU
[1:33:43] is housed in a larger building than the
[1:33:46] house. So that's where the distinction
[1:33:49] came in.
[1:33:50] So how would this thing? So in that
[1:33:53] scenario then are we looking just the
[1:33:56] square footies of the ADU and that barn
[1:33:58] structure
[1:34:00] » Or are you okay so would that still be
[1:34:03] appropriate to say the ADU is
[1:34:08] subordinate to that house size?
[1:34:10] » Yeah.
[1:34:10] » Meaning okay they can take a barn and
[1:34:13] the barn may be larger but the dwelling
[1:34:15] part of it is still a house size or
[1:34:18] smaller. Yeah. House size are smaller or
[1:34:20] 10% of the lot area. Those those are the
[1:34:23] minimums that has to meet. Whatever is
[1:34:25] smaller,
[1:34:29] » 40,000
[1:34:31] square foot lot,000.
[1:34:33] Yeah.
[1:34:34] » Maybe you
[1:34:36] still might be 2,000.
[1:34:41] » Okay.
[1:34:41] » Yeah. Whichever whichever is smaller. So
[1:34:43] yeah, if you have a 4,000 foot home, you
[1:34:46] can build a 309
[1:34:48] 3,990
[1:34:50] ft
[1:34:51] » Three. You know what I'm saying? Sorry,
[1:34:53] it's too late for these meetings.
[1:34:54] Anyway, just be just smaller.
[1:35:00] » Okay. Any any thought then on the
[1:35:03] how uh
[1:35:06] 264A
[1:35:08] is
[1:35:10] is
[1:35:13] that really meant for interior is it or
[1:35:15] meant for all ADUs whereas language some
[1:35:18] seems like it was only interior then the
[1:35:20] next one is detached.
[1:35:21] » It's all ADUs have the first regulations
[1:35:24] and then there's further regulations in
[1:35:26] addition for detach ADUs.
[1:35:36] So all ADUs need to meet the standards
[1:35:39] of residential homes, comply with the
[1:35:42] setbacks and be designed to preserve the
[1:35:45] appearance of the property. And then the
[1:35:48] um because and so that applies to
[1:35:50] internal and detached. And then detached
[1:35:54] has further design, height, attic, has
[1:35:57] more limitations than the internal, but
[1:36:00] it still has to meet the standards and
[1:36:03] comply with the setbacks of the zone um
[1:36:06] except for the um exception allowed in
[1:36:11] the detached ADU portion.
[1:36:14] So when it says uh one existing
[1:36:18] standards for residential homes and then
[1:36:21] two set requirements for the zone,
[1:36:24] what's the first one alluding to the
[1:36:27] standards for residential homes?
[1:36:28] » That'd be more like the building code
[1:36:30] requirements, your your electrical, your
[1:36:33] like health and safety um would fall
[1:36:35] into that.
[1:36:37] So would it be better say meeting
[1:36:39] existing building code requirements for
[1:36:40] residential homes rather than standards
[1:36:45] because I would look at standards as
[1:36:46] being the same thing as step acts and
[1:36:48] high other
[1:36:50] » Um I guess it just depends on what you'd
[1:36:52] like for specificity. I you know I
[1:36:54] thought about building code standards
[1:36:55] but I wasn't certain if maybe there's
[1:36:58] other residential standards that I
[1:37:00] missed and so I thought the two would
[1:37:03] help be specific. one is if you're
[1:37:05] building this, you're building it like
[1:37:07] you would a residential, a single family
[1:37:09] detached home as far as this the
[1:37:11] standards go. And then the setback I
[1:37:14] wanted to be specific about because I
[1:37:16] think that's where there's some false
[1:37:18] confusion, but if if you'd like to
[1:37:19] clarify a different way that how
[1:37:21] whatever the council feels.
[1:37:23] » So So what setback are you referring to?
[1:37:25] Are you referring to
[1:37:26] » The single family
[1:37:27] » Main dwelling setback or accessory
[1:37:29] building setback?
[1:37:30] » The main dwelling set setback.
[1:37:33] So maybe it'd be clear clear to say
[1:37:35] that's what setback you're talking
[1:37:37] about.
[1:37:37] » I think that would be good.
[1:37:38] » There's two different setbacks.
[1:37:40] So I just don't know which setback
[1:37:42] you're referring to.
[1:37:44] » So I have a question here. We're doing a
[1:37:47] one-on-one oneonone. We have everybody
[1:37:49] else sitting here listening to oneon
[1:37:51] one.
[1:37:51] » Okay. I'm wondering if this is something
[1:37:53] that we ought to table and come back to
[1:37:56] when we've got it clarified rather than
[1:37:58] spend on the rest of the city council's
[1:38:00] time here because I think there's a lot
[1:38:02] of great questions that need to be
[1:38:03] asked. I'm just looking at
[1:38:06] what do you think?
[1:38:08] » What's we need this by October 1st.
[1:38:11] » You have to have it adopted by October.
[1:38:14] » Okay.
[1:38:18] » I don't know. Do we have to have it
[1:38:20] adopted by October 1st?
[1:38:22] » Yes.
[1:38:23] » To comply with state law.
[1:38:24] » What are they going to do if we don't?
[1:38:27] » Fire.
[1:38:29] » Can we
[1:38:30] could amend it potentially if
[1:38:35] » Answered?
[1:38:37] The one the one risk of not doing it is
[1:38:39] if you had a super intelligent person
[1:38:42] like council member Montgomery, you
[1:38:44] could essentially come in to make
[1:38:45] application and not have controlling
[1:38:48] ordinance.
[1:38:49] » Yeah.
[1:38:51] » So councilman Montgomery could build
[1:38:53] whatever kind of a we wanted. We would
[1:38:55] have no recourse if we don't have a
[1:38:57] statute that complies the state law.
[1:39:02] Maybe I shouldn't have said that on the
[1:39:03] record, but too late.
[1:39:06] Oh, that's true. That's true.
[1:39:08] » I know. I have one question regarding
[1:39:10] interior ADUs.
[1:39:13] » So, entrance into an interior ADU, can
[1:39:17] they share the same door?
[1:39:21] » I believe so. I don't think they can
[1:39:22] make
[1:39:23] » No, they could.
[1:39:25] » That's allowed.
[1:39:26] » Okay. So, they don't have to have their
[1:39:29] » Own entrance
[1:39:31] entrance or exit. If I remember right,
[1:39:33] we can't The code was clear that we
[1:39:36] couldn't specify that.
[1:39:37] » Okay, you're right.
[1:39:39] » Yeah, that's that's not something we
[1:39:42] could specify,
[1:39:44] » Greg. How many of these you you have you
[1:39:48] made it to E?
[1:39:52] I believe
[1:39:53] » I guess maybe the one other question
[1:39:54] I'll ask and then we you can decide what
[1:39:56] you want to do with it.
[1:39:58] How do we
[1:40:01] on the detached loan units where we
[1:40:03] allow a barn, a man cave, anything else?
[1:40:08] Um, you know, that could be two stories,
[1:40:11] 25 ft tall, could be by building 3 ft
[1:40:15] from property. Zoning says 1 ft.
[1:40:19] So, they can have a 25 ft tall building,
[1:40:22] can have windows in it, and then
[1:40:26] convert. Now you can't convert them now
[1:40:28] because you need to meet the residential
[1:40:31] main dwelling setback.
[1:40:35] What is the difference? What is the
[1:40:38] adverse impact of one versus the other?
[1:40:41] One is I have all my teenagers in a
[1:40:43] party up on the second floor looking
[1:40:45] down on your the neighbor next to you or
[1:40:48] one I have family calling in there. What
[1:40:52] are the differences and impacts?
[1:40:55] So, we discussed this in the premeating.
[1:40:57] The the difference is someone living in
[1:41:01] a space. Uh when we looked at um what
[1:41:04] was happening statewide with these
[1:41:06] detached ADUs, the biggest complaint was
[1:41:09] privacy. And so by having an accessory
[1:41:13] dwelling structure, even if you have a
[1:41:14] rep room in it, you're not going to have
[1:41:16] someone in that building 24/7.
[1:41:19] And so that would be the difference
[1:41:21] between your accessory structure and a
[1:41:23] dwelling structure. So we really wanted
[1:41:25] to where if you're going to be right
[1:41:26] next to someone's house, you're
[1:41:28] essentially building a house right on
[1:41:30] their property line. We wanted to make
[1:41:32] it so that it wouldn't intrude any more
[1:41:35] than an accessory
[1:41:37] um building which does not have an
[1:41:39] occupant 247 and the noise etc.
[1:41:44] Then how would that differ from
[1:41:47] city approvals of main dwelling units
[1:41:50] being 10 or 20 ft in our present
[1:41:53] ordinances from the property line
[1:41:56] » As long as it's in the setback?
[1:41:57] » Well, no, it's not. If the residential
[1:42:00] dwelling says it's a 30ft step back.
[1:42:02] » Mhm.
[1:42:03] » But some of the new ordinances we've
[1:42:04] done and some of the approvals we've
[1:42:06] done in the city says you can have your
[1:42:07] rear sat back 10 ft from property line.
[1:42:10] So why would that be any different? We
[1:42:13] don't have any 10 ft from property line.
[1:42:15] I think 20 the closest. Which one?
[1:42:17] » It's right next to us.
[1:42:20] » Is this Are you talking about single
[1:42:21] family detached property?
[1:42:22] » Yeah.
[1:42:23] » Which one is it?
[1:42:26] » Call.
[1:42:26] » Oh, it's in a zone.
[1:42:29] » It's in a special project. So, none of
[1:42:31] these would be
[1:42:32] » Well, but isn't the principal same if
[1:42:34] it's a 10 foot setback? Is it privacy
[1:42:36] privacy?
[1:42:40] I think the main difference is if
[1:42:41] somebody's building an accessory
[1:42:43] dwelling unit, they're allowed to go
[1:42:44] within one foot of the property line. I
[1:42:46] think there's no argument 1 foot of the
[1:42:48] property line is much closer than 10 ft
[1:42:51] for privacy, especially if you have a
[1:42:52] twostory accessory dwelling unit that's
[1:42:55] converted, an accessory building that's
[1:42:58] then converted to a dwelling unit, then
[1:43:00] you're one foot from the property line
[1:43:01] from a twotory window. to to Sarah's
[1:43:05] earlier point, I think that's a a little
[1:43:07] bit different. Even 10 ft would give uh
[1:43:10] less of a view into your neighbor's
[1:43:12] backyard. So, that would be something
[1:43:14] that people would want to consider when
[1:43:16] they're building an accessory building
[1:43:18] if they have any intention of building
[1:43:21] it into a external ADU. You might want
[1:43:24] to consider that.
[1:43:26] » Well, if you really couldn't, then if
[1:43:27] it's uh
[1:43:28] » Or you'd have to close up the windows,
[1:43:30] right? You'd have to modify the
[1:43:32] structure. I'm I'm thinking poleb barns
[1:43:34] aren't going to qualify as external
[1:43:36] dwelling units anyway. They don't make
[1:43:39] building code to have habitation in
[1:43:41] them. So there going to be some
[1:43:43] limitations on people converting those
[1:43:46] accessory buildings into living spaces.
[1:43:49] And so the setback
[1:43:52] currently for a metal building is street
[1:43:55] but for an asphalt is 1 foot. It's storm
[1:43:57] water related. Right. But then so any
[1:44:01] dwelling unit then we're saying a 30ft
[1:44:03] setback
[1:44:05] is what we feel is appropriate for a
[1:44:07] rear guard protection.
[1:44:10] » Yeah, I hear what Yes, I understand what
[1:44:12] you're saying.
[1:44:13] » So that means really most people
[1:44:14] wouldn't be able to do a detection.
[1:44:18] » They would they would just have to limit
[1:44:21] the windows which is most homes only
[1:44:23] have windows on three sides because the
[1:44:24] garage is on the other side. So, we're
[1:44:26] saying don't put the garage windows on
[1:44:28] the back and um don't do stories that
[1:44:32] look that are a certain height looking
[1:44:34] over into the neighbor's yard.
[1:44:35] » So, no bedrooms or anything like that.
[1:44:37] » Okay.
[1:44:39] » They can have windows. They just have to
[1:44:41] face the front of the property instead
[1:44:42] of the back. So, it's possible. It just
[1:44:44] would require special design.
[1:44:46] » That's the side also.
[1:44:49] » If it's but next to a encroaching on a
[1:44:51] sideyard set back. Yes.
[1:44:55] So it' be whatever that zone is 10.
[1:44:58] » Yeah.
[1:44:59] » 14.
[1:45:00] » Exactly.
[1:45:06] » All right. Any other discussion that any
[1:45:10] other council members would like?
[1:45:13] If not, any action?
[1:45:24] So I think some of the discussion since
[1:45:28] we didn't have this discussion while the
[1:45:29] question was going back and forth I
[1:45:32] think that the certificate idea is
[1:45:34] actually a very positive thing that I
[1:45:36] think should be included on how others
[1:45:39] feel
[1:45:40] but
[1:45:41] » My concern with that is that if it gets
[1:45:43] mishandled by one owner and then there's
[1:45:47] a next owner are they having to deal
[1:45:49] with the headache that the previous
[1:45:51] owner didn't handle correctly.
[1:45:55] If it's existing,
[1:45:57] there's not a certificate or there's
[1:45:59] some weird situation. It got demolished
[1:46:01] and rebuilt without the certificate
[1:46:03] being updated. Then does that become a
[1:46:05] future homeowner's problem?
[1:46:09] » Generally, what I've seen happen at a
[1:46:11] demolition there'll be a new loan and so
[1:46:14] that
[1:46:15] » Not necessarily
[1:46:17] loan.
[1:46:17] » Okay.
[1:46:21] I mean, most likely, I guess, but
[1:46:25] » I think you also need to consider I I I
[1:46:28] feel like sometimes we get caught up in
[1:46:30] the whatifs, and I understand those
[1:46:32] important, but as a city council, we
[1:46:36] can't regulate every little thing. We
[1:46:39] have to set a set of ordinances.
[1:46:42] I'm not knocking the question at all. as
[1:46:45] I look at the overall thing and what I
[1:46:47] have questions we can't control.
[1:46:50] » So the benefit to having a certificate
[1:46:52] is
[1:46:54] and correct me if I'm mistaken as you
[1:46:57] see it. The benefit is that we don't
[1:46:59] have someone demolishing and rebuilding
[1:47:02] without paying
[1:47:06] and we think that it's likely that that
[1:47:08] could happen if we don't require a
[1:47:10] certificate that they'll bypass the
[1:47:12] building permit process. Well, it also
[1:47:15] will put a person, a new buyer on on
[1:47:17] notice that this is an accessory unit. I
[1:47:20] can't buy this property as a rental
[1:47:22] property, rent out two units.
[1:47:25] So, it also puts them on notice matches
[1:47:27] in the home and say, "Oh, there's two
[1:47:28] units here."
[1:47:30] » But it's condition on someone who lives
[1:47:33] permanently,
[1:47:35] the owner.
[1:47:36] » So, we're making it easier on them. They
[1:47:38] don't need to do their research to find
[1:47:40] out what the city ordinance says. I
[1:47:43] think it helps
[1:47:44] » People who do research that tell folks
[1:47:46] to buy it sign
[1:47:49] » Right
[1:47:49] » I also think it helps too on the the
[1:47:52] other side that you can it can be sold
[1:47:57] in that way which adds benefit to the
[1:48:00] person who's purchasing. So it it has
[1:48:03] benefits both ways,
[1:48:06] you know, not just protecting the
[1:48:09] the city, but it also helps, you know,
[1:48:12] because just because somebody converted
[1:48:14] an area of their home where somebody
[1:48:15] could dwell doesn't mean that it
[1:48:18] actually qualifies or is
[1:48:21] set aside to be an accessory dwelling
[1:48:24] unit, a home or even externally, you
[1:48:28] know. So, I think it it actually helped
[1:48:31] the pro the homeowner, too.
[1:48:37] » I mean, I like the idea. I don't know
[1:48:40] exactly where it'll go, but I think it's
[1:48:42] it's a good it's a good thing. Helps I
[1:48:47] can see where it can help both the
[1:48:48] homeowner and it can also help the uh it
[1:48:52] can help the potential buyer. But the
[1:48:54] legal standpoint is it's documented
[1:48:58] We know it was being followed up. We
[1:49:00] didn't know it. Here it is. It's in a
[1:49:02] legal document. This is a way for the
[1:49:04] city at least to come back and say, "Oh,
[1:49:06] it's registered."
[1:49:09] » Well, we would still have a record of
[1:49:10] them.
[1:49:11] » Yeah. without
[1:49:16] » And I lean toward favoring
[1:49:19] residents, homeowners
[1:49:22] over potential homeowners as far as if
[1:49:26] there's going to be a headache.
[1:49:36] I guess one of the item I'll just bring
[1:49:38] up and that was the elimination
[1:49:41] of the special provision to allow single
[1:49:44] family homes to expand
[1:49:46] to uh 15
[1:49:49] yard rather than their 30. And uh you
[1:49:53] know it's not in the ADU part. It's in
[1:49:55] another section. The intent of that was
[1:49:58] really to allow people to stay in their
[1:50:00] home as their family grows and not have
[1:50:03] to sell and move somewhere else and
[1:50:05] encourage people to stay here
[1:50:07] and this proposed ordinance that'll be
[1:50:09] eliminated. And I don't know how many
[1:50:12] took advantage of that provision while
[1:50:13] it's been there what we treated now as
[1:50:16] non-conforming. I thought okay I'm going
[1:50:17] to counsel that can't any track at all.
[1:50:20] » I do not know. It is a very strange part
[1:50:23] of the code to say when you first built
[1:50:25] your home, here are your setbacks. But
[1:50:27] if you put an addition on your home, you
[1:50:28] have different setbacks. So in reading
[1:50:31] the code, especially when we're drilling
[1:50:32] with internal accessory dwelling units,
[1:50:35] we thought that that was an earmark that
[1:50:37] was best left out that the setbacks are
[1:50:39] the setbacks, whether it's new
[1:50:41] construction or a remodel. So that was
[1:50:44] the intent of eliminating that portion
[1:50:47] of the code. I assume someone came in
[1:50:50] who wanted to put an addition closer to
[1:50:53] their step, you know, to encroach on
[1:50:54] their setback and petitioned to have it
[1:50:57] changed and then it was. We do we don't
[1:51:00] have a record of when that happened or
[1:51:02] why it happened.
[1:51:03] » But that was the intent is to allow
[1:51:04] someone to stay in the home and expand
[1:51:05] it so they don't have to sell the home
[1:51:07] and move somewhere else in the room.
[1:51:09] » Well, you can see it that way, but I
[1:51:10] just didn't see
[1:51:11] » Well, that is the way it was. I was
[1:51:12] involved in it.
[1:51:13] » Oh, okay. Well, to me it just seems
[1:51:16] strange that someone builds a new home
[1:51:18] and they can't build that addition when
[1:51:20] they first build it, but they can if
[1:51:22] they wait 5 years and then do it as an
[1:51:24] addition. It just seems inconsistent.
[1:51:26] So, that was a concern.
[1:51:27] » Yeah. So, what you're saying is that
[1:51:30] » No, I'm saying I I don't I'll just bring
[1:51:32] that up as a policy.
[1:51:33] » Do you want to keep it in or do you want
[1:51:35] to take it out?
[1:51:36] » Well, I don't know how many homes took
[1:51:37] advantage of it. How many um would be
[1:51:41] pretty non-performing? Does that have
[1:51:43] does that have to do with this?
[1:51:46] » Doesn't have to do with ADU, but it's in
[1:51:48] the text
[1:51:50] » And and we can separate the or you can
[1:51:53] pass the ADU portion of this and then
[1:51:55] wait to do the text amendment changes um
[1:51:57] at a later time. They're a little bit
[1:51:59] combined, but not so involved that it
[1:52:02] would be a problem.
[1:52:12] And and to that point, we could when we
[1:52:14] did the text amendment changes, make any
[1:52:15] sort of text amendment changes we wanted
[1:52:17] to to the AD ordinance at that point if
[1:52:20] we wanted to go through it again and
[1:52:21] then make the amendments at that point.
[1:52:23] if we uh we make that a part of the
[1:52:25] proposition that we schedule that cuz I
[1:52:28] I think if we just say we're going to
[1:52:31] pass it get often times things get
[1:52:34] passed and then it never gets revisited
[1:52:36] and if it's not on an agenda it's not
[1:52:38] going to get talked about again. Yeah,
[1:52:40] you could you could say table it to a
[1:52:42] certain date and say table it until the
[1:52:44] October.
[1:52:45] » I think it would be that we adopt it in
[1:52:46] its current form with the intention of
[1:52:51] » To amend things in a future it's
[1:52:54] scheduled so it's not oh we'll get to it
[1:52:57] somewhere which is almost never. So you
[1:52:59] could pass a portion and table a portion
[1:53:02] and then in your and you can say however
[1:53:04] you want to say it, but you could give a
[1:53:06] specific date that you want to address
[1:53:08] it at in your motion.
[1:53:12] » Want to take a stand?
[1:53:17] » I'm not clear that setting a date
[1:53:19] necessarily solves the problem.
[1:53:22] I think we need to just pass it as we
[1:53:25] think is best today and then as council
[1:53:29] members have questions they're welcome
[1:53:30] to ask.
[1:53:32] » I'm talking about address the other
[1:53:35] revisions that are still up in the air
[1:53:37] that we haven't flushed through yet. So
[1:53:39] it's having another
[1:53:42] » Work session so to speak and we
[1:53:44] certainly can do that
[1:53:44] » And that's what I mean by schedule. It's
[1:53:46] not.
[1:53:47] » So, are we saying that the passage of
[1:53:48] this depends upon having that and if we
[1:53:50] don't have that date?
[1:53:52] » My fear is if we don't and I'm sorry, I
[1:53:54] didn't mean to, but if if we don't
[1:53:56] schedule it, it's just going to sit in
[1:53:58] its current.
[1:53:59] » I understand the fear, but what I'm
[1:54:00] wondering is does it become obsolete
[1:54:02] then? If we miss that deadline and we
[1:54:04] don't do anything, we don't.
[1:54:06] » No, we would have it scheduled and so
[1:54:07] we'd be addressing.
[1:54:09] » So, it's not necessarily part of the
[1:54:10] passage of this that date.
[1:54:13] » No, it would be that it's passed. It's
[1:54:15] just that we make clear that we're going
[1:54:17] to
[1:54:18] circle back to those concerns and not
[1:54:20] just have it sitting out there
[1:54:23] with the changes that all the stuff Greg
[1:54:26] talked about. You took all the notes on
[1:54:29] those different things that they talked
[1:54:30] about. Right. Mhm.
[1:54:33] » I say we make a motion to adopt
[1:54:36] ordinance 5698 with parking amendments
[1:54:40] according to the notes taken as well as
[1:54:44] add the certificate that Craig has
[1:54:47] talked about to this. I don't know if I
[1:54:51] said everything right, but that's what I
[1:54:52] think.
[1:54:53] » Okay. So, we have a motion. Do we have a
[1:54:55] second?
[1:54:56] » Um, we need to clarify. So the ordinance
[1:55:00] includes the um
[1:55:03] the let's see how we the changes to the
[1:55:07] code and to the ADU ordinance uh
[1:55:10] section. So what there are too many
[1:55:14] papers here you guys.
[1:55:14] » That's what I ask about.
[1:55:17] » I tried to make it easy.
[1:55:18] » I know. I know. Okay. So the ordinance
[1:55:20] is 569
[1:55:23] um which is accessory dwelling unit
[1:55:25] standards and other revisions. So, you
[1:55:27] could pass um the accessory dwelling
[1:55:30] unit standards and not pass the other
[1:55:35] visions. Make that your motion. And you
[1:55:37] could say accessory dwelling unit
[1:55:39] standards including
[1:55:41] um
[1:55:44] notes discussed if everyone's okay with
[1:55:46] the the my like the formatting and
[1:55:49] naming changes that was that we did
[1:55:51] discuss. So you could say including the
[1:55:54] discussed um changes for ADU ordinance.
[1:55:58] Do you think that would be clear enough?
[1:56:01] » What would we be eliminating if we don't
[1:56:03] have the if we only do the ADU sections
[1:56:06] and not the
[1:56:08] » We wouldn't be addressing the the
[1:56:10] building standards and parking quite
[1:56:11] yet.
[1:56:12] » The parking would not be part of it. it
[1:56:14] the ADU parking would be included but it
[1:56:16] would be referring to the old parking
[1:56:18] standards which are still adequate in
[1:56:21] the meantime and we would not be state
[1:56:23] compliant but this one doesn't have a
[1:56:25] deadline so we could table the um other
[1:56:29] revisions to the October meeting
[1:56:33] » What part would we not be compliant on
[1:56:36] at the state
[1:56:36] » Just the the other revisions but we have
[1:56:39] been compliant for years so it a couple
[1:56:41] months will be fine we just recognize it
[1:56:44] as we were doing this
[1:56:46] » And our concerns about including the
[1:56:49] other revisions are do we have specific
[1:56:51] ones?
[1:56:52] » Well, I don't know if we have had I mean
[1:56:54] we could take a lot of time to go item
[1:56:57] by item. Like for example,
[1:57:00] I do like his comment about letter E
[1:57:03] about using the word consistent instead
[1:57:05] of compliment. We could have lots of
[1:57:07] discussions about each one of these and
[1:57:09] so it's passing it but then coming back
[1:57:13] because I think we've spent a lot of
[1:57:15] time just trying to understand all of
[1:57:17] what's going into it and address
[1:57:21] it would take another hour and probably
[1:57:23] nail down things within uh Okay, so we
[1:57:27] have a we have one motion that's been up
[1:57:29] here. Um we want to
[1:57:34] we're not going to do a second motion
[1:57:36] and that one just fails since we'll have
[1:57:38] to start over.
[1:57:38] » I will second it. Okay. So, we have a
[1:57:41] motion and a second,
[1:57:42] » But I think we we're talking about that
[1:57:44] need to change because that motion would
[1:57:46] not accomplish what needs to happen.
[1:57:49] » So, we need a classification what we're
[1:57:51] trying to
[1:57:53] » Pass as far as
[1:57:54] » So, you could pass the entire ordinance
[1:57:57] and then come back to make revisions on
[1:58:01] the parts that you're concerned about,
[1:58:04] even the ordinance as a whole. If you
[1:58:06] decide we pass the whole thing, but
[1:58:09] maybe we want to bring something back
[1:58:10] from this other section, that is another
[1:58:14] option. And then it makes it more clear.
[1:58:16] We pass the ordinance with the discussed
[1:58:18] revisions from um Council Member
[1:58:21] Montgomery and then
[1:58:24] we could put it on the agenda. I will
[1:58:26] make sure it's on the agenda um in
[1:58:28] October.
[1:58:29] » Okay.
[1:58:30] » So, you want to restate your move.
[1:58:33] » Brody, what do we need to do legally?
[1:58:35] Yeah. So, legally there's been a motion
[1:58:37] in the second. So, you have to have a
[1:58:38] vote.
[1:58:40] » Okay. So, I'll do roll call,
[1:58:43] » But
[1:58:44] for clarification and for the record,
[1:58:46] the motion most needs to be restated.
[1:58:49] However, because of the second, you have
[1:58:51] to vote.
[1:58:52] » Okay. Thank you. Okay. So, I have a
[1:58:54] motion and a second. This a roll call
[1:58:57] vote.
[1:58:58] » Council member Hadley.
[1:59:01] I'm going to say no.
[1:59:02] » Council member recovery. No.
[1:59:05] » Council member Christensen.
[1:59:07] » No.
[1:59:08] » Council member Prawl.
[1:59:09] » Yes.
[1:59:10] » Council member Willson.
[1:59:12] » No.
[1:59:13] » Okay. So, that fails.
[1:59:15] » So, now we're back to coming up with
[1:59:17] another motion.
[1:59:19] » Okay. So, clarification in the motion
[1:59:22] » Is that we are adopting ordinance 569
[1:59:27] ADU and the parking
[1:59:30] » And it current form
[1:59:31] » In its current form.
[1:59:35] It's
[1:59:35] » With plans to revise it.
[1:59:40] » I don't know if we'd say with plans to
[1:59:42] revise it. I think it would
[1:59:43] » Yeah, you can't make a motion to
[1:59:45] guarantee council for the future.
[1:59:47] » Okay, that's fine. That's that's why I'm
[1:59:49] asking the question.
[1:59:51] » I would say in other revisions because
[1:59:52] the other revisions include more than
[1:59:55] the parking. So,
[1:59:57] » So we're basically saying we need to
[1:59:59] adopt ordinance 569 ADU and parking
[2:00:03] amendments.
[2:00:04] » Is that how it's written on
[2:00:06] » One of the things that is why it's okay?
[2:00:09] Mine it says something different. Okay,
[2:00:12] » I'm just reading what's
[2:00:13] » Now. I know why everyone's talking about
[2:00:14] parking.
[2:00:16] » I would say um and other land use
[2:00:20] amendments instead of just parking. I
[2:00:22] didn't expand that. I'm so sorry.
[2:00:26] and other land use amendments.
[2:00:30] » So from your perspective, the other land
[2:00:33] use amendments are basically made in
[2:00:36] order to make sure that as we refer back
[2:00:38] to them in the ADU language. We're
[2:00:41] referring back to something that makes
[2:00:43] sense. It's not changing previously
[2:00:47] created ordinance. It's just updating
[2:00:50] the language so that referrals back to
[2:00:52] it. There there are some changes
[2:00:54] » Some substantive changes to it. Um like
[2:00:57] the the setback section and the the
[2:01:00] parking elements they they are complying
[2:01:03] some of them are comply with state code
[2:01:04] some are for clarification some are for
[2:01:06] consistency. So there are a variety of
[2:01:08] things. So I'm trying to think how it
[2:01:10] was noticed. I think it was land use
[2:01:13] amendments. I don't think it said
[2:01:14] parking amendments in the in the notice
[2:01:17] online. Did it say
[2:01:20] » Struggling to remember cuz it was like 6
[2:01:21] months ago.
[2:01:22] » I know. I know. And so we we can say um
[2:01:26] what what do you think?
[2:01:29] » Give me a second here. Sorry.
[2:01:32] Does say
[2:01:35] » In the the public hearing we had six
[2:01:38] months ago?
[2:01:41] » The ordinance I have has a different
[2:01:42] title. Does someone else we have a
[2:01:44] different ordinance?
[2:01:46] Well, I had given that to Jack to change
[2:01:48] it because the title was different about
[2:01:51] general plan versus land use. And then
[2:01:54] also there wasn't the the date of the
[2:01:56] plan commission hearing was not the
[2:01:57] actual date. So Jack made those changes
[2:02:00] to the tooth
[2:02:03] ordinance.
[2:02:04] » Okay.
[2:02:04] » Yeah.
[2:02:08] So, I think as it's noticed and as it's
[2:02:10] written, as I see it, you can pass the
[2:02:13] whole thing and then come back and amend
[2:02:15] or change it however you want.
[2:02:18] You could pass the ADU portion of it.
[2:02:21] You could pass the parking
[2:02:24] portion of it.
[2:02:27] I think you can separate them in
[2:02:28] basically those three way. All of it,
[2:02:30] just the ADU or the or just the parking.
[2:02:34] But the parking was noticed as more than
[2:02:36] parking and so it in saying parking it
[2:02:38] does include all of the remittance.
[2:02:40] Thank you.
[2:02:41] » But for the motion I think that's how
[2:02:43] you operate your motion is with those
[2:02:45] three options.
[2:02:48] » So if we don't pass the parking
[2:02:51] which includes previous or revisions
[2:02:54] previous ordinances as well as the ADU
[2:02:56] section.
[2:02:57] » So if we don't pass that part, we don't
[2:02:59] have parking provisions for the ADU
[2:03:01] section.
[2:03:01] » We do it. It refers to the old code.
[2:03:04] We've made minor revisions there, so it
[2:03:06] would not be detrimental.
[2:03:08] » So the ADU section, if we separate that
[2:03:10] out, does include parking regulations
[2:03:12] for the ADUs?
[2:03:13] » For the ADUs, and it refers to the
[2:03:15] existing code that still has enough
[2:03:17] information to regulate parking.
[2:03:19] » This is the
[2:03:20] chapter 11. Does that have to be
[2:03:22] included in this?
[2:03:24] » Title 11.
[2:03:26] Well, this is city code chapter 11,
[2:03:28] title 9, chapter 11, title 20,
[2:03:31] servability and providing an effective
[2:03:34] date.
[2:03:35] That's underneath an ordinance.
[2:03:39] » That's on the warehouse.
[2:03:40] » That's the warehouse.
[2:03:42] » That's the we packet.
[2:03:45] » That's in the back end.
[2:03:46] » Yes.
[2:03:46] » Or do we just go with what's here on the
[2:03:48] city council agenda?
[2:03:51] » I would go with what Brody told you.
[2:03:54] » Got it. Okay.
[2:03:56] We have a substantial record of what
[2:03:58] we're talking about.
[2:03:58] » Yes, I think we do. I'd like to make a
[2:04:01] proposal that we
[2:04:04] that we adopt ordinance 569,
[2:04:08] the land use amendments.
[2:04:12] Period.
[2:04:19] So, as a point of order clarification,
[2:04:21] that's to adopt everything that's
[2:04:23] proposed. That's correct.
[2:04:25] » Okay, I'll second it. Have a
[2:04:28] » Motion and a second. Question.
[2:04:32] » Could a substitute motion be made at
[2:04:34] this point?
[2:04:37] » You can amend the motion.
[2:04:39] » Or is it just amend the motion?
[2:04:42] » You can make a second motion.
[2:04:47] » Do I have to post since I have no motion
[2:04:49] in the second?
[2:04:49] » No, he's he's asking the question the
[2:04:51] right timing.
[2:04:52] » Yeah.
[2:04:54] So, there's been a motion and a second.
[2:04:55] You can
[2:04:56] » So, I'd like to make a substitute
[2:04:57] motion. Okay.
[2:04:59] » What I'd like to do is recommend
[2:05:02] approval of revisions to the uh land use
[2:05:05] code regarding accessory dwelling units.
[2:05:10] uh to both this the chapters that deal
[2:05:12] with the definition, the chapters that
[2:05:14] deal with the land use and the special
[2:05:17] regulation that is um found in in
[2:05:22] 1120260
[2:05:25] and I make that motion with revisions
[2:05:29] the following the land use of accessory
[2:05:32] dwelling unit be placed as a land use in
[2:05:35] that provision. The definition of
[2:05:38] accessory use internal, external, and
[2:05:42] distance accessory use be placed in the
[2:05:45] definition section.
[2:05:47] That the revised language be made on the
[2:05:49] definition to be more consistent with
[2:05:52] state laws discussed.
[2:05:55] Um and that
[2:06:02] and that we also add to the standards in
[2:06:06] uh 1120260
[2:06:10] of the city providing a record a
[2:06:13] certificate of the county when an ADU is
[2:06:15] approved
[2:06:19] and uh
[2:06:21] believe that is the motion.
[2:06:24] » Okay. So we have
[2:06:25] » Can I ask a question on the question?
[2:06:28] » Could we not cover this as that was
[2:06:31] already discussed after the fact?
[2:06:35] » Why does it have to be added in now? I
[2:06:37] mean, I'm asking why do you want it now
[2:06:40] versus something we discussed later
[2:06:43] » And added in then? Because we've talked
[2:06:45] about this already.
[2:06:46] I think the reason why I'm I'm making
[2:06:49] that motion, well, I know the reason why
[2:06:50] I'm making that motion is we clarify
[2:06:53] that those or the revisions are made
[2:06:55] that we've discussed and we've all felt
[2:06:57] comfortable with. The others we have not
[2:07:00] really figured where we are, but that
[2:07:02] can be done later on
[2:07:06] and especially the ones that aren't
[2:07:07] specific to the ADU because of the time
[2:07:10] deadline we have. At least we have
[2:07:12] something we know it's clear. We know
[2:07:15] where it will go. We don't have to go
[2:07:16] back again and revise those areas a
[2:07:20] second time. We have it set up to begin
[2:07:22] with the first one.
[2:07:23] » Okay. If we go with this, Jack, can you
[2:07:25] clarify it all on paper?
[2:07:28] » I will listen to the recording.
[2:07:30] » Okay.
[2:07:30] » There's nothing to stop us from making
[2:07:32] whatever amendment you propose and
[2:07:34] whatever discuss discussion you would
[2:07:35] like to have in the future if we pass it
[2:07:37] in full tonight. And if we pass it in
[2:07:39] full tonight, we'll be in full
[2:07:40] compliance with the state and we'll have
[2:07:42] something to go based on until we get to
[2:07:45] those discussions.
[2:07:47] So that's how I see that as a win-win.
[2:07:49] And then our the onus is on us to take
[2:07:51] our time to do this kind of research to
[2:07:54] ask our questions in a timely manner
[2:07:57] instead of putting it off and not having
[2:07:59] something in writing for the city.
[2:08:01] » So are you saying that you're in favor
[2:08:03] of this? I'm in favor of
[2:08:05] » So I that call for the substantive
[2:08:08] motion. What I haven't got a second.
[2:08:11] » Yeah.
[2:08:13] » So we have the
[2:08:15] original.
[2:08:19] » So I'm really confused as to what I'm
[2:08:22] going
[2:08:24] » Well, there if there's no second to the
[2:08:26] subst.
[2:08:29] » So Mr. Montgomery's motion has failed
[2:08:31] for lack of a second. You have a valid
[2:08:33] motion that's Grover that's been
[2:08:35] seconded. So you need a roll call motion
[2:08:37] on the original motion.
[2:08:39] » I have a motion and I have a second with
[2:08:41] Grover. Okay. So now we're going to do a
[2:08:44] roll call.
[2:08:47] And since I can't use the same list,
[2:08:55] » I don't know where.
[2:08:57] » Oh, here it is.
[2:09:02] Councilman Christensen,
[2:09:04] » Yes.
[2:09:06] » Council member
[2:09:08] Willson,
[2:09:09] » Yes.
[2:09:10] » Council member Hadley,
[2:09:11] » Yes. Council member Montgomery, no.
[2:09:15] Council member Crawl,
[2:09:16] » Yes.
[2:09:17] » Okay. Passes for
[2:09:24] » Okay.
[2:09:27] Our next item on the agenda is the
[2:09:30] rightway width for West Harris for road
[2:09:32] discussion. Um
[2:09:37] » Greg, I I mean I could preface it if you
[2:09:39] want to preface it
[2:09:41] » More then that's great. I'll go ahead
[2:09:43] and let
[2:09:43] » Yeah. Well,
[2:09:44] » You want me to you go ahead and start.
[2:09:46] So I one of the reasons why this has
[2:09:48] come up and I know there's a lot of
[2:09:49] interest in the party today or that's in
[2:09:52] the group is that we've had discussions
[2:09:56] as city council and as the mayor
[2:10:00] regarding the width of that road and the
[2:10:02] determination of whether it's 99 ft
[2:10:04] because there's all this not so sure
[2:10:07] clarity. And so we were wanting to have
[2:10:09] a discussion to discuss what the the
[2:10:13] issues may be because our design the
[2:10:16] design standards that we're currently
[2:10:18] set up right now is only at an 80 foot
[2:10:20] ride. It's not incorporating the 99 ft
[2:10:24] that some parcels might say. We've
[2:10:27] invited Cody to come as well so that we
[2:10:29] could help have this discussion. Um and
[2:10:32] so hopefully I've prefaced it good
[2:10:36] enough. Greg, that's a you can take
[2:10:38] over. That's a good preface.
[2:10:39] » Okay. Appreciate that. So, my concern
[2:10:42] has been as of even January when I first
[2:10:46] came into the the council office was
[2:10:49] that I I think we've got some um
[2:10:53] miscommunications and some items taking
[2:10:57] place that have created a lot of
[2:10:59] confusion. And I think we don't even
[2:11:01] have the accurate documentation to say
[2:11:04] which is which.
[2:11:07] State law, however, allows that the city
[2:11:10] council
[2:11:11] can consider
[2:11:13] uh doing a a partial street vacation
[2:11:18] under certain provisions. And that be
[2:11:20] that uh we provide the names and
[2:11:24] addresses of everyone who lives along
[2:11:25] the street and those who are within 300
[2:11:28] ft that may have access to that street.
[2:11:31] uh we give notice of all the utilities
[2:11:33] that are in that in that right of way.
[2:11:37] We hold a public hearing and then we
[2:11:38] determine the appropriate us that is
[2:11:41] there good cause and a public interest
[2:11:43] for making a revision to the right ofway
[2:11:47] with of the street. If we decide to do
[2:11:51] that, then an ordinance will be recorded
[2:11:54] with legal description
[2:11:56] and in this whole process. It does not
[2:11:59] affect if we're doing the right of way
[2:12:01] vacation. It does not affect the right
[2:12:04] away or easement for public utilities
[2:12:09] and water and sewer, gas that that this
[2:12:13] is strictly discussion on the physical
[2:12:16] road right of way that is travel lane,
[2:12:19] sidewalk, those things public utilities
[2:12:23] in place uh would still have their same
[2:12:26] rightway easements.
[2:12:29] I think that there's through our
[2:12:32] ordinances, through our standards, even
[2:12:35] through the whole process. I looked at
[2:12:38] Wasach Toronto Regional Council and then
[2:12:40] of course uh where the uh transportation
[2:12:44] uh plan comes from. They talk about the
[2:12:47] road widening being a collector street
[2:12:50] and widening from two to three lanes in
[2:12:52] the 66 right away in their document. We
[2:12:56] also talk about it by
[2:12:57] transportationally.
[2:13:00] In the Harrisville general plan, we have
[2:13:03] a map as a 66 to 80 foot ride ofway that
[2:13:06] also includes a sidewalk and bike lane.
[2:13:10] So, we have a map that's between 66 and
[2:13:12] 80 ft.
[2:13:14] We also have in our um general plan
[2:13:17] language that is a minor arterial which
[2:13:20] is different from what we have on the
[2:13:22] map or different from what watch front
[2:13:25] regional council calls it as a local
[2:13:26] collector.
[2:13:28] Our own standards say that a standard
[2:13:31] collector is 66t by the way and a minor
[2:13:34] arterial is 84 ft which is the conflict
[2:13:37] in language in our general plan. The
[2:13:40] text says minor factor 84 feet. The map
[2:13:44] says 8 66 to 80 feet.
[2:13:48] And that
[2:13:50] we have so much confusion that to
[2:13:52] clarify it all as property owners have
[2:13:55] tried to define different things as we
[2:13:56] look at state law state law the record
[2:14:01] um even federal law there are so many
[2:14:04] conflicting things here. I think it is
[2:14:06] important just to say look let's take it
[2:14:09] and if we're saying it's 99 ft we're all
[2:14:12] now saying we're designing this is 80T
[2:14:15] let's get it 80 foot so everything's
[2:14:17] consistent our local standards
[2:14:20] front standards
[2:14:23] um our city rightway standards
[2:14:26] um we've got so much confusion going on
[2:14:28] that the best way to clarify to say here
[2:14:30] is by ordinance what the right way now
[2:14:34] is my understanding is that while this
[2:14:37] was once a state road, it then became a
[2:14:40] county road and then it became a city
[2:14:42] road. So now the jurisdiction in terms
[2:14:45] of vacations or rightway reductions rest
[2:14:49] upon the city.
[2:14:51] And so that's what I wanted to bring up
[2:14:53] as a discussion point because it's gone
[2:14:56] on long enough of what is and what that
[2:14:59] and I think it's just important to say
[2:15:00] look this is where it is. We have all
[2:15:02] these conflicting documents and let's
[2:15:05] settle it by uh by having a public
[2:15:07] hearing of an ordinance to establish the
[2:15:09] rightway as 80 ft.
[2:15:11] » Okay.
[2:15:13] » Other discussion the council.
[2:15:16] » I do have a question about some of the
[2:15:18] comments that were made as far as we
[2:15:20] made offers to
[2:15:23] pay
[2:15:24] homeowners or land owners for certain
[2:15:27] things that they would do such as taking
[2:15:29] out trees and sprinklers. Sounds like
[2:15:31] I'm wondering if that is already
[2:15:33] established, that's already done, that's
[2:15:35] already committed.
[2:15:36] » So, we can have Cody help answer some of
[2:15:38] that, but I can help answer some of that
[2:15:40] as well. And that is in the standard
[2:15:43] procedure. And Cody, you help me if I'm
[2:15:45] off or Roie, you can help as well. But
[2:15:48] the standard procedure is is there's an
[2:15:50] easement that's been there for whatever
[2:15:52] that is. right now trying to determine
[2:15:56] the 99 or the 80 ft which has always
[2:15:58] been a real confusing point. Right?
[2:16:01] There's some parcels along there that
[2:16:04] say 99 ft. There's others where they've
[2:16:07] been surveyed by professional surveyors
[2:16:11] that call for 80 ft. Well, if if if that
[2:16:15] if a if a land owner puts in a a fence
[2:16:20] and it's within that easement area,
[2:16:23] technically they don't have to do it.
[2:16:25] They don't have to pay anything cuz it's
[2:16:26] in the thing. But because it's
[2:16:28] disturbing something that's already
[2:16:30] there and then also when you start
[2:16:33] looking at the elevation of the roadway
[2:16:36] coming into a parcel comes in, that ends
[2:16:40] up creating a problem. So it ends up
[2:16:42] disturbing plants and other things. So
[2:16:45] then it's it's a general plan that UD do
[2:16:49] usually uses to help come in and
[2:16:51] mitigate or take away some of that loss.
[2:16:55] » Right,
[2:16:56] » Cody? Is that
[2:16:57] » That's right.
[2:16:57] » Close.
[2:16:58] » Okay.
[2:16:58] » And that's already in progress.
[2:17:00] » It's already in progress
[2:17:02] » And we don't have plans to disrupt that
[2:17:04] whether we change this 80 ft to 99 ft or
[2:17:08] would that disrupt. It would disrupt.
[2:17:11] » There will still be impacts.
[2:17:13] » If we change it to 80 ft, we potentially
[2:17:16] wouldn't be paying those homeowners
[2:17:18] because we wouldn't be distributing. Is
[2:17:20] that what we're saying?
[2:17:21] » No, not
[2:17:22] » We would still.
[2:17:23] » So, right now we're
[2:17:25] the only settlements that are being made
[2:17:26] is on the 80 foot because that's the way
[2:17:29] the design currently sits.
[2:17:30] » Oh, I see.
[2:17:31] » It's not going with the 99 ft.
[2:17:33] » So, we haven't made offers on up to 99
[2:17:35] ft yet, but we potentially could.
[2:17:38] » No. So the impact of the design of the
[2:17:40] roadway is only impacting 80 feet for
[2:17:44] the improvements sidewalk to sidewalk.
[2:17:48] But the and sorry that's the roadway
[2:17:50] impact. But the grading issues and all
[2:17:54] that go down into people's yards.
[2:17:56] Whether you're whether you move the
[2:17:58] rideway into 80 ft or keep it where it
[2:18:01] is, we're still impacting.
[2:18:03] » Okay.
[2:18:04] » Yeah. So the intent is still there
[2:18:06] regardless of this question and we will
[2:18:08] still proceed with that
[2:18:11] with the same number of owners.
[2:18:14] » Well in addition to that there's the
[2:18:17] impact is such where the the grading of
[2:18:20] the property.
[2:18:22] So if you have this roadway that sits up
[2:18:24] here and their driveway was down here
[2:18:27] and now we bring that line up to here.
[2:18:30] it still needs to be sloped off or put
[2:18:32] in block or something else, you know, to
[2:18:35] to build it up to to hold the roadway or
[2:18:39] the sidewalk. And so, yeah, there's
[2:18:42] impact there, but that doesn't
[2:18:43] necessarily
[2:18:45] the easement
[2:18:46] is is a different scenario.
[2:18:49] » Okay.
[2:18:49] » In one sense, is how I see it.
[2:18:51] » So, you have the 99th
[2:18:55] that is is a question.
[2:18:58] » Yes. And then you have the 80 foot
[2:19:00] design width.
[2:19:03] That's what everything is being designed
[2:19:05] to,
[2:19:06] » Right?
[2:19:07] » And then you have the
[2:19:09] » The areas that are impacted because of
[2:19:11] the elevations of the road versus the
[2:19:13] properties.
[2:19:15] » So
[2:19:15] » So is every homeowner in that corridor
[2:19:18] being offered this then?
[2:19:19] » Well, because everybody that's affected
[2:19:22] some there's some settlement that's in
[2:19:24] there. That's part of the overall
[2:19:26] estimate. I mean, it's, you know, when
[2:19:28] when they came and when Highway 89 came
[2:19:31] down my property, they changed the
[2:19:34] elevation, you know, like 8 ft,
[2:19:37] something like that. And so, it made a
[2:19:39] difference of that approach piece in the
[2:19:42] back of my property. Well, they came and
[2:19:44] made arranged this with me to number one
[2:19:48] to be able to run their construction
[2:19:50] crews on along there and then and
[2:19:52] addition changing the slow
[2:19:55] I had to sign documents to that.
[2:19:57] » Okay. So, that's the documents that they
[2:19:59] were referring to in the public comment
[2:20:03] that we're going to give you this in
[2:20:06] addition in in turn for X, right? And
[2:20:10] the X would be access to the land which
[2:20:12] we already technically are claiming that
[2:20:15] we own.
[2:20:16] » We're not asking for that property with
[2:20:20] » Fences, landscaping,
[2:20:23] » Other amenities that are involved in the
[2:20:25] properties. That's that's really
[2:20:27] » So there signatures indicating they're
[2:20:29] approval for access, not some sort of
[2:20:32] land ownership transfer.
[2:20:35] » You can answer that.
[2:20:36] » Yeah. So, there's multiple things going
[2:20:38] on there. So, um we're saying that the
[2:20:42] right now the rightway is at 99 ft where
[2:20:45] we're talking about where we need to tie
[2:20:47] in their driveways because of the slope
[2:20:49] differential of the road. We would need
[2:20:51] an easement, a temporary easement to get
[2:20:54] on. So, they're signing for that
[2:20:56] easement. That's why
[2:20:58] » Temporary
[2:20:59] » Temporary construction easement
[2:21:01] » Just for the duration of the project.
[2:21:02] » Just for the duration of the project to
[2:21:04] tie those improvements back in.
[2:21:05] » Yeah. The second piece is we're paying
[2:21:09] them for trees and fences that we're
[2:21:12] disrupting inside the rideway.
[2:21:16] And then the third thing is there's so
[2:21:19] how many properties are on there?
[2:21:21] » 16.
[2:21:21] » 16 of the 16 properties
[2:21:25] there are five that have overlapping
[2:21:28] property that overlaps the rideway line.
[2:21:32] For those five properties, we are um
[2:21:37] asking them to sign a deed to clean up
[2:21:40] their rideway or to remove the portion
[2:21:43] that's inside the city right away.
[2:21:47] That's the that's the discussion. That's
[2:21:50] the main discussion.
[2:21:54] » And we're saying we need their signature
[2:21:57] because
[2:21:59] » Right now it's changing the deed.
[2:22:02] need.
[2:22:03] » Yeah. And we don't have to have it. It's
[2:22:06] just something that it's part of the
[2:22:08] process
[2:22:09] » To um
[2:22:14] how do you term it? I'm using the word
[2:22:16] clean up, but adjust.
[2:22:20] So the property owner basically isn't
[2:22:22] paying for for property that they're not
[2:22:26] technically using. So it benefits the
[2:22:29] property owner in the sense that they
[2:22:31] are their parcel is now smaller and so
[2:22:34] their tax bill is lowered. Is that what
[2:22:36] you're saying?
[2:22:37] » That that's one benefit. Yeah. Whether
[2:22:39] it's a huge benefit.
[2:22:40] » I was asking about what you're saying.
[2:22:42] I'm not saying agree or disagree.
[2:22:44] » Yes. But we I sorry.
[2:22:48] Um, we did verify with you DOT that that
[2:22:51] warranty deed to get their property
[2:22:54] description to match up with the rideway
[2:22:56] line um, isn't necessary to be able to
[2:22:59] move forward with the project. So,
[2:23:00] property owner has opt not to sign that
[2:23:02] warranty deed.
[2:23:04] » Then we can still do the other two
[2:23:06] things. Pay them for the easement,
[2:23:09] construction ement, and also pay them
[2:23:11] for trees or whatever that we're
[2:23:14] disrupting. And that's coming from all
[2:23:16] all this goes through because it's a
[2:23:18] fedally funded project. It all goes
[2:23:20] through you right away division for all
[2:23:22] the approvals of all the documents and
[2:23:24] the process has to follow the federal
[2:23:26] process for acquiring it.
[2:23:27] » So if a homeowner decides that they want
[2:23:30] to take legal action as far as claiming
[2:23:33] the property that we're asking them to
[2:23:35] sign the deed. So those five properties
[2:23:37] where we want them to turn over the
[2:23:39] officially.
[2:23:40] » Sure. Would they be giving up the right
[2:23:43] to any sort of legal action if they do
[2:23:45] sign that deed
[2:23:47] » Over to us?
[2:23:50] » Yes,
[2:23:50] » I think so. But keep it in mind if they
[2:23:53] don't do it then their property will be
[2:23:55] the road,
[2:23:56] » Right? I mean, unless they decide to
[2:24:01] » My piece of property on 750 West when I
[2:24:03] first bought it. My property line went
[2:24:05] to the center of the road and it has a
[2:24:08] 60oot easel. So, I'm paying for 30 ft of
[2:24:12] property that isn't technically mine,
[2:24:15] and I I took it off because I didn't
[2:24:17] want to be paying
[2:24:19] » That square footage,
[2:24:20] » Right? And if the homeowner agrees
[2:24:24] to that view of things, then it would
[2:24:26] make sense to decide that. But if
[2:24:28] they're in disagreement and they think,
[2:24:30] "No, I do have a legal right to this
[2:24:32] property and I don't want it built
[2:24:33] upon," then that's a difficult decision
[2:24:35] for the homeowner to
[2:24:36] » Yeah.
[2:24:38] » Thank you. Anything
[2:24:42] else you have, Cody?
[2:24:44] » Just here to answer questions if I can.
[2:24:46] Yeah.
[2:24:47] » Any others?
[2:24:48] » I just The Eastman goes either way and
[2:24:53] it's that one of those areas that's
[2:24:55] really vague where the Eastman actually
[2:24:58] goes. So when we're talking about the
[2:25:01] 80ft road, then their eastments are on
[2:25:03] the outside of that.
[2:25:04] » Yes.
[2:25:05] » And they will still have
[2:25:07] utilities will have access to all that
[2:25:10] even though it may run into the property
[2:25:12] even though it's an easement,
[2:25:15] you know, and that's part of the
[2:25:16] disruption of everything that's going on
[2:25:18] right now. If I'm understanding what?
[2:25:21] » Yeah. And so that would have to be a
[2:25:23] separate question if I'm understanding.
[2:25:25] If you move to the 80ft ride of way
[2:25:28] and most of the utilities fit in there,
[2:25:32] but their power lines and others that
[2:25:34] are outside it, that would be the
[2:25:36] discussion that they would have to come
[2:25:38] and want an easement in order to
[2:25:41] maintain their equipment across people's
[2:25:43] property. Well, what what would happen
[2:25:45] at least as I read state law street
[2:25:48] vacation or street reduction vacating
[2:25:51] all the parts is that utilities still
[2:25:54] have a right to an easement.
[2:25:55] » Yeah. So that be the sewer line, the
[2:25:57] water line, power line,
[2:26:00] » The public utilities still retain an
[2:26:03] easement, but we do not if we vacate to
[2:26:07] an 80oot right away, we do not have
[2:26:09] right to public improvements of street,
[2:26:12] curb, gutter, sidewalk on that property.
[2:26:15] And that's what that's what the
[2:26:16] reduction would do is saying those
[2:26:19] physical things that are above ground
[2:26:22] are reduced to staying within an 80ft
[2:26:24] ride of plane. But those other things
[2:26:26] that may be in place still will retain
[2:26:28] an easement, but it'll still be on
[2:26:30] private property with a public utilities
[2:26:32] easement on them.
[2:26:34] » Is that how you understand?
[2:26:38] » Yes.
[2:26:38] » And with that access, would that also
[2:26:41] include limitations on things like trees
[2:26:44] being able to be planted?
[2:26:46] » Depends what the public facility
[2:26:48] has as a reasonable. So let's say there
[2:26:51] is a tree blocking access and we and the
[2:26:55] homeowner has rejected our offer to pay
[2:26:58] them to take it down.
[2:27:00] Then where does that stand? If we go
[2:27:02] down to the AD then do we not have any
[2:27:05] ability to ask for that?
[2:27:08] » Yeah. So, and I apologize. It's
[2:27:12] difficult and and I don't mean this to
[2:27:15] be rude, but you're all talking about
[2:27:16] different things and I it's hard to
[2:27:19] answer.
[2:27:20] » Well, the homeowners are facing the same
[2:27:22] things. So, we need to make it
[2:27:24] understandable for them to know what
[2:27:27] they're agreeing to.
[2:27:28] » So, so let me ask kind of clarifying in
[2:27:31] the question you just asked, did we move
[2:27:34] forward with Greg's plan to shrink?
[2:27:37] » Yes. to so if we shrink off our current
[2:27:40] rideway, we've essentially given those
[2:27:42] property owners land and is the city the
[2:27:46] government is no longer able to use that
[2:27:49] 19 ft for any other improvement ever
[2:27:52] unless we pay for it later on. Right.
[2:27:55] » The city but utilities would still have
[2:27:57] access to what they need.
[2:27:59] » No, not necessarily.
[2:28:00] » Okay. what's existing. If there needs to
[2:28:03] be other utility improvements,
[2:28:06] we don't have the ability to do that
[2:28:10] if we vacate it. Would that make sense?
[2:28:14] » I'm trying to square that with what I
[2:28:15] know about recent utility updates that
[2:28:17] have been made in our neighborhoods
[2:28:19] » Updates. I'm talking about new
[2:28:21] utilities.
[2:28:22] » I see.
[2:28:22] » Okay. So, so right now, Roie, yeah. Um,
[2:28:25] if we went along with the 99 ft, the
[2:28:29] road itself and all the improvements are
[2:28:31] still going to only be 80.
[2:28:32] » Correct.
[2:28:33] » But the city still owns 99. Is that what
[2:28:37] we're saying?
[2:28:38] » Okay. I just want to make sure I
[2:28:40] understand.
[2:28:42] » So then we would have access to that
[2:28:46] what 9 and 1/2 ft on both sides or just
[2:28:49] one side.
[2:28:50] » Yeah. It it moves, right?
[2:28:53] » Okay. And then that's for utilities and
[2:28:56] access, but we're not going to build on
[2:28:58] anything on it. Right now, we're doing 8
[2:29:00] ft
[2:29:01] » Currently. Yes.
[2:29:03] » But in the future, we could do something
[2:29:05] is what the 99 ft is saying.
[2:29:08] » Mhm.
[2:29:09] » Okay, I understand. Thank you. Okay. I
[2:29:11] just want to make sure. Sorry. Go ahead.
[2:29:13] » So, the purpose of taking action
[2:29:16] of the 80 ft here is not necessarily to
[2:29:19] enable the current project. is looking
[2:29:22] forward and saying we don't want to just
[2:29:24] give out this land today,
[2:29:29] but we could potentially in the future
[2:29:31] if we just leave it be how it is.
[2:29:33] » Yeah. So, and I can't speak for the
[2:29:35] intentions. The way I understand it is
[2:29:37] currently there's a 99 ft rideway.
[2:29:40] There's some property owners who
[2:29:42] disagree with that and that's fine. They
[2:29:43] they can do that. Um
[2:29:47] there's, you know, speaking to that,
[2:29:50] like there is nothing that prohibits
[2:29:52] them currently from trying to clear that
[2:29:54] up in a title action, right? Okay. But
[2:29:58] as I understand it, what Mr. Montgomery
[2:30:01] is talking about is we as a city would
[2:30:03] just say well we think to be nice for
[2:30:07] goodwill for clarification because we
[2:30:08] think it's the right thing to do we're
[2:30:10] just going to make it now on and forever
[2:30:12] more an 80 foot ride right away and
[2:30:14] essentially lose that 19 ft
[2:30:17] » What is forcing us to do that now is
[2:30:20] there anything
[2:30:20] » Nothing this is
[2:30:21] » Okay so this only came up because we
[2:30:24] were asking homeowners to make changes
[2:30:26] to their property
[2:30:27] » This came up because Mr. Montgomery
[2:30:29] thinks it's a good idea unless I'm
[2:30:31] wrong. Yeah.
[2:30:32] » But if we weren't doing this project at
[2:30:34] all, it most likely wouldn't be an issue
[2:30:36] today.
[2:30:38] Well,
[2:30:39] » No, I think some other considerations
[2:30:42] because like for example, one of the
[2:30:44] considerations is if we go out to that
[2:30:48] » 99 and whatever it is feet, you're uh
[2:30:53] right right now we're pretty close to
[2:30:56] some of the people's front porches
[2:30:58] within 80T as is. And they essentially
[2:31:03] can take all the way up to their front
[2:31:05] porch. Okay.
[2:31:07] » So, we weren't planning to shoot that.
[2:31:08] » No, but that's what it's saying that
[2:31:10] they could do with it. And then what
[2:31:12] compensation are they going to get? Cuz
[2:31:14] no one's going to buy that property,
[2:31:15] » Right?
[2:31:16] » No one's going to tear that house down.
[2:31:18] And and so it gives them property rights
[2:31:21] to be able to protect their homes.
[2:31:30] But unfortunately, there's a lot of
[2:31:32] confusion because like I said before, is
[2:31:35] there's
[2:31:36] professional
[2:31:38] surveying companies that have come in
[2:31:40] and done studies of whatever and have
[2:31:43] determined on plats of property that
[2:31:46] they're showing 80 ft. But then there's
[2:31:49] also others
[2:31:51] that show 99 ft, but I don't know the
[2:31:53] exact number between how many show 99
[2:31:57] versus how many show.
[2:31:58] » Yeah, it's interesting. I mean our our
[2:32:01] the professional land surveyor that was
[2:32:03] hired to do this work has done so much
[2:32:06] research and gone back the some of the
[2:32:08] surveys that show 80 were fitted kind of
[2:32:10] to the existing improvements and going
[2:32:13] off the best knowledge they had. Um, so
[2:32:16] there's a few that show the 80. Every
[2:32:18] um, even if you go to the county, every
[2:32:20] ownership plat they have on record the
[2:32:23] plats going back to 1973. And every
[2:32:25] ownership plat from there up to current
[2:32:28] still show the 99 ft because I think
[2:32:31] what it is, it was an old what the
[2:32:32] surveyor said, it's an old county, it
[2:32:35] was an old county road right away. That
[2:32:37] was a six rod road of 99 ft. and there's
[2:32:40] never been a document or a an instrument
[2:32:44] that changed that. So, and then the 80
[2:32:47] foot um state rideway that they talked
[2:32:49] about, UD do had a proposal to widen and
[2:32:53] do a big uh construction project on West
[2:32:56] Harrisville Road back in the 60s. And
[2:32:58] so, they had and on their plans they
[2:33:00] showed a construction project right away
[2:33:03] of 80 ft. And they also showed the 99
[2:33:06] feet, but they were going to occupy the
[2:33:07] 80 feet for their project that was
[2:33:09] abandoned in 1969.
[2:33:12] Um, so some of the there was a survey
[2:33:14] mark or find found out there from that
[2:33:16] time when UDOT came in and set that 80
[2:33:19] foot rideway for their construction
[2:33:21] project, but that was within the 99 ft
[2:33:24] rideway. But there weren't ever any
[2:33:26] documents that the surveyor found that
[2:33:28] showed that that was that that rideway
[2:33:31] with ever was actually changed from the
[2:33:34] 99 to anything else. So that's um I mean
[2:33:38] that's where the 99 comes from.
[2:33:40] » So how many of the homes that are six
[2:33:42] like what 16 houses that are affected?
[2:33:45] How many of those 16 houses show 99
[2:33:48] show?
[2:33:50] He said, uh, 10 have 10 have legal
[2:33:54] descriptions that agree with the 99 ft
[2:33:56] rideway. Six have newer legal
[2:33:59] descriptions that overlap the 99 ft
[2:34:01] rideway. Several of the properties with
[2:34:04] newer legal descriptions that overlap
[2:34:06] the 99 ft can be researched to find
[2:34:09] historical descriptions of the same
[2:34:11] property that agree with the 99,
[2:34:15] » But none of them go show 8 ft. That's
[2:34:19] » The some of these newer descriptions.
[2:34:20] » A couple of them show you and then a
[2:34:22] couple of them buried.
[2:34:25] » Weirdly enough,
[2:34:28] » So that's kind of the challenge.
[2:34:32] Anyway,
[2:34:34] must be labor because it's not an action
[2:34:35] item that I think is a discussion. I
[2:34:38] think we've discussed it. I think that
[2:34:40] we need to move it on to another
[2:34:44] possible discussion where
[2:34:48] you know even if you want to turn it
[2:34:51] into a public hearing maybe the council
[2:34:54] wants to turn it into a public hearing
[2:34:57] figure out where you want to go with it
[2:34:58] and make no change.
[2:35:00] » Yeah, that'd be that'd be my reason I
[2:35:03] brought this up today is to say here are
[2:35:05] the issues out there. I think it'd be
[2:35:06] important to set a public hearing uh to
[2:35:11] get a a conclusion to run.
[2:35:14] » Okay. So, what we need to have is three
[2:35:16] of you state that we want to do a public
[2:35:18] hearing.
[2:35:20] » So, is that right? Well,
[2:35:22] » I think a motion.
[2:35:24] » Well, you can't you can't make a motion.
[2:35:26] » Oh, this is discussion. Okay.
[2:35:28] » But I guess the question is you have a
[2:35:31] public hearing as I understand it. If
[2:35:33] the plan is to vacate city property,
[2:35:38] you don't really
[2:35:45] » So, in other words, we need a plan. We
[2:35:48] can't just say come in and tell us your
[2:35:50] opinions, yes or no. We need to have a
[2:35:52] plan of action and then hear what people
[2:35:55] » So, if you wanted to schedule a special
[2:35:57] meeting, a town hall type meeting to
[2:35:59] just receive input, you can always do
[2:36:01] that as a council, but an actual public
[2:36:04] hearing on the item that's up for
[2:36:06] discussion is a specific public hearing
[2:36:08] under the state code to vacate city
[2:36:12] property.
[2:36:14] So if you want to do that then you'd
[2:36:16] have to give some direction and staff
[2:36:17] can work on that.
[2:36:18] » So if I'm understanding you correctly we
[2:36:21] could do a town hall that's a notice
[2:36:23] town hall that all of us could be at but
[2:36:25] that would still be a public meeting.
[2:36:27] Absolutely.
[2:36:28] » You can all because Yeah, you can always
[2:36:30] have that special meeting if three of
[2:36:31] you want to skip.
[2:36:34] » And if it were just that type of meeting
[2:36:36] at town hall, we wouldn't necessarily
[2:36:38] need a plan of action or we still would
[2:36:40] » Well, you can't make it you can't
[2:36:42] decision.
[2:36:42] » Yeah, you can't make a decision or pass
[2:36:45] anything at the town hall. The town hall
[2:36:46] would be for public to receive public
[2:36:48] input,
[2:36:49] » Have some discussion, but that's
[2:36:51] » Isn't that also true with the public
[2:36:53] hearing? public hearing.
[2:36:55] » You have to if you're here to do a
[2:36:56] public hearing, you got to have to have
[2:36:58] something
[2:36:59] » A plan like you have,
[2:37:00] » Right? But I'm saying we wouldn't make a
[2:37:02] decision that night with public hearing
[2:37:04] either.
[2:37:04] » No
[2:37:07] code that they're considering has
[2:37:10] » I thought that had to be the only item.
[2:37:12] » No, that's only the tax. Okay. I
[2:37:14] apologize.
[2:37:15] » Yeah. And the other thing to consider
[2:37:18] like
[2:37:19] Montgomery said, you can write, you can
[2:37:21] do this. It would as far as the roadway
[2:37:25] construction project
[2:37:27] that would obviously change all the doc
[2:37:30] the rightway documents all the um um I
[2:37:35] guess easements or temporary
[2:37:37] construction easements. Um so that that
[2:37:41] would have a big impact on the project
[2:37:43] and being able to move forward. Now,
[2:37:46] there's nothing to say, I don't think,
[2:37:47] that you couldn't do that after another
[2:37:50] project or after it's under construction
[2:37:53] because it because the improvements
[2:37:54] aren't changing either way, right? We're
[2:37:56] not we're not either way. We're not uh
[2:38:00] saying that the design of the roadway is
[2:38:02] going to change. Um
[2:38:04] » Because as of right now, you're saying
[2:38:06] » All the doc Yeah.
[2:38:07] » All the documents say that we own 99 ft.
[2:38:09] » Yeah. Right. So, they're all based off
[2:38:10] of that.
[2:38:11] » So, right now, we own the land is what
[2:38:13] it's saying,
[2:38:14] » Right? And then if they do the 80 ft,
[2:38:17] we're we want to do 80 ft either way.
[2:38:21] » And we can do that whether or not
[2:38:23] » Building
[2:38:25] anything.
[2:38:26] » You know what I'm saying?
[2:38:26] » Yeah.
[2:38:27] » But if we change it to 80 ft, then
[2:38:30] you're saying we're giving the
[2:38:32] homeowners land back is what you
[2:38:34] mentioned, right, Roie?
[2:38:37] » So
[2:38:37] » I just want to make sure I understand.
[2:38:39] I'm sorry.
[2:38:39] » Yeah. So you could You're giving the
[2:38:41] property owners lands.
[2:38:44] Yes.
[2:38:45] » Okay.
[2:38:46] » Yeah. And why that matters is now UD's
[2:38:49] rightway team to comply not only with
[2:38:51] their standards but also the federal
[2:38:52] standards
[2:38:53] » Have to redo every right of way.
[2:38:56] » Yes.
[2:38:56] » And Matt's nicer than I you can do that.
[2:39:00] It will mess up the project and it may
[2:39:02] or may not happen
[2:39:04] currently.
[2:39:05] » Right.
[2:39:06] » That's just the reality of this
[2:39:07] discussion.
[2:39:10] » Could I can I ask one question? So you
[2:39:13] we talked about the 80oot rideway and if
[2:39:17] we would if we approved a reduction to
[2:39:20] 80ft rideway
[2:39:22] that would be from center line is the
[2:39:25] design done such that the 80oot is 40 ft
[2:39:29] on each side of the center line.
[2:39:35] Yeah, I'm trying to remember. Um
[2:39:40] cuz I think the center line of the
[2:39:42] rideway, so for example,
[2:39:46] where the road where the asphalt sits
[2:39:48] now and the and the double yellow
[2:39:51] stripe, the center line of the rideway
[2:39:54] is about one or two feet north.
[2:39:59] And so
[2:40:02] of of that line.
[2:40:05] So the improvements are being made where
[2:40:09] 50 ft of asphalt is beginning at the lip
[2:40:14] of the curbon gutter on the north side
[2:40:16] cuz the north side curb gutter staying
[2:40:19] and then going 50 ft across.
[2:40:22] Anyway, so it's not a perfect, you know,
[2:40:26] uh 40 and 40, I guess.
[2:40:28] Um, as far as center of the roadway,
[2:40:33] it's one or two feet off
[2:40:36] » Favoring
[2:40:39] when I say favoring the south, less
[2:40:41] impacting the south than the north.
[2:40:47] » Let's just say
[2:40:48] » Less impacting the north than the south
[2:40:50] » Because all the work is going to be
[2:40:52] taking place on the south side. Well,
[2:40:53] all the work's going to be taking place
[2:40:54] on the south side, but I'm saying we're
[2:40:56] we're one or two feet hugging the road
[2:40:59] to the north side.
[2:41:00] » Oh, okay.
[2:41:01] » But it's saying, yeah, if it got
[2:41:03] changed, the rideway would actually be
[2:41:06] further to the north of the north
[2:41:08] sidewalk than it would be the south
[2:41:10] sidewalk, right?
[2:41:12] » Yeah.
[2:41:12] » It's not centered. It's not centered
[2:41:17] perfectly,
[2:41:18] » But the improvements like uh I think
[2:41:21] that 80 foot line lands a foot or so
[2:41:25] behind the sidewalk. Our proposed
[2:41:27] improvements, right? That sound right?
[2:41:29] » Yeah.
[2:41:33] If we choose, excuse me, if we choose
[2:41:35] not to vacate the property and the
[2:41:38] homeowners choose not to sign any of our
[2:41:40] documents,
[2:41:42] do we have what happens with the
[2:41:44] project? Do we have some sort of feud
[2:41:46] going on there or is it just we still
[2:41:48] can do the project and the homeowners
[2:41:50] just don't get compensation?
[2:41:54] So of the three items that we discussed,
[2:41:57] the temporary easement, the payment for
[2:42:00] trees and then the so they and then the
[2:42:04] third one would be signing of the
[2:42:06] overlapping rideway for the the five
[2:42:08] that have that issue.
[2:42:10] Um so we wouldn't do the overlapping
[2:42:13] rightway. We wouldn't sign that. Um,
[2:42:17] some people don't want to be paid for
[2:42:18] their trees,
[2:42:20] but we wouldn't be able to get on their
[2:42:22] property and tie in
[2:42:25] their driveways. So, that would be the
[2:42:27] showstopper.
[2:42:30] » We go to the combination process for
[2:42:33] that temporary construction.
[2:42:36] And the goal of that would then through
[2:42:39] condemnation,
[2:42:41] you would have somebody basically
[2:42:44] say yes or no that that
[2:42:47] we allow the contractor to tie in your
[2:42:50] driveway,
[2:42:54] » Which would be a separate a follow-up
[2:42:58] request separate from what requests have
[2:43:00] already been made.
[2:43:03] No, it would be not a se it'd be the
[2:43:06] same request, but then it goes through a
[2:43:08] more formal judge hearing process where
[2:43:11] a judge decides.
[2:43:12] » So then the homework has to make their
[2:43:14] case.
[2:43:15] » Yeah.
[2:43:15] » Have a judge.
[2:43:19] » So the temporary easement is what we
[2:43:21] need to to do the prop project. We don't
[2:43:25] need any of the other two things,
[2:43:28] » But we could potentially get that
[2:43:30] without vacating the property and
[2:43:32] without forcing them to sign the deed.
[2:43:36] » And areas has this all been clearly
[2:43:38] explained to the homeowners?
[2:43:40] » No.
[2:43:40] » Okay.
[2:43:41] » No, we've met with each homeowner and
[2:43:44] discussed those options. In the
[2:43:47] beginning, it was we needed them to sign
[2:43:49] the deed, but we've gone back and met
[2:43:52] with the federal agency that's helping
[2:43:54] us and um asked them if we had to do
[2:43:58] that, and the answer was no.
[2:44:01] So,
[2:44:02] » So those those property owners you can
[2:44:05] go back to and say, "We don't if you
[2:44:08] don't want to sign the warranty deal, we
[2:44:09] don't need that." But they still could
[2:44:11] sign the
[2:44:12] » Construction easement and compensation
[2:44:14] estimate. Yeah,
[2:44:20] » Seems important that we discuss with
[2:44:22] them instead of just clinging to our
[2:44:25] legal like we have legal resources that
[2:44:26] they don't have necessarily. So,
[2:44:28] » Right. And our acquisition agent Shannon
[2:44:31] that's been mentioned, she's been
[2:44:32] meeting regularly with these property
[2:44:35] owners.
[2:44:38] » I know she's trying to reach out to all
[2:44:39] of them.
[2:44:40] » Yeah. Each time we get new information,
[2:44:42] we try to update everybody.
[2:44:45] I'm sure it's so confusing though people
[2:44:47] who aren't lawyers.
[2:44:51] » Okay.
[2:44:55] » You want to do any
[2:44:57] suggestions or you just want to
[2:45:00] move on to the next item on the agenda.
[2:45:03] We've had a pretty decent discussion.
[2:45:06] I'm always open to town hall idea. I
[2:45:08] don't know if anyone else. I am
[2:45:10] definitely either that or
[2:45:14] me too.
[2:45:18] » We got three to do the town hall
[2:45:25] like
[2:45:27] » Before it gets cold
[2:45:29] before.
[2:45:31] » Well, maybe if we get a lot of people
[2:45:34] here,
[2:45:34] » This won't be a big enough place to
[2:45:36] hold.
[2:45:36] » We could do the cabin or Let's
[2:45:45] say you guys have a time or date when
[2:45:47] you'd like to do that.
[2:45:52] » Tuesday night just because that's what
[2:45:53] we normally do.
[2:45:56] » We just can't do it.
[2:45:57] » How much notice time is required?
[2:45:59] » 24 hours.
[2:46:00] » 24 hours
[2:46:04] » For us to We give more notice than that
[2:46:07] regularly. The state law requires 24
[2:46:09] hours.
[2:46:12] » How about September 22nd in two weeks?
[2:46:14] » Say 22nd and 29th.
[2:46:19] » 22.
[2:46:22] How about the 22nd?
[2:46:26] » Will we have the court?
[2:46:28] » Yeah, I can be there.
[2:46:31] » All right.
[2:46:31] » Okay. So, the 22nd we'll do that.
[2:46:37] Okay. Item number C, the North View Fire
[2:46:40] Station presentation.
[2:46:44] Cody, if you want to run away, you can.
[2:46:48] » You guys really know how to throw a
[2:46:50] party. I'll tell you. Staying up past my
[2:46:52] bedtime.
[2:46:55] » I should have gave you a warning.
[2:46:57] » No, I appreciate you guys. All right.
[2:47:02] » Talking too long. I think it's
[2:47:04] important.
[2:47:13] extra copy.
[2:47:15] » You have a clicker.
[2:47:18] » It's PDF. So, scroll down.
[2:47:24] » All right. I'll do my best to stay
[2:47:25] behind this. I'm kind of a walker when I
[2:47:27] talk. So, if I start straying away too
[2:47:29] much, Jay will be after. Maybe you
[2:47:31] should. Of course.
[2:47:36] All right. Thanks for uh making a little
[2:47:37] bit of time. I'm uh pleased to accept
[2:47:39] the invitation from the mayor. Went with
[2:47:41] the mayor and Jenny last week to give
[2:47:44] them an update on what our plans are and
[2:47:46] and uh give the mayor kind of up to
[2:47:48] speed with how this process has evolved.
[2:47:50] There's a lot of history in the last 3
[2:47:52] years. And they suggested that I come
[2:47:54] and and give you guys kind of the same
[2:47:56] uh education on on process history and
[2:47:59] and what we have planned and kind of
[2:48:01] what our next steps are. So, please keep
[2:48:03] this informal if you guys have any
[2:48:04] questions. I'll try to I'll try to move
[2:48:06] quick. Got more to do than this. Looks
[2:48:10] like. All right. So, all this started I
[2:48:12] I came up to North View. I spent 25
[2:48:15] years down in the Salt Lake Valley in
[2:48:16] West Jordan here. Uh ton of experience
[2:48:19] in strategic planning response analysis.
[2:48:21] So, of course, that's the first thing I
[2:48:22] did when I got here was dive into the
[2:48:24] resource analysis. Look at our response.
[2:48:27] How are we doing? We measure response
[2:48:29] and concentration, distribution, and
[2:48:31] reliability. Again, I won't go too far
[2:48:33] into those, but that's sort of the the
[2:48:35] framework of the things we talk about as
[2:48:37] we look at how good is your service, how
[2:48:39] well are we meeting benchmarks and and
[2:48:41] uh national recommendations. So, one of
[2:48:43] the first things we do is we try to do
[2:48:45] the the thing that makes the most sense,
[2:48:48] probably anybody, even without training,
[2:48:50] is we want to look at where our calls
[2:48:51] are. So distribution talks about are our
[2:48:54] resources located in the correct
[2:48:55] location to respond to where our
[2:48:57] emergencies are. So just like in a war
[2:48:59] if you have an enemy in a certain area
[2:49:01] you'd expect to have contact. You would
[2:49:03] want to have your people and your
[2:49:04] resources in those areas. So this is
[2:49:06] what's called a heat map. So you can see
[2:49:07] the hotter areas are highest
[2:49:09] concentration of emergence. So that is
[2:49:11] lights and siren responses only. So that
[2:49:14] is not anything that we would run
[2:49:15] without lights and sirens too. So this
[2:49:17] is a true emergency as coded by
[2:49:19] dispatch. those areas show up for
[2:49:22] medical in that high heat area. So you
[2:49:24] can see in the district here that our
[2:49:26] highest heat area, our most focus point
[2:49:29] concentrated call volume is just right
[2:49:32] around station 21 in North Odin and just
[2:49:34] below and then up and down the 89
[2:49:36] corridor. You can see that the little
[2:49:39] icons represent the red ones, the fire
[2:49:41] stations that currently exist. The white
[2:49:43] ones are fire call. So heat is medical.
[2:49:45] The white icons are fire.
[2:49:49] Uh the next thing we look at is how long
[2:49:52] not only are our resources located in
[2:49:54] the correct location, but that dictates
[2:49:56] how long it takes our resources to get
[2:49:58] to an emergency. So that's when we start
[2:50:00] to talk travel. NFPA 1750 says that we
[2:50:03] should be able to get from our station
[2:50:05] facility to your emergency in 4 minutes
[2:50:08] or less. Now, that doesn't include the
[2:50:09] time it takes us to get to the trucks,
[2:50:11] and it doesn't include the time that it
[2:50:12] takes for the call takers and dispatch
[2:50:14] to take care information. This goes from
[2:50:16] the time that our fire crews get into
[2:50:18] the truck, they get on the radio and say
[2:50:20] they're on their way and they're rolling
[2:50:21] out the door, 4 minutes or less from the
[2:50:23] time they roll out the door to the time
[2:50:25] they set the park break at the
[2:50:26] emergency. So then we look at that and
[2:50:28] you can see in the gray out areas that's
[2:50:30] the theoretical 4-minute travel or two
[2:50:33] uh stations that exist currently um
[2:50:37] based on computer modeling. And then you
[2:50:38] can see in the red and green the red
[2:50:41] dots are the actual emergent calls. So
[2:50:44] again, those lights and sirens responses
[2:50:46] that we took longer than 4 minutes to
[2:50:48] get to and the green ones are the ones
[2:50:50] that we made it in 4 minutes or less. So
[2:50:53] you can see and we'll kind of touch on
[2:50:54] this later, but you can see and this was
[2:50:56] kind of a problem we had to figure out
[2:50:57] was we expected to see outside of course
[2:51:00] the theoretical uh computer generated
[2:51:03] travel areas. We expected to see those
[2:51:04] red areas, right? Because computer says
[2:51:06] we can't get from our fire station to
[2:51:08] that area in 4 minutes or less. So
[2:51:10] predictably up and down the 89 corridor
[2:51:12] all the way down to kind of cut off
[2:51:14] there down to the Walmart area we
[2:51:15] struggled to get to. And then the other
[2:51:17] area that popped up that we weren't
[2:51:18] really anticipating as much was up there
[2:51:19] in the north area. As you can see that
[2:51:21] big pocket all the way up in the what
[2:51:24] would that be? The northeast corner
[2:51:26] where we're quite regularly and
[2:51:28] predictably missing that formative
[2:51:30] benchmark. So we sort of look at that
[2:51:32] and say okay well we need more fire
[2:51:33] stations clearly. So where should those
[2:51:35] resources be? So we looked at each one
[2:51:37] of these areas. We looked at planning
[2:51:39] and zoning.
[2:51:40] Then we also looked at the uh insurance
[2:51:43] service offic's recommendation for 1 and
[2:51:45] a half road miles traveled. So it's
[2:51:48] similar to 4-minute travel uh but down
[2:51:50] on road mile rather than on travel time.
[2:51:52] So they located they they show that we
[2:51:55] get to the turquoise blue areas in that
[2:51:58] 1.5 road mile and that affects people's
[2:52:00] fire insurance rates. So based on that
[2:52:03] we identified three potential locations
[2:52:05] for future fire station. So up in the
[2:52:08] northeast corner of North Aen would be
[2:52:10] planning zone 25 as we refer to it now
[2:52:12] that we track data in that area.
[2:52:14] Planning zone 24 further up on 89 and
[2:52:17] then planning zone 23 right down here in
[2:52:19] Harrisville.
[2:52:21] But when we do this we not only take
[2:52:23] into consideration future planning and
[2:52:24] zoning but we also look at future
[2:52:26] infrastructure projects. So we know that
[2:52:28] the skyline project and Mount Road
[2:52:29] projects are underway. uh talking with
[2:52:32] North Ogden and talking to the county,
[2:52:34] uh Mount Road is expected to be
[2:52:36] completed prior to 2032 and they're
[2:52:38] saying it's it's on track to be maybe
[2:52:40] completed by 2030. Skyline Road is
[2:52:43] predicted to come back down. It's going
[2:52:45] to take a little bit longer to help us
[2:52:46] out in that area that we're missing on
[2:52:48] North 89. We felt like it was premature
[2:52:51] to try to
[2:52:53] move forward with trying to construct a
[2:52:55] station up in that planning zone 25 area
[2:52:57] in North Ogden until we see what happens
[2:52:59] with that traffic. We want to see what
[2:53:01] impact that future infrastructure has on
[2:53:03] our response times in that area. You can
[2:53:05] see again on that theoretical travel,
[2:53:09] how much larger the travel distance is
[2:53:11] for station 21, the trucks are the same
[2:53:13] speed trucks. Uh but because the road
[2:53:16] structures are just put together a
[2:53:17] little bit differently. We don't have
[2:53:18] any big all the way through roads. Uh
[2:53:21] really constricts the the reach of
[2:53:23] station 22. Now it still needs to be
[2:53:25] there. We have a ton of risk there and
[2:53:26] the citizens up there observe it and
[2:53:27] they have wildland interface. uh risk
[2:53:29] that we have to deal with, but we do
[2:53:32] think it was is prudent to wait and see
[2:53:34] what impact Mountain Road has on that
[2:53:36] area before we start moving forward with
[2:53:38] plans and put something there. So, that
[2:53:40] really helped us narrow it down. And
[2:53:41] this all happened right about the same
[2:53:43] time that Harrisville approached us 3
[2:53:45] years ago, almost exactly maybe a month
[2:53:48] after I got here, uh to talk about the
[2:53:50] government complex and invite us to be a
[2:53:52] member of that. Now, that's nothing new.
[2:53:54] a fire station from in Harrisville, from
[2:53:56] what I understand, has been talked about
[2:53:57] since 1981. Since Harrisville joined the
[2:54:00] fire district, that was something that
[2:54:02] people have wanted and the citizens of
[2:54:03] Harrisville been taxpaying members of
[2:54:05] the fire district since then. Uh, and
[2:54:07] funding stations, you know, 21 and 22 in
[2:54:09] North Pleas. So, we looked at that
[2:54:12] again. We went back to our response
[2:54:13] analysis. We said, "You know what? Based
[2:54:14] on um our inclination to wait and see
[2:54:18] what impacts the Mountain Road project
[2:54:20] has at station 25, station 23 in
[2:54:23] Harrisville looks like the correct
[2:54:24] location. Let's study that a little bit
[2:54:26] more." Again, we looked at our travel
[2:54:29] and I'll get to that just a little bit
[2:54:30] more. So, we began meeting with the
[2:54:32] Harrisville team as they designed their
[2:54:34] project and initially um it was a
[2:54:37] combined building concept. So the idea
[2:54:40] was try to save the taxpayers some
[2:54:43] construction expense by having combined
[2:54:45] building uh police/fire
[2:54:48] station sharing some exterior walls to
[2:54:50] save some cost sharing some shared
[2:54:52] spaces to get kind of double duty out
[2:54:54] and hopefully save some money. The
[2:54:56] longer and longer we went through the
[2:54:57] process and the design phase with lock
[2:55:00] the more and more those projects t just
[2:55:02] migrated apart and I think that really
[2:55:04] ended up being a blessing. I think there
[2:55:06] were so many questions that we hadn't
[2:55:07] even be began to try to address like who
[2:55:10] owns the land, how do we separate the
[2:55:12] HVAC, uh who controls the the shared
[2:55:15] spaces, uh how do we bond without
[2:55:17] actually owning the property that our
[2:55:19] station sits on. So, it got a little bit
[2:55:21] confusing. They just sort of naturally
[2:55:23] started to make more sense being
[2:55:24] separate projects anyway, which again we
[2:55:26] were kind of happy to see in hindsight.
[2:55:28] We think it makes a lot of sense. So,
[2:55:29] you can see everybody kind of know where
[2:55:31] this is? Nope. So, the new building
[2:55:33] under construction, we're just one lot
[2:55:35] closer to Highway 89, and it has been
[2:55:38] subdivided, uh, has been appraised,
[2:55:42] um, and has been stubbed, I believe,
[2:55:46] for the utilities for this design.
[2:55:50] This is what that looks like. Uh, when
[2:55:52] we met with Play initially, I think
[2:55:54] architects, and this is no slam on them,
[2:55:56] they're artists. I think they always
[2:55:58] want to build the biggest most beautiful
[2:56:00] uh building that they can possibly
[2:56:02] build. Um
[2:56:05] made a conscious decision that that our
[2:56:06] building should not be that we we don't
[2:56:08] want a station that is ostentatious. We
[2:56:10] don't want to be excessive. Uh the
[2:56:12] guidance I gave to layog in our first
[2:56:14] several meetings was I want this to
[2:56:15] represent the people who live in this
[2:56:18] area and the fire department that it
[2:56:20] represents. We want it to be strong. We
[2:56:22] want it to be trustworthy. We want it to
[2:56:24] be frugal, responsible, and plan for the
[2:56:27] future. So, this isn't ostentatious.
[2:56:29] This isn't extravagant. Uh, but it is
[2:56:31] built for the future. So, we have three
[2:56:33] bays, double deep, so we can put extra
[2:56:34] apparatus. Uh, which we're already out
[2:56:36] of room. We're we're currently parking,
[2:56:39] you know, fairly outside because we just
[2:56:42] don't have to worry about it. This has
[2:56:43] seven bedrooms, so we can expand the
[2:56:46] personnel in the area if we need to in
[2:56:48] the future. Um, and then the one area
[2:56:50] that sort of survived from the combined
[2:56:53] police station, fire station section is
[2:56:55] the fitness area that you can see over
[2:56:56] here on the side. Now, we put it over
[2:56:58] here on purpose because of that concept.
[2:56:59] We wanted to be separate from the
[2:57:02] firefighters living quarters. Um, but we
[2:57:05] also wanted PD to be able to access that
[2:57:07] space at any time of day without
[2:57:09] interrupting my firemen's sleep. They
[2:57:11] value their sleep, so I have to be very
[2:57:12] careful.
[2:57:14] We designed this to be key in from the
[2:57:16] exterior and then no key access into the
[2:57:19] station living quarters. Now, because
[2:57:21] this was designed uh to not only meet
[2:57:24] the needs of my fireman, but also police
[2:57:27] department, uh it is a little bit larger
[2:57:29] than we would need necessarily by
[2:57:31] ourselves. So, generally speaking,
[2:57:32] according to our architect, uh we would
[2:57:34] have designed a space just for us that
[2:57:36] was around 1,000 ft². This one's around
[2:57:38] 1,700. So, about 700 ft² larger than we
[2:57:41] would need. And that's something I'll
[2:57:43] have to talk about a little bit more I
[2:57:44] needed.
[2:57:46] So what does it look like? Yeah, we want
[2:57:48] it to look like it's part of this uh
[2:57:50] government center. So although I don't
[2:57:52] believe in building large extravagant
[2:57:55] buildings, we also want it to look like
[2:57:56] it fits uh in the space. So taking
[2:58:00] design cues from the buildings that you
[2:58:01] guys are already building, we want it to
[2:58:03] look similar. Again, it doesn't have to
[2:58:04] be the same, but we felt like it was
[2:58:06] important that they rhyme from a design
[2:58:08] standpoint.
[2:58:09] Show quickly kind of some overhead
[2:58:11] stuff. So trying to save some space. So
[2:58:13] this is exterior cladding is uh
[2:58:16] transparent. Um hoping to save on this
[2:58:19] south facing slope. Save on energy costs
[2:58:22] by blocking some of that light. And then
[2:58:24] trying to maximize outdoor space, which
[2:58:26] is cheap construction, but still gives
[2:58:27] the firefighters room to room to
[2:58:31] recreate.
[2:58:33] All right, here's the back view. Oh,
[2:58:36] here's the back
[2:58:40] interior again. not not huge. I would
[2:58:43] call it conservative, especially
[2:58:44] compared to some of the fire stations I
[2:58:46] know have been built in the last 5 years
[2:58:47] across the state.
[2:58:50] That's not my support.
[2:58:55] All right. So, what do you get from the
[2:58:56] response standpoint? I kind of showed
[2:58:58] you where our response gaps were and how
[2:59:00] come we chose location we did, but I
[2:59:02] want to show you guys why we're making
[2:59:04] such a considerable uh investment in
[2:59:06] public safety in Harrisville. This is a
[2:59:08] big big deal. It's a game changer.
[2:59:10] Again, it's been a long time coming, so
[2:59:11] you guys should be aware of that. So,
[2:59:13] faster response times along that 89
[2:59:15] corridor where we show we're
[2:59:17] consistently missing that 4-minute
[2:59:19] travel that reduces the risk of poor
[2:59:21] outcomes due to extended travel time.
[2:59:22] So, again, here's that map that we
[2:59:24] showed you before. So, we started to
[2:59:25] model what would that look like with a
[2:59:27] station 23 in place. So, you can see
[2:59:29] that even the usually uh fairly
[2:59:31] conservative computer model that shows
[2:59:33] that that covers most of that area. So
[2:59:35] all the way I actually got out and drove
[2:59:37] it because I don't trust my computer all
[2:59:39] the time in my own car here and was able
[2:59:42] to make it all the way to the county
[2:59:43] border in less than four. That was even
[2:59:45] simulating red lights, clearing the red
[2:59:47] light visually and then making my way
[2:59:50] through like I would if I was driving
[2:59:51] license
[2:59:55] checking somebody's email.
[2:59:58] Sorry.
[3:00:00] All right.
[3:00:02] So, increased reliability,
[3:00:04] better distribution of calls up here.
[3:00:06] So, again, here's our heat map. Where
[3:00:07] are our calls happening? Well, they're
[3:00:09] all happening down here. And it's
[3:00:10] important. We we would never go back in
[3:00:13] time and not build station 22. It needs
[3:00:15] to be there to meet those travel time
[3:00:16] when we have exceptional wildland risk
[3:00:18] in that area. It has to happen. But, do
[3:00:20] we have enough resources now to handle
[3:00:22] these areas that are hot?
[3:00:26] So, we map those out. Remember I talked
[3:00:28] about some of these some of those red
[3:00:30] dots that were near station 21 inside of
[3:00:33] that theoretical travel. That was a big
[3:00:35] question for us as we started to analyze
[3:00:36] the data. Why are we missing so close to
[3:00:39] the station? The computer says that we
[3:00:41] should be able to make it easily to
[3:00:43] those emergencies just south of station
[3:00:45] 21 right here uh in in less than four.
[3:00:48] No problem. We dug a little bit deeper
[3:00:50] and it has more to do with where our
[3:00:52] calls are happening concentration than
[3:00:54] it does travel distance. So that's when
[3:00:56] we start to talk about what's called
[3:00:57] reliability. So right now 80% of our
[3:01:00] calls are taken by station 21 and only
[3:01:02] 20% of station taken by station 22. That
[3:01:06] means when 21 is busy, 22 has to come
[3:01:09] down off the hill and have an extended
[3:01:11] response time and that area is now
[3:01:13] unprotected. So that's a big problem for
[3:01:15] us, right? So each one of these yellow
[3:01:17] dots was a dot in 2024, I believe, uh
[3:01:20] where 22 had to come off the hill to
[3:01:23] take that emergency. Um
[3:01:26] travel times for these probably where we
[3:01:30] are for station 22 I would say 10
[3:01:32] minutes plus travel. So you're looking
[3:01:35] 15 to 20 minutes to get somebody on
[3:01:37] scene. People say well we have Odin fire
[3:01:39] station right here. Well they'll show up
[3:01:41] on fires but they won't respond on
[3:01:42] medicals and I can't ask them to. They
[3:01:44] take they run out of five stations
[3:01:46] 20,000 calls a year. They are too busy
[3:01:49] to come and help us on every emergency.
[3:01:51] It's our responsibility to make sure
[3:01:53] that we have units available in the
[3:01:54] right places to take those units.
[3:01:57] And on top of that, not only is that 820
[3:02:00] split starting to tax us, but uh call
[3:02:02] volume is increasing out of control. So
[3:02:05] emergency services demand has increased
[3:02:06] 85% since 2018.
[3:02:10] So in 2018, we ran just over 2,000
[3:02:12] calls. This year we're looking at 4,100
[3:02:14] incidents based on our tracking report
[3:02:16] on the year to date. So planning for the
[3:02:18] future's huge for us. We try to project
[3:02:21] that out using linear regressions in the
[3:02:23] Ken Garner Institute's data on
[3:02:24] population growth, but it's outpacing
[3:02:26] population growth. So that 85% call
[3:02:28] increase happened in a period of
[3:02:30] population growth of only 16.5. Why that
[3:02:33] is, we're not sure. We don't know. But
[3:02:35] people are utilizing our services. Way
[3:02:37] way more per citizen than they used to.
[3:02:39] So it's about 85 calls per thousand
[3:02:41] residents or about one resident in 11
[3:02:43] will use our services each year.
[3:02:46] And like I said, 281 calls increase over
[3:02:49] last year in just the first half of
[3:02:51] 2016. So even on our most aggressive
[3:02:53] linear regression progression, we're
[3:02:55] already at 2018 high growth numbers.
[3:02:59] We're trying to stay ahead of the curve.
[3:03:01] So once we decided that 23 was where we
[3:03:05] uh needed to be, uh had to sit down and
[3:03:08] decide what that would look like. So
[3:03:09] this is kind of what the the finished
[3:03:11] product would look like once the project
[3:03:13] was finished and we had the staff added
[3:03:14] and the trucks were in service ready to
[3:03:16] roll. Uh we would distribute our call
[3:03:18] volume a little more effectively. So now
[3:03:20] station 21 said taking 80% of call
[3:03:23] volume would only take 50. Station 22
[3:03:25] would stay about the same at 20% without
[3:03:27] likely change as Mount Road goes
[3:03:29] through. And station 23, the new one
[3:03:30] here in Harrisville would pick about
[3:03:32] 30%. So really taking 30% of the load
[3:03:35] off of 21 and really not affecting
[3:03:37] station 22 much at all. So that should
[3:03:39] give us not only that NFPA compliant 4
[3:03:43] minutes or less travel all the way up
[3:03:45] the 89 corridor, but it should also give
[3:03:47] us that backup unit down here in
[3:03:49] Harrisville when 21 is already on a
[3:03:51] call, which again they're already
[3:03:52] carrying 80% of the load and we're just
[3:03:54] getting busier.
[3:03:56] So you can see based on those uh so it
[3:03:58] was really kind of a two for one.
[3:03:59] They're actually pleasantly surprised
[3:04:00] when we started modeling on Highway 89.
[3:04:03] I think you mentioned councilman that
[3:04:05] the state's sort of a pain when it comes
[3:04:07] to access needs off of 89. I love it
[3:04:10] because that means that our modeling
[3:04:12] should stay consistent for a long long
[3:04:13] time. So as long as they continue to
[3:04:15] control access
[3:04:17] off of 89, we can feel pretty
[3:04:19] comfortable about northwest travel or
[3:04:21] north south travel on highway units in
[3:04:23] the city attack. You can see how much
[3:04:25] more of those reds we start to pick up
[3:04:27] in this new model.
[3:04:29] Um, also as just sort of an aside, the
[3:04:32] plan right now would be to leave station
[3:04:34] 22 staffed as it is, which is one
[3:04:36] engine, three people, and an ambulance
[3:04:37] for two. Right now, we have seven
[3:04:39] people. We actually had to add bedrooms
[3:04:41] at 22 and 21 cuz we're busting at the
[3:04:43] seams. Uh, instead of having seven
[3:04:45] people at 21 like we currently do, we
[3:04:47] would move that ambulance to the new
[3:04:49] Harrisville station and staff at 300.
[3:04:53] All right, project timeline. We're
[3:04:55] looking
[3:04:56] early summer, maybe late spring for a
[3:04:59] groundbreaking. Even this decision, even
[3:05:01] though we're showing the need now and
[3:05:02] the benefits now, as you guys know, it
[3:05:04] takes time to not only plan for
[3:05:06] construction, but actually build
[3:05:07] something. So, even with the board
[3:05:09] acting unanimously here just a month ago
[3:05:11] to this tax increase to move forward on
[3:05:13] this, we're working on the bonding
[3:05:14] financing. If we can break spring by
[3:05:16] break ground by late spring, early
[3:05:18] summer, we're hopeful that we could get
[3:05:20] the staff hired, trained, and be cutting
[3:05:22] the ribbon on station January, February
[3:05:25] of 29th, which is really, really
[3:05:28] exciting.
[3:05:29] All right, so any questions on that?
[3:05:34] Could you go back maybe three slides
[3:05:37] where you had the map of the
[3:05:38] » Yes, sir.
[3:05:39] » Three stations and gather. Yeah. So,
[3:05:43] are the red dots
[3:05:46] still are they were the responses not
[3:05:50] happening now?
[3:05:51] » Yes.
[3:05:52] » Okay. So, it's not saying once station
[3:05:54] 23 those will still all be ragged off.
[3:05:56] » No sir. No. So, that's historic data.
[3:05:58] So, again, those are verified emergent
[3:06:00] calls. I think this is 2025's numbers. I
[3:06:02] think the other one was 2024.
[3:06:05] But yes, it shows theoretically which
[3:06:07] calls that we've missed on in the
[3:06:09] historical data that we should be able
[3:06:11] to manage within the prescribed time.
[3:06:12] Okay,
[3:06:16] questions you guys have a long night.
[3:06:19] » Thank you.
[3:06:19] » You bet. So, the last thing that uh that
[3:06:22] we kind of need to discuss, so timeline
[3:06:24] wise, again, we're kind of tracking
[3:06:26] that. We're not in a huge hurry. We want
[3:06:27] to make sure that we do everything the
[3:06:28] right way. Uh the the one thing that we
[3:06:30] will need some clarity on from you guys
[3:06:32] is whether or not Harrisville intends to
[3:06:35] participate in that shared space. So if
[3:06:37] not, we'll need to adjust the size of
[3:06:39] that down. Architect puts the cost of
[3:06:42] that extra space at about $500 a square
[3:06:44] foot or about $350,000 for just the
[3:06:47] extra total cost of the fitness space
[3:06:49] altogether is about $850,000.
[3:06:52] So that would be the one thing that we
[3:06:54] would need to to get clarification from
[3:06:55] you guys. um and start at the top of
[3:06:58] progress on uh purchasing the property
[3:07:02] and figuring out how to acquire that
[3:07:03] from you guys as well. But I think the
[3:07:05] first thing that we would need from you
[3:07:06] guys is to know yes, we're interested in
[3:07:09] participating with this shared space
[3:07:10] concept or no, I mean it doesn't it's
[3:07:13] okay with us either way. We can reduce
[3:07:15] this the size of the workout room and
[3:07:17] move forward that way. But I think it
[3:07:18] provides a really really good
[3:07:20] opportunity to give a a safe comfortable
[3:07:22] place that your police officers can work
[3:07:24] out. I don't think it's comfortable for
[3:07:26] these guys going to snap fitness.
[3:07:27] Certainly certainly not in uniform.
[3:07:31] And they get to hang out with their
[3:07:32] fireman brothers, which we probably
[3:07:34] love, right?
[3:07:35] » Absolutely. Yeah. So, thank you. If you
[3:07:38] guys don't have anything else for me,
[3:07:41] » I have a random question. You were
[3:07:42] talking about you're not quite sure why
[3:07:44] the call volume has gone up so much,
[3:07:45] disproportionate to population.
[3:07:47] » Yes, sir.
[3:07:48] » Have you looked at aging demographics
[3:07:50] because I know a lot of calls we get are
[3:07:51] older people involved. It's always been
[3:07:53] an an older population anyway. So, I
[3:07:56] think that's one component, but I think
[3:07:57] there's way more. I think we're seeing
[3:08:00] or call utilization rates increasing in
[3:08:03] higher density of areas more than
[3:08:05] anything else. And again, if you look at
[3:08:07] Ogden and look at their demographics,
[3:08:08] they're sort of the extreme example of
[3:08:10] that. We're one for 11 citizens. They're
[3:08:14] uh one for four and a half citizens.
[3:08:17] Okay? They have 80,000 citizens and they
[3:08:19] run 20,000 calls. We have uh 40,000
[3:08:23] 42,000 and we run 4,000 calls. So
[3:08:27] there's a lot in there. I think if I had
[3:08:29] spare time, I would dig into that. Um
[3:08:32] the calls are not necessarily more
[3:08:35] medical versus more fire. They're
[3:08:37] they're both going up.
[3:08:39] » Yeah. Everything kind of trends up
[3:08:41] together.
[3:08:43] But again, not sure why. There's there's
[3:08:45] a whole PhD study in there if anybody
[3:08:47] has the time. I don't. But I would love
[3:08:49] to read it if you got it. Be really
[3:08:51] interested.
[3:08:54] » All right. Thank you.
[3:08:55] » Thank you.
[3:09:00] » Thanks.
[3:09:03] » Discussion is council meeting frequency
[3:09:06] discussion.
[3:09:08] Council member Wilson
[3:09:12] just trying to look at some options. But
[3:09:16] we have one meeting once a month. It
[3:09:17] becomes a marathon meeting just like
[3:09:19] tonight, you know, close to an hour
[3:09:21] discussing something that's very
[3:09:23] important while everybody's waiting. And
[3:09:25] the concerns that I had was is do we
[3:09:27] need to divide the two meetings? I don't
[3:09:30] necessarily think that's the answer. At
[3:09:32] the same time, one other thing needs to
[3:09:34] be considered
[3:09:36] two meetings a month. That gave plenty
[3:09:39] commission an opportunity to have
[3:09:41] something on agenda that voted on. We
[3:09:43] don't have that. They have to wait a
[3:09:44] whole month. I think that needs to be
[3:09:46] looked at.
[3:09:48] What happened tonight I think is one of
[3:09:50] the possible answers that if there is a
[3:09:53] discussion that needs to be on the
[3:09:55] agenda if that work meeting can tended
[3:09:58] to that and we can have the 6:00 hour
[3:10:01] for for an hour. I think that helps us
[3:10:03] in making the decision. I think it
[3:10:05] helped a little bit today.
[3:10:07] Unfortunately, sorry that didn't didn't
[3:10:10] seem to happen, but at the same time, it
[3:10:13] was a healthy discussion and I think it
[3:10:15] helped us come to the conclusion of
[3:10:17] passing out ordinance today.
[3:10:19] » However,
[3:10:21] I don't think we're doing justice to our
[3:10:23] citizens either when they have to sit
[3:10:24] here for three or four hours.
[3:10:27] » I'll sit mine.
[3:10:28] » I know you would, but there's a lot of
[3:10:30] others that like to go to bed, have
[3:10:32] watched them.
[3:10:33] And so my discussion is is what's the
[3:10:37] best way to get into frequency? I mean,
[3:10:39] here it's 9:30. We're we should 10:00
[3:10:41] before we get done or later.
[3:10:43] » Yeah. Or later. And so, you know, these
[3:10:46] are marathon meetings that I don't think
[3:10:48] do anything. I think past 9 or 9:30.
[3:10:50] We're all shut. I don't think we're
[3:10:52] making wise decisions a couple week. And
[3:10:54] so, the idea of this discussion is, do
[3:10:56] you have any ideas how to help solve
[3:11:00] some of this problem or at least
[3:11:01] streamline it?
[3:11:06] comments.
[3:11:06] » Well, maybe a couple questions. I know
[3:11:08] what I had
[3:11:12] some comments and I asked Jack about
[3:11:14] send them out to the council members
[3:11:17] beforehand rather than hand them out. I
[3:11:20] think the response was really they just
[3:11:23] need to be handed out. And Jack, help me
[3:11:26] understand what was the reason why they
[3:11:29] could have gone earlier. So, if you're
[3:11:32] sending out items that would be a
[3:11:33] discussion, they need to happen in a
[3:11:35] public meeting where the public can view
[3:11:38] it. If I'm sending it out in an email
[3:11:39] and you guys are debating it or
[3:11:41] considering it, the public doesn't isn't
[3:11:44] part of that. So the whole point of the
[3:11:45] open and public meeting such is every
[3:11:47] decision of everything you guys do
[3:11:49] should be here in these meetings
[3:11:53] » Because that was one of the thoughts I
[3:11:54] had first and then when Jack told me
[3:11:56] about what's wrong with it this way then
[3:11:59] because I think it'd always be helpful
[3:12:01] if everyone saw stuff early and then
[3:12:03] think about it and then don't have to go
[3:12:06] over each item on that you just get it
[3:12:09] at the same meeting and say okay now act
[3:12:11] on it have another thought I think maybe
[3:12:14] Two options are one do you hold a second
[3:12:17] meeting and it's just work session
[3:12:18] meeting it's not an hour before one do
[3:12:21] you just hold a work session mean all
[3:12:23] you discuss is these type of things
[3:12:27] or do you do just what you're talking
[3:12:29] about tonight you have a work session at
[3:12:31] 6:00 and then you have a regular meeting
[3:12:33] at 7 and just make that the stand across
[3:12:37] those are two two possibilities
[3:12:42] » I do like the idea of a work session
[3:12:44] where we were able to discuss each of
[3:12:46] our thoughts and not have the pressure
[3:12:48] of and then we're going to vote
[3:12:50] immediately then we have time to think
[3:12:52] and process before we have another
[3:12:56] meeting. So it does seem like in order
[3:12:58] to do that we would need to add a second
[3:13:00] meeting per month. I agree. It's they
[3:13:03] don't want to be able
[3:13:04] » I know in a lot of the other cities I'
[3:13:07] other mayors I've talked to, they've
[3:13:09] implemented a work session before every
[3:13:12] city council meeting just to have a lot
[3:13:15] of those discussions
[3:13:17] » Beforehand and they said it helps
[3:13:22] » Because I do what I can on my own but
[3:13:25] having these other thoughts from other
[3:13:27] council members brought to my attention
[3:13:29] does definitely increase my
[3:13:31] understanding of the issues. So, I
[3:13:33] appreciate that. And then having some
[3:13:36] time to process and take notes and look
[3:13:39] those over and do more research would be
[3:13:41] helpful.
[3:13:42] » Yeah, I think some of it too when you're
[3:13:44] talking about research, I think we come
[3:13:47] with a lot of questions cuz these are
[3:13:49] questions we don't have that maybe we
[3:13:52] could have answered if we had a little
[3:13:54] bit more time to research. I don't know
[3:13:56] if there's a possibility of getting us
[3:13:59] materials sooner. I mean, uh, we're
[3:14:03] we're getting some of these materials,
[3:14:06] you know, a couple of days in advance,
[3:14:10] it feels like. And you know having just
[3:14:13] a few days is not
[3:14:18] I mean cuz like when we get the last
[3:14:20] amendment they amended thing just
[3:14:25] yesterday this morning when we get the
[3:14:28] amendment I have to look at my Thursday
[3:14:33] » You know and so I mean and sometimes we
[3:14:35] have when we've gotten amendments at the
[3:14:37] very very last minute so I don't know if
[3:14:39] we can get them even sooner. I mean,
[3:14:42] it'd be great to have a week prepared
[3:14:45] for uh to look at some of these things
[3:14:47] cuz uh you know,
[3:14:52] I spend a lot of time in the evenings.
[3:14:56] Um, but my work has been exceptionally
[3:14:59] busy as well. And sometimes you go
[3:15:01] through those ups and downs. And so you
[3:15:03] I came prepared with a lot of questions,
[3:15:05] but a lot of them were answered as we
[3:15:08] everybody else was asking them. But I
[3:15:11] could probably answer some of those
[3:15:13] questions and looking into some of the
[3:15:15] state law, things like that. But don't
[3:15:18] have all the time to go and find some of
[3:15:21] those things. Greg has more time than
[3:15:23] the rest of us. That's why I didn't
[3:15:25] touch that, right?
[3:15:27] » So, I mean, it would be helpful if we
[3:15:30] could get it a little earlier.
[3:15:32] » Another thing that I think needs to go
[3:15:34] into this is we're asking staff to come
[3:15:36] to a second meeting, which means they
[3:15:38] have to have everything here, which is
[3:15:40] extra time on them,
[3:15:42] » Right?
[3:15:42] » And I think we need to be considerate of
[3:15:44] their time.
[3:15:44] » I agree.
[3:15:45] » So, that has to be part of the equation,
[3:15:48] too. And I think that's an important
[3:15:49] part of respecting for you guys, giving
[3:15:52] up your evenings. That's really simply
[3:15:55] put another meeting tomorrow. Somebody
[3:15:58] said at least it was the option was
[3:16:00] given what we swapped uh plotting
[3:16:03] commission and city council which means
[3:16:05] now we'll meet on Wednesday instead of
[3:16:07] Tuesday. Is that something that we would
[3:16:09] do a topy turby and what does that do
[3:16:12] and how does that do a ripple effect
[3:16:15] throughout everybody?
[3:16:17] I mean that's just another thing I'm
[3:16:19] concerned if planning commission is not
[3:16:22] so much concerned about getting it onto
[3:16:23] agenda
[3:16:26] then that's that's not avoid but I think
[3:16:29] it's something to consider which means
[3:16:31] we need to be involved with climate
[3:16:32] efficiency to see what their
[3:16:35] I'm not proposing this I'm just looking
[3:16:37] at ideas right now so that we have an
[3:16:40] effective discussion that's going on
[3:16:43] we're able to have the time to plan on
[3:16:45] things and still be able do basically go
[3:16:48] home in a decent hour because most of us
[3:16:50] have to work the next day some others.
[3:16:54] » So talking to us as a council I I'm
[3:16:57] going to bring up some things too is
[3:16:59] that I don't think that more time is in
[3:17:02] a meeting is necessarily going to be
[3:17:04] better either. Meaning we have another
[3:17:07] meeting. Reason why is because how many
[3:17:09] of us have been to meetings that you
[3:17:13] felt like you didn't need to have had
[3:17:15] that meeting but it still went just as
[3:17:16] long and if not longer.
[3:17:19] » Yeah.
[3:17:20] » Um I think efficiency for me is all
[3:17:23] about being able to research and find
[3:17:27] answers to questions and there's a lot
[3:17:29] of tools out there. It's just that um
[3:17:32] need a little bit. I think time is the
[3:17:35] biggest thing. Preparation.
[3:17:41] Well, I mean, I'm thinking we ought to
[3:17:43] like propose something to just try to
[3:17:46] like see if we can streamline it a
[3:17:48] little bit. And maybe that would be and
[3:17:51] I'll strong suggestion is that we add
[3:17:53] that
[3:17:55] work session at the beginning of the
[3:17:56] meeting at 6:00. So, we start at 6:00
[3:17:59] instead of 7. give you some
[3:18:01] opportunities to make those discussion
[3:18:03] items and bring up those items that we
[3:18:06] can that are in those area. I don't you
[3:18:09] know I don't know on the agenda I've
[3:18:11] been a part of making the agenda when we
[3:18:13] get it done
[3:18:15] that's a real I mean it's I thought it
[3:18:18] would be really easy to make it so you
[3:18:20] can do it but you can't necessarily cut
[3:18:21] everybody off.
[3:18:22] » Yeah.
[3:18:23] » So timing wise we
[3:18:27] I think we try to get them out as quick
[3:18:29] as we possibly can. I know. I I meet
[3:18:32] with Jenny on
[3:18:35] » Tuesday.
[3:18:36] » Tuesday before
[3:18:39] like
[3:18:41] this last like last Tuesday
[3:18:44] » Tuesday before Tuesday.
[3:18:46] So, but I mean we make the discussion,
[3:18:49] you know, bring bring up the idea of the
[3:18:51] agenda and what's on there and and so
[3:18:53] then past that there's things that get
[3:18:55] added, things are getting other
[3:18:57] information getting sent. And so,
[3:19:01] I mean, I don't know what we could do
[3:19:03] about that, but I I do like the idea of
[3:19:06] I mean, I like the idea of the
[3:19:08] discussion we had today for that first
[3:19:10] hour. I think that that helped somewhat
[3:19:14] with the discussion later.
[3:19:17] But I think any of that that we could
[3:19:20] try to streamline,
[3:19:22] you know, making those questions where
[3:19:25] we're not necessarily having to talk to
[3:19:27] the public and we will be talking to the
[3:19:29] public,
[3:19:31] we can have that discussion amongst us
[3:19:33] and they can hear what's going on. So
[3:19:36] anyway, that's my thoughts. Well, maybe
[3:19:39] another thought too, Dan. You know, I
[3:19:42] think saying we'll get us through the
[3:19:44] 6:00
[3:19:46] work session
[3:19:48] to have that. I'm wondering also if if
[3:19:50] there's, you know, you see the consent
[3:19:53] items
[3:19:54] and I'm wondering if there, you know,
[3:19:56] kind of take a look at some of these
[3:19:57] things. Are there things that could be
[3:19:59] just really consent?
[3:20:01] There's a written item in the agenda.
[3:20:05] So, yeah, you know what it is. And then
[3:20:08] there's this one vote on on item A B C D
[3:20:11] in common consent and there's not any
[3:20:14] discussion at all. But you look at those
[3:20:16] okay if we have enough back background
[3:20:19] information and it doesn't really
[3:20:21] require any other discussion. So that
[3:20:24] could be just handled with with that
[3:20:26] type of thing.
[3:20:28] » I did enjoy Jill's comments though today
[3:20:31] as far as what was going on. I think
[3:20:33] that's important. I think having each to
[3:20:37] the uh areas representative when they
[3:20:40] need to. I think gives us a good feel
[3:20:43] that they know what's going on and
[3:20:45] they're double checking. So even if
[3:20:47] maybe it only for two or three minutes,
[3:20:49] I think that's helpful. I understand
[3:20:51] where you're coming from and consolidate
[3:20:53] the time. I like the discussions that we
[3:20:56] have, but I don't want to go down a
[3:20:57] rabbit hole and yet sometimes I know we
[3:21:00] have to in order to get the information.
[3:21:02] I'm not opposed to it, but I just watch
[3:21:04] how it goes on and on and trying to get
[3:21:06] discussions going and and we're getting
[3:21:10] questions answered and we're thinking
[3:21:12] about how we're going to vote. At the
[3:21:14] same time, it's very detailed and and
[3:21:17] takes a lot of time and I I don't know
[3:21:21] if that's effective time. It is for that
[3:21:24] one item, but it isn't for the whole
[3:21:26] entire agenda of things that we need to
[3:21:28] get to that we don't get to until very
[3:21:30] last. I enjoyed the reports really and
[3:21:34] yet they did last week.
[3:21:36] » Okay.
[3:21:38] » Is there an alternative way of getting
[3:21:40] our questions answered outside of the
[3:21:42] meeting? Is it just we email the person
[3:21:45] who is on the agenda as a presenter?
[3:21:49] » So you got to be careful with all that.
[3:21:51] I think talk about that. That's
[3:21:55] » You got to a lot of that discussion has
[3:21:58] to happen in the public favor. all the
[3:22:01] public meetings
[3:22:02] » Among us.
[3:22:04] » The problem with it is even even
[3:22:07] answering those questions about that
[3:22:09] become an issue as well.
[3:22:11] » So it just does seem like we just need
[3:22:13] more meeting time then I just don't see
[3:22:15] a way around that.
[3:22:17] And I I think if we have a discussion
[3:22:20] time within that first hour and we all
[3:22:22] are aware that that's going to take
[3:22:24] place, then we know that we instead of
[3:22:27] being here in 7, we're here at 6:00 and
[3:22:30] we can have that. And I think if we come
[3:22:32] prepared to do those items, we can get a
[3:22:35] lot of that discussion out of the way
[3:22:36] and then when we get to the audience
[3:22:41] that happens with public hearings
[3:22:43] because you might get some might change
[3:22:45] your Yeah, but mayor maybe on that if in
[3:22:49] that work session you see some of these
[3:22:52] questions up that could be something
[3:22:54] then when we come to agenda say okay we
[3:22:56] have this we know these are going to
[3:22:57] take longer let's put these further back
[3:22:59] and let's get the other things done
[3:23:01] quickly so people aren't just waiting
[3:23:03] for some items you know like the fire
[3:23:06] station or things like that thinking
[3:23:09] about that done
[3:23:09] » We can we can amend the agenda at the
[3:23:13] beginning
[3:23:13] » Of the meeting
[3:23:14] » We have we have a work session, we see
[3:23:16] that that can be changed. We make that
[3:23:20] amendment at the beginning of the
[3:23:21] meeting and that way everybody knows
[3:23:23] what's in order.
[3:23:25] » Yeah.
[3:23:28] » So, do we just need three people to to
[3:23:31] do the 6:00 work session?
[3:23:33] » Yeah, we're happy to accommodate a work
[3:23:35] session. Um, that's that's a bit easier.
[3:23:38] It is very helpful if you send your
[3:23:40] questions to staff members prior to
[3:23:42] meetings that we can come prepared and
[3:23:44] already know what your questions are.
[3:23:46] That's very helpful. We do put anybody
[3:23:48] that's doing a presentation, the
[3:23:50] contracted, you know, we do that really
[3:23:52] intentionally because we're trying to be
[3:23:55] mindful of their time with how long
[3:23:56] they're waiting. Um, but other things we
[3:24:00] can manipulate hour of the council and
[3:24:02] ultimately it's the mayor's agenda.
[3:24:05] Well, I think one thing this time
[3:24:08] because of Labor Day, I mean, I could
[3:24:11] send my comments, but you guys wouldn't
[3:24:12] get them until today and Sarah could
[3:24:15] have sent some comments back and have
[3:24:17] the discussion would have have happened,
[3:24:20] you know, but again, that's because of
[3:24:22] Labor Day and that is
[3:24:24] » We'd still rather address your questions
[3:24:26] in the public forum, but it prepares us
[3:24:29] if we have it ahead of time. And yes, we
[3:24:31] did have a holiday yesterday. It's rare
[3:24:32] that that happens, but it does
[3:24:34] occasionally.
[3:24:35] » It does. It happens. So, anyhow, it's
[3:24:37] just some of my thoughts. I I would nod
[3:24:40] to say yes, it's a work session.
[3:24:42] » So, do we need to amend the meeting
[3:24:45] thing or or I know we we first of the
[3:24:48] year we changed it just to one meeting.
[3:24:51] I guess it's just work session. We're
[3:24:52] okay. You not have to
[3:24:54] » We can easily add a session.
[3:24:57] Okay.
[3:24:57] » So, that's the way we're going to move
[3:24:58] ahead is just with the work session
[3:25:01] » And then realign the decision,
[3:25:04] » Streamline it.
[3:25:05] » Yeah.
[3:25:06] » Okay. Thank you.
[3:25:07] » Um,
[3:25:09] next item is rules and procedure
[3:25:11] discussion.
[3:25:16] So, this is something I've been working
[3:25:18] on a little bit. Um, given the hour, I
[3:25:21] don't know that I'm going to go too much
[3:25:22] into it. Um, forgive me, but I get past
[3:25:25] hour 15 in the day and I kind of lose my
[3:25:28] mustard. Um, I know Mr. Montgomery
[3:25:31] talked about this a while, just kind of
[3:25:33] an update and a switch to our actual
[3:25:35] rules of procedure in order. I have some
[3:25:37] drafts uh that I've been preparing. Some
[3:25:40] of this kind of bleeds into what we're
[3:25:42] talking about because um, you know, we
[3:25:44] talk about
[3:25:47] following the open and public meeting
[3:25:48] act. you do want to have your
[3:25:50] discussions in public. Um, and you know,
[3:25:53] when you're talking about getting
[3:25:54] questions answered um, from a staff,
[3:25:56] like council members are certainly okay
[3:25:59] to ask questions. Um, but it kind of
[3:26:02] gets a little tricky where one council
[3:26:04] member really shouldn't be directing
[3:26:06] staff or or or making them work
[3:26:08] specifically for you. So, that's kind of
[3:26:11] a a gray area. Uh, one thing that we
[3:26:14] could do, kind of circling back to the
[3:26:16] last conversation, is um, you know, when
[3:26:18] there is a laundry list of questions
[3:26:20] like Mr. Montgomery had tonight, uh,
[3:26:22] that certainly be could be sent to staff
[3:26:25] to be put in as part of the packet and
[3:26:27] that would be an appropriate way to do
[3:26:29] that. You don't want to email it out.
[3:26:32] Um, I think if like hypothetically,
[3:26:36] let's just say Mr. Montgomery sent you,
[3:26:38] hey, these are all the questions I have
[3:26:39] for tonight. I don't know that that
[3:26:41] necessarily violates the act. The
[3:26:44] problem is is that any discussion that
[3:26:45] came from that outside of the meeting
[3:26:47] would be problematic. So it's much it's
[3:26:50] better to just how is that made possible
[3:26:53] if we're getting the packet on Thursday
[3:26:56] and you're supposed to have it in on
[3:26:58] Thursday. Does that make sense? Your
[3:27:00] questions.
[3:27:01] » Yeah. I wouldn't be able to raise a
[3:27:02] question to
[3:27:02] » You wouldn't be able to raise questions
[3:27:03] and have it go out in the packet because
[3:27:05] you don't get the packet until it's out.
[3:27:08] » Okay. But I think the idea is
[3:27:10] » Yeah, you could send that to staff and
[3:27:12] that could be part of like you could do
[3:27:15] an amended packet um or anything like
[3:27:18] that for those type of questions.
[3:27:20] There's a way there's a way to do that.
[3:27:22] I understand your question if you don't
[3:27:24] have any idea that it's coming. Um but I
[3:27:27] mean we can work on that with work
[3:27:30] sessions and things like that because if
[3:27:32] there was a work session and then you
[3:27:34] you know had a later meeting you could
[3:27:36] have a list of questions like that
[3:27:38] provided.
[3:27:39] Um and then also too um when there is
[3:27:44] like today would be a good example if
[3:27:46] you send that to staff even after the
[3:27:47] staff could make that part of the record
[3:27:49] and get to each individual council
[3:27:50] member. So that could be done. Um,
[3:27:54] » Can I ask a question about if we have
[3:27:57] some agenda items
[3:28:00] figured out, can we send out the
[3:28:03] information as like a partial packet as
[3:28:05] soon as we have it or does it the final
[3:28:07] agenda have to be done and all the
[3:28:09] information all the extras that go along
[3:28:13] with it all has to be sent together?
[3:28:14] » You have to Yeah, I mean it should be
[3:28:16] set together once the meeting is
[3:28:18] notified, put on the websites, noticed
[3:28:21] and and sent out. Um,
[3:28:24] yeah, there's I understand what you're
[3:28:26] saying. There's just really not a a
[3:28:28] great way to kind of piece in all that
[3:28:30] because of the noticing and the
[3:28:32] transparency requirements.
[3:28:36] Okay. Specifically, and like I said, as
[3:28:38] far as the rules of procedure, they are
[3:28:40] adequated. They need to be updated. Um,
[3:28:43] there needs to be some updates uh for
[3:28:45] electronic participation, things like
[3:28:48] that. A couple of things that I kind of
[3:28:49] wanted some conversation on. Again, I
[3:28:52] don't want to take forever, but one of
[3:28:54] the things that come up is uh if
[3:28:58] somebody wants to abstain from a vote,
[3:29:01] uh one, do we want to put specific
[3:29:03] requirements of why you can do that or
[3:29:05] do you want to just allow that for any
[3:29:07] reason? And then if the abstension
[3:29:11] results in a tie, um should that be a a
[3:29:14] no vote or should that be a tie that
[3:29:16] then goes to the mayor? Those are two
[3:29:18] questions that um the rules and
[3:29:21] procedures of every city need to address
[3:29:23] because it's not addressed in state law.
[3:29:25] Kind of something I wanted to have
[3:29:27] direction for as they kind of draft this
[3:29:28] for what you know I'll propose that
[3:29:31] we'll send to you.
[3:29:34] » I guess I have a comment on that is we
[3:29:37] were elected from the citizens and
[3:29:39] there's nothing that we should be able
[3:29:41] to abstain from in my opinion.
[3:29:45] So I don't think I can cancel myself out
[3:29:48] of anybody.
[3:29:49] So I would agree. I think all of us
[3:29:52] should be that way. But that's my
[3:29:53] opinion.
[3:29:56] » I think though there are times that
[3:29:58] there is a conflict of interest.
[3:30:00] » Well, so and and forgive me. We're not
[3:30:03] talking about a conflict where you're
[3:30:05] required to not vote. We're talking
[3:30:07] about well these people are mad and but
[3:30:10] my wife's going to be mad at me if I
[3:30:11] vote and I don't want to vote. I want to
[3:30:13] go home and I go back.
[3:30:16] » So, it's a what a we could call it a
[3:30:18] voluntary
[3:30:20] abstension from the vote, not a
[3:30:22] conflict, not any ethical requirement,
[3:30:24] then where you shouldn't vote.
[3:30:26] » I guess the question I have is who
[3:30:28] determines which of which because I
[3:30:31] mean, if I think there's a conflict of
[3:30:33] interest, but I don't necessarily have
[3:30:35] the legal involved inside of that.
[3:30:38] » Yeah. So, that's a good question. And so
[3:30:40] anytime you're concerned about a
[3:30:42] conflict of interest, that's what I'm
[3:30:43] hired to do. Um, and you can contact me
[3:30:47] privately and we can have that
[3:30:48] discussion uh to I can give you my
[3:30:51] opinion ultimately. Um, and I say this
[3:30:55] not sarcastically, but you as an elected
[3:30:58] official are the most protected person
[3:31:00] under law. You can actually violate
[3:31:02] quite a few laws with no result. Uh, so
[3:31:05] it's your decision. So, if you're
[3:31:08] worried about a conflict, my advice
[3:31:09] would be let's talk about it. Um,
[3:31:12] » Well, we don't always have time. If we
[3:31:15] don't if we're not aware of the conflict
[3:31:17] until we get here and you're not at this
[3:31:20] meeting,
[3:31:20] » Then we just have to decide on our own,
[3:31:23] » Which happened at the last meeting to
[3:31:24] me. And I don't necessarily know how
[3:31:26] that should have gone.
[3:31:27] » Okay. But uh I just feel like if we're
[3:31:31] being held to a certain standard,
[3:31:34] but we're not clear what that standard
[3:31:35] is.
[3:31:37] » Yeah. So again, that's it's a good
[3:31:40] question. They're separate questions. Um
[3:31:43] let's say it's in the meeting and I'm
[3:31:44] not here and I apologize if I wasn't
[3:31:46] able to make it last time, but um we can
[3:31:49] have a you can ask for a fivem minute
[3:31:51] recess and we'll discuss it privately. I
[3:31:54] mean
[3:31:56] you
[3:31:58] you heir on a on a conflict of either
[3:32:00] discussing it with me, I will give you
[3:32:03] advice ultimately, it's your decision.
[3:32:04] You connect with or against my advice,
[3:32:06] right? Um, but my my general advice
[3:32:11] would be is if you're worried about it,
[3:32:12] then you should you should declare the
[3:32:15] conflict and not
[3:32:20] in some situations I've seen where the
[3:32:23] person will say, "I have a conflict of
[3:32:26] interest at the meeting." Explain it.
[3:32:29] And then the board, the commission, the
[3:32:32] council then says, "No, you don't have a
[3:32:35] conflict." Or, "Yes, you do have a
[3:32:36] conflict." And then that determines
[3:32:39] whether you leave the room
[3:32:42] » Or or you stay in your zone.
[3:32:44] » So, I would say that is a kind of a
[3:32:46] standard practice that we've done for a
[3:32:48] long time. Um, I'm not sure that's the
[3:32:51] wisest practice in my opinion because
[3:32:54] ultimately
[3:32:57] if you did make a vote in conflict,
[3:32:58] right, it's a violation of the the
[3:33:00] ethics act and that's your
[3:33:02] responsibility, not the boards. So, uh,
[3:33:06] I don't think that's the best. I think,
[3:33:08] you know, me as the attorney for the
[3:33:10] city, I can advise you on that. um if it
[3:33:13] was really a big issue and a question I
[3:33:15] mean and you could always ask your own
[3:33:18] counsel if you wanted to do that. Um but
[3:33:23] let's say you disclose a conflict or a
[3:33:25] potential conflict and then everyone
[3:33:26] says ah no you're fine and then later
[3:33:29] someone challenges on that on you the
[3:33:31] consequences are yours but not the
[3:33:33] council. So I don't know that that's the
[3:33:35] best practice.
[3:33:36] » Okay. But then maybe on your follow-up
[3:33:39] question I think about well what your
[3:33:43] second question was about conflict and
[3:33:47] then
[3:33:48] yeah
[3:33:49] » I think that should just end to break
[3:33:52] the tie
[3:33:52] » Break the tie.
[3:33:54] » Okay that's my opinion.
[3:33:59] » So that's the second part. The first
[3:34:00] part is should that be allowed? It's
[3:34:02] just that hey I'm not voting on this.
[3:34:04] No,
[3:34:06] » I don't know that it should be allowed.
[3:34:08] » Okay. And really, I'm just This is how
[3:34:11] how I'm going to draft the rules of
[3:34:12] procedure specific to Harrisville
[3:34:14] because it's one of those areas, like I
[3:34:15] said, the state doesn't opine on. Um,
[3:34:20] you know, I I tend to agree that it
[3:34:23] shouldn't be allowed personally just
[3:34:24] because you guys signed up for this,
[3:34:26] right?
[3:34:27] you your responsibility, your mantle is
[3:34:30] to vote and and if you're not voting,
[3:34:32] they should be for an ethical legal
[3:34:34] reason not to vote when you can't like
[3:34:37] if I lived on West Ser Road, I would ask
[3:34:40] if I could give out, but I don't. So
[3:34:45] that's that's about the only way I think
[3:34:48] it would be okay.
[3:34:50] » Go ahead. My question is if that is the
[3:34:54] legal
[3:34:55] verbiage
[3:34:57] and we feel we feel we're not sure where
[3:35:00] we fall conflict of interest or we will
[3:35:03] be held accountable for not voting when
[3:35:05] we should have
[3:35:08] what do you do with that how do we
[3:35:11] is does that mean there's legal
[3:35:13] consequences either way potentially for
[3:35:15] us there's no safety
[3:35:17] » So what I'm talking about is the rules
[3:35:18] of procedure right and basically without
[3:35:21] a rule, you can voluntarily abstain from
[3:35:24] above because it's kind of this gray
[3:35:26] area that's allowed and you can just say
[3:35:28] I don't want to.
[3:35:31] » Maybe there's political consequences to
[3:35:32] that.
[3:35:34] » So, can we add some sort of verbage that
[3:35:36] says if you believe you have a conflict
[3:35:37] of interest rather than there exists,
[3:35:41] » Your conflict of interest is already set
[3:35:43] up that way. If the conflict of interest
[3:35:46] is yours to declare, it's not something
[3:35:49] that's imposed on you by anyone else. So
[3:35:51] if you believe you have a conflict, then
[3:35:53] you say, "I have a conflict on this and
[3:35:55] I can't vote."
[3:35:58] So it's simple as Yeah. What I'm talking
[3:36:01] about is when there isn't a conflict at
[3:36:04] all.
[3:36:04] » Yes, I understand. But if it's
[3:36:05] adjudicated later that oh that person
[3:36:08] actually didn't have a conflict of
[3:36:09] interest but they declared it because
[3:36:11] they wanted someone suspects they wanted
[3:36:13] to get out of the vote.
[3:36:15] » So that would be that would be extremely
[3:36:18] difficult
[3:36:20] and you wouldn't be in trouble for
[3:36:22] imposing maybe a a bigger conflict than
[3:36:25] it is because ultimately it's your
[3:36:28] decision, right? You have all the
[3:36:30] information about the conflict for you.
[3:36:33] So it's it's yours to make. It's yours
[3:36:36] to claim. I don't think I don't know
[3:36:38] that there's actually a recourse if
[3:36:39] somebody says, "Well, I have a conflict
[3:36:41] that I can't."
[3:36:42] » I think that
[3:36:43] » Sorry for being persistent about it.
[3:36:46] » Yeah. So that I'll say it this way. So
[3:36:49] maybe it's I'm saying it backwards for
[3:36:51] your question, but the only way you're
[3:36:54] going to get in trouble is if you had a
[3:36:56] conflict
[3:36:58] that was objectively clear and just
[3:37:00] ignored that they voted
[3:37:03] » Or didn't vote without stating a
[3:37:06] conflict of interest.
[3:37:11] » No. So that's that's where I'm talking
[3:37:14] about with the absention is if you
[3:37:17] didn't have
[3:37:19] a conflict and you just don't want to
[3:37:21] vote, I'm asking what you guys want the
[3:37:24] rules to be.
[3:37:25] » Right. And if we have a rule that says
[3:37:26] you must vote, then that can also get
[3:37:28] you into trouble if we don't vote
[3:37:30] » For violating our rules. Yes.
[3:37:32] » Just
[3:37:35] » Okay. So I know I got a couple.
[3:37:39] Allow it. Don't allow what we do. Give
[3:37:41] me some direction here.
[3:37:44] » We have Blair and myself.
[3:37:46] » I should be we should be required to
[3:37:48] vote.
[3:37:49] » Yeah, there you go.
[3:37:58] » Okay. Uh that that was the biggest one.
[3:38:01] Um, I'll make a lot of uh legal
[3:38:04] adjustments mostly for technology to
[3:38:06] update our rules and then I'll send uh
[3:38:09] send that out for your review. Um, and
[3:38:11] then we'll bring that back for an
[3:38:13] ordinance that would update and passing
[3:38:15] rules and procedures.
[3:38:18] » So, that would sound like that'd be a
[3:38:19] great item to do a work session on
[3:38:21] before you get to the point of actually
[3:38:24] getting the ordinance put together.
[3:38:29] » That's fine.
[3:38:31] That's how you get one done.
[3:38:33] Okay.
[3:38:36] All right. Thanks, Brody. Let's go on to
[3:38:37] the next item. The item F. Discussion
[3:38:41] possible action to adopt resolution
[3:38:44] 26-24,
[3:38:47] special event policy.
[3:38:51] » Thank you, Mayor. Um, council, this is
[3:38:54] an item that was tabled at our last
[3:38:56] meeting for some additional information.
[3:38:59] I will be clear that this can also just
[3:39:01] be a discussion uh item. You can table
[3:39:04] again if I haven't provided the
[3:39:06] information that you're seeking for it.
[3:39:08] I did reach out. I believe ma mainly the
[3:39:11] concerns that we had at our last
[3:39:13] discussion were liability related or how
[3:39:16] much insurance we should require from
[3:39:18] the applicants. I did get in contact
[3:39:21] with our insurance provider.
[3:39:24] our claims.
[3:39:27] I guess I could call him the specialist,
[3:39:29] Jason Wat of the trust. He's also happy
[3:39:31] to provide this information to you if
[3:39:33] you have additional questions regarding
[3:39:35] these items. He suggested first off, he
[3:39:39] said our policy looks great. He likes a
[3:39:41] lot of detail, our permit, so we could
[3:39:45] ask for and require even more additional
[3:39:48] information in our permit if you'd like.
[3:39:52] The items I wanted to just address
[3:39:54] briefly this evening are we we had a
[3:40:01] a section in here about the attendance
[3:40:04] and whether or not the public event
[3:40:06] would have more than 500 people. We kind
[3:40:09] of had language that gave it an option.
[3:40:14] We've made that a little bit more strict
[3:40:16] that if they're going to have more than
[3:40:19] 500 people, they must apply for that
[3:40:22] mass gathering permit and then it's up
[3:40:24] to the health department for them to
[3:40:27] meet those requirements and provide
[3:40:29] that. It doesn't it kind of removes the
[3:40:31] city from making that determination. So,
[3:40:34] these are not in your package.
[3:40:35] » Oh, I was going to say I didn't see
[3:40:37] that. Okay.
[3:40:37] » They're here for discussion because they
[3:40:39] were late in the day when they were
[3:40:40] added to this. So, we've added language
[3:40:44] that the application is due to the
[3:40:47] Weaver Morgan Health Department 30 days
[3:40:50] before the event. So, I have that
[3:40:52] language added to the policy. There are
[3:40:57] there was another suggestion by our
[3:41:00] coverage
[3:41:02] to identify excluded activities that the
[3:41:06] city is not covered for in the policy.
[3:41:09] So, we're specifically calling out, but
[3:41:12] it's not limited to because we can't
[3:41:14] possibly think of everything people
[3:41:16] might try to do. And this is related to
[3:41:21] events on city property as well. But the
[3:41:26] following list are rebound devices,
[3:41:29] anything trampoline related, any and we
[3:41:31] included inflatable devices that may or
[3:41:34] may not include water features. Some of
[3:41:37] those inflatable devices they don't
[3:41:38] consider bounce houses because they have
[3:41:41] a water feature. We're just identifying
[3:41:43] any inflatable device. We do not have
[3:41:45] coverage for that. We also outlined
[3:41:50] fireworks, mechanical amusement rides,
[3:41:54] motor vehicle related events. These
[3:41:56] would be like a de demolition der derby
[3:41:59] or a dirt bike race or something like
[3:42:01] that. And aircraft drones. um anything
[3:42:06] like that would be excluded and not in
[3:42:08] our coverage. So any event that uses any
[3:42:10] of that we would not approve on city
[3:42:12] property.
[3:42:14] » Um motor vehicle related events sort of
[3:42:16] sounds like car shows that
[3:42:19] » Car shows are actually
[3:42:22] a low risk as if they're a show and
[3:42:25] they're parked
[3:42:27] moving. So if you want further clarity
[3:42:29] on motor related activi um moving motor
[3:42:34] related activities we also talked about
[3:42:36] does this include you know it's the
[3:42:39] whole electric bike scooter discussion
[3:42:42] it's really tricky so you feel like
[3:42:44] there's better language we can use in
[3:42:46] here we're happy to include it that was
[3:42:49] just what was suggested by our
[3:42:52] insuranceances he said motor vehicle
[3:42:54] related events is there something in our
[3:42:57] polic policy that gives us garbage.
[3:42:59] » We're agreeing to put our policy.
[3:43:00] » This is the policy.
[3:43:01] » This is the policy. Yeah.
[3:43:03] » If it comes from the policy that we
[3:43:06] could spell it out further to high-risk
[3:43:09] events would include demolition derby,
[3:43:11] derbies, anything racing, burnouts,
[3:43:14] lowrisk auto events would be car shows,
[3:43:18] things that the the vehicles are not
[3:43:20] moving. For example, I know a couple
[3:43:25] years ago when we had
[3:43:28] the fall thing, we had a little train
[3:43:32] that was a cart and so it pulled cars
[3:43:35] behind it and that would technically be
[3:43:38] a motor vehicle.
[3:43:40] » You notice we didn't have one next year.
[3:43:44] » So that would be pulled by a motor.
[3:43:47] » Yeah,
[3:43:48] » It would not be in the lab. And these
[3:43:49] are items that were drawn to my
[3:43:52] attention specifically that we don't
[3:43:53] have coverage for.
[3:43:54] » Okay. So in that respect, let's talk
[3:43:57] about the ebikes. Does that consider
[3:44:00] them as a motor vehicle even though
[3:44:02] they're not necessarily registered as a
[3:44:04] motor vehicle?
[3:44:05] » Can you add right there, Jenny? Ridden
[3:44:07] or driven motor vehicle?
[3:44:11] » Driven. I put whatever.
[3:44:13] » I'm just saying that would count. That's
[3:44:15] all I'm saying. and and this is this is
[3:44:18] a discussion about special events,
[3:44:20] right? We can address rights and that
[3:44:22] kind of a policy separately, but this is
[3:44:24] specifically whether you want to allow
[3:44:27] people that are flying for a for a
[3:44:30] special event.
[3:44:31] » So, as we jump down to the insurance
[3:44:33] requirements,
[3:44:35] the his suggestion was actually the
[3:44:38] liability limit shall be $2 million
[3:44:41] combined single limit for personal
[3:44:43] injury and property damage.
[3:44:45] Um certainly we can require more but
[3:44:49] that was the minimum that he suggested
[3:44:52] and I did um and we do have a disclaimer
[3:44:56] here that the city reserves the right to
[3:44:58] require additional insurance based on
[3:45:00] the nature and the risk of the event. So
[3:45:03] just application itself for the permit
[3:45:05] does not automatically qualify them.
[3:45:08] It's not an approval just because they
[3:45:10] applied for the permit. It has to go
[3:45:12] through a process on the city's approval
[3:45:14] site. So that leads to my next two
[3:45:17] questions. So there are two items that I
[3:45:20] wanted feedback on. Household
[3:45:22] notification. Do we want to include
[3:45:24] signatures from the affected households
[3:45:26] like some other cities do? So, if they
[3:45:28] were going to do a party and they were
[3:45:31] going to close the road, they would
[3:45:32] literally have to go around and gather
[3:45:34] signatures from the property owners
[3:45:36] showing that they had contact. Some
[3:45:39] cities would just provide a flyer. I
[3:45:41] believe they would put on the note their
[3:45:43] door saying, "We're going to have this
[3:45:44] event. Do you want it a little bit more
[3:45:47] cumbersome? Do you want it to say,
[3:45:49] "Yeah, I've signed this and I'm aware of
[3:45:52] this." It doesn't sign or that they're
[3:45:53] okay with it. It's just simply that they
[3:45:55] receive notification.
[3:45:59] of the event. And the second question I
[3:46:02] have posed is the review process on our
[3:46:05] permit. Do you want us to add blocks
[3:46:07] that show signatures from the department
[3:46:09] heads that it's been vetted through our
[3:46:11] whole process?
[3:46:14] » So I kind of want to go back to the
[3:46:15] first question we had about that last
[3:46:18] meeting about the insurance part. Okay.
[3:46:21] » And the uh kids parade on North
[3:46:24] Harrisville Road on the 4th of July.
[3:46:28] So, the trust does not like us to have
[3:46:30] parades in general.
[3:46:33] There's a whole training. I can send the
[3:46:35] link out if you'd like to watch the
[3:46:36] training that he provides on parades.
[3:46:39] » Oh, I Yeah. No
[3:46:42] vehicles and everything else, but I'm
[3:46:43] just wondering it's
[3:46:44] » Up to you. you know, whole neighborhood
[3:46:46] has done that for decades and is
[3:46:49] tradition now to say, okay, someone in
[3:46:51] the neighborhood has got to come up with
[3:46:53] a insurance policy
[3:46:56] for all those participants who just show
[3:46:58] up. I I have other questions
[3:47:02] also to deal with the use case, but I
[3:47:05] mean that's a specific use case, right?
[3:47:07] It's not about insurance, but
[3:47:10] um what about weddings?
[3:47:13] like someone at a church house.
[3:47:16] Um what about school events? Do they
[3:47:19] have to file for a permit? Um because it
[3:47:23] says any private or public event.
[3:47:26] Um, I I've looked up some things that
[3:47:29] say, well, those might have different
[3:47:31] jurisdictional things because of the
[3:47:33] types of properties they are, but what
[3:47:35] if someone has a a wedding in their
[3:47:38] backyard that they have more than 200
[3:47:41] people that come, you know, are we going
[3:47:43] to require them to file a permit and
[3:47:47] have 2 million $2 million worth of
[3:47:50] insurance because they're holding a
[3:47:51] wedding? Um,
[3:47:53] » So I think the distinction between
[3:47:57] having a wedding in your backyard and
[3:48:00] applying for a special event permit is
[3:48:02] going to come down to city resources,
[3:48:04] right? It's going to trigger something
[3:48:05] from the city that it's going to be they
[3:48:09] want a road closure. They're using the
[3:48:11] road for a 5k run, something like that.
[3:48:14] » But I worry that we might want to add
[3:48:16] some clarification clarifying language
[3:48:19] for things like that. And you put on
[3:48:21] that
[3:48:23] put whatever you want in it
[3:48:24] » Cuz I I don't know I don't know how you
[3:48:27] would put the language as far as I mean
[3:48:30] cuz the events are I came up with a
[3:48:32] couple. Let me pull up my notes here.
[3:48:45] I mean because if it does have anything
[3:48:47] to do with church I mean our board has
[3:48:50] 200 people every week we have to follow
[3:48:54] the church it wouldn't do anything with
[3:48:56] churches there
[3:48:59] » Are what about thresholds of private
[3:49:01] property would there be anything that
[3:49:03] should be in there about if the event is
[3:49:05] on their own private property
[3:49:08] um that's an exemption
[3:49:12] um
[3:49:14] » You would need to find a forbidden on
[3:49:16] private property.
[3:49:17] » Well, but if you have a wedding on
[3:49:19] private property, it doesn't specify
[3:49:21] really anything in there about that.
[3:49:23] Just says if you're going to have an
[3:49:25] event, a private event of 200
[3:49:30] people or more city.
[3:49:32] » No, no, it doesn't say anything about
[3:49:34] the property itself.
[3:49:38] This list right here says
[3:49:40] any any event within Harrisville
[3:49:43] » Within Harrisville
[3:49:44] » With one or more of the following a
[3:49:45] private event with 200 in attendance or
[3:49:48] more.
[3:49:48] » Yeah.
[3:49:50] » Imagine the disruption
[3:49:51] » That might be a family reunion
[3:49:53] » At one house and what that will the
[3:49:57] disruption that will create for the
[3:49:58] neighborhood.
[3:50:00] » It's a lot of people.
[3:50:01] » Yeah. I've been to weddings where there
[3:50:04] have been 200 you parked 10 minutes you
[3:50:07] parked down two blocks or three blocks
[3:50:08] away.
[3:50:11] » Um
[3:50:13] » Well I'm not saying it couldn't happen.
[3:50:15] We're not saying it can't happen. We're
[3:50:16] just saying
[3:50:17] » So you need to get a permit.
[3:50:18] » Getting the permit helps people around
[3:50:21] you to be aware of
[3:50:24] » The disruption.
[3:50:25] » But how are people going to know that
[3:50:27] for a wedding? They're going to do it in
[3:50:30] their backyard.
[3:50:32] There's also an opportunity for an
[3:50:34] exemption for the insurance portion of
[3:50:36] it. If it's a lowrisk event, then there
[3:50:39] doesn't have to be insurance coverage.
[3:50:41] The the liability insurance is suggested
[3:50:45] on things that would be a higher risk.
[3:50:49] So you we can eliminate high-risisk
[3:50:52] completely and don't allow high-risisk
[3:50:55] events in the city or we can exclude
[3:50:59] that lowrisk events like a wedding,
[3:51:01] somebody attending a wedding in a
[3:51:03] private backyard is not going to require
[3:51:05] insurance but maybe still requires the
[3:51:06] permit.
[3:51:07] » So one of the things that I had thought
[3:51:08] is if we could include language like
[3:51:11] this and might be clarifying that said
[3:51:12] something like to avoid confusion.
[3:51:16] Well,
[3:51:18] if we were to say that um put in a
[3:51:20] sentence stating that standard
[3:51:21] activities held entirely within the
[3:51:23] property boundaries of school district
[3:51:25] facilities, houses of worship or private
[3:51:28] residences where no road closures or
[3:51:30] city services are requested and or
[3:51:33] needed are exempt from this policy.
[3:51:40] » I think that would clarify.
[3:51:44] » Yeah.
[3:51:46] So that would be my two cents worth. And
[3:51:49] I think cuz I I I I brought that up the
[3:51:53] last time talking about weddings, you
[3:51:55] know, cuz we go down to the capital when
[3:51:59] they redid the capital building to go
[3:52:02] and do photos of a bride and groom in
[3:52:05] their wedding dress on private property
[3:52:08] grounds there or the public property
[3:52:10] grounds there. They were requiring the
[3:52:12] couple to have $2 million of insurance
[3:52:16] to go and take photos in the building.
[3:52:19] And they're like, "Well, how in the
[3:52:21] world do I do that?" Cuz they don't have
[3:52:24] a vehicle to do that. They'd have to get
[3:52:26] a commercial policy to do that. and and
[3:52:30] so photographers ended up having to get
[3:52:33] a rider on their insurance for the
[3:52:36] couple that wanted to do pictures of
[3:52:38] their and that's not fair either. You
[3:52:40] know, that require
[3:52:43] require vendors to put their
[3:52:46] their ratings at risk for something that
[3:52:49] people want to do, you know. So, we got
[3:52:51] to be conscientious of things like that.
[3:52:53] And I think you'd end up having weddings
[3:52:56] that they would ask that. Can my
[3:52:58] photographer, will you give us the $2
[3:53:00] million of exemption for coverage
[3:53:02] because we're having a wedding?
[3:53:03] » Well, you I did look I did a little
[3:53:06] research and I found out that you can
[3:53:08] just purchase an event liability
[3:53:10] insurance pretty easily. It's not that
[3:53:12] hard to do. It's like a couple hundred
[3:53:16] owner policy.
[3:53:18] » No, just a separate separate one day
[3:53:21] fee. But um and it seems like anyone
[3:53:24] could buy it. But I do have concerns
[3:53:26] about people having weddings that large
[3:53:29] in these small neighborhoods. 200 and
[3:53:32] I'm assuming the 200 would be there all
[3:53:34] at the same time, right?
[3:53:36] » This doesn't necessarily
[3:53:39] specify
[3:53:40] » Cuz you could have a wedding is 2 hours
[3:53:42] you could
[3:53:44] now. That's different. Now this says
[3:53:47] » And that could under this in attendance
[3:53:51] seems to imply
[3:53:52] » But his attendance all at once or is
[3:53:54] attendance throughout the event because
[3:53:57] if it's attendance all at once that's
[3:53:59] different but doesn't specify that and
[3:54:02] clarity
[3:54:03] » We should clarify that
[3:54:05] » And I think that
[3:54:08] 500
[3:54:10] it's not unheard of to have two 500
[3:54:15] people come
[3:54:16] Oh, no, not at all. But at someone's
[3:54:18] home in Harrisville City, at home
[3:54:21] » Is one thing versus at a church.
[3:54:24] » I've been at receptions where the line
[3:54:26] lasted for 2 and 1/2 hours as 5 600
[3:54:29] people that were invited came through
[3:54:31] the line.
[3:54:33] You know, maybe they weren't all there
[3:54:34] at once, but they had five or 600
[3:54:36] people. Would they be required to have a
[3:54:38] permit because they had five to 600
[3:54:40] people come to an event? I think one of
[3:54:43] the things too to consider in this
[3:54:44] discussion, I think it's a good point
[3:54:46] you're making.
[3:54:48] What's the penalty in this ordinance?
[3:54:52] » Is there one?
[3:54:56] » So, if you don't get a permit,
[3:55:00] » There's no recourse.
[3:55:01] » So, maybe this is just to protect the
[3:55:03] city in case there is a problem at one
[3:55:05] of these weddings and then the city
[3:55:07] wasn't aware of it. we can say, "Well,
[3:55:09] we weren't aware of it because they
[3:55:11] didn't fill out the permit."
[3:55:12] » And I'm not and I actually think your
[3:55:14] discussion is really good. Um,
[3:55:18] in my experience with all the
[3:55:19] municipalities that I advise, the reason
[3:55:21] this comes about is because someone is
[3:55:23] asking the city, we want to do X, how do
[3:55:26] we do it?
[3:55:28] » And it's not a wedding. It's a
[3:55:31] » Softball tournament. It's a 5K. It's a
[3:55:34] » Right. Because if there's no penalty,
[3:55:36] like Jenny can't go out and give you a
[3:55:37] ticket for having a wedding in your
[3:55:39] house because you didn't get a permit.
[3:55:41] Yeah. But if there is
[3:55:44] ordinance or law, it can be.
[3:55:48] So, if you had somebody who wanted to
[3:55:52] say, "Oh, I can shut you down because
[3:55:54] we've got this ordinance and you didn't
[3:55:56] get you didn't get this uh permit."
[3:55:59] Then, are you going to get a citation
[3:56:02] from the police cuz you didn't file a
[3:56:04] permit for a wedding and somebody
[3:56:05] complains?
[3:56:08] I don't think so. That's what we want to
[3:56:11] make sure that
[3:56:12] » But I mean, in re reality, right,
[3:56:14] there's no penalty in the ordinance for
[3:56:17] not having So there isn't a citation,
[3:56:19] right?
[3:56:22] Any law that any ordinance, any law that
[3:56:25] doesn't have a remedy or an enforcement
[3:56:27] provision is a is a guideline, right?
[3:56:31] This is and I'm not saying your your
[3:56:34] changes aren't valid. Say I think
[3:56:35] they're good discussion. Um but to say
[3:56:38] that like someone's going to go patrol
[3:56:40] this or get people in trouble if you
[3:56:41] don't. um as the law as it's written
[3:56:45] right now, there's non enforcement
[3:56:47] provision.
[3:56:49] I I I understand that. Um in the
[3:56:52] public's perview though, if they were
[3:56:53] like, "Well, do you have a permit?" Cuz
[3:56:56] uh I mean, can the people say, "Well,
[3:56:59] you should have permit."
[3:57:02] You know, the public will enforce it in
[3:57:05] a different way.
[3:57:07] We'll make a complaint. We should have a
[3:57:08] permit.
[3:57:10] They know that there's observant
[3:57:11] process. So, we should probably make it
[3:57:14] clear.
[3:57:16] So, we're not tying up police resources
[3:57:19] too to go to somebody's house because
[3:57:23] they're not liking that somebody had
[3:57:29] again, but I'll go back to the parade
[3:57:32] again. Impromptu yearly parade,
[3:57:38] uh, you know,
[3:57:40] Now, here's
[3:57:41] like I said, okay, no enforcement, but
[3:57:43] here's a rule
[3:57:45] that the city says should be followed.
[3:57:48] Okay, there's no enforcement, but let's
[3:57:50] just say, well, I have to be following
[3:57:52] the law in doing this.
[3:57:57] I just Yeah,
[3:58:00] it's the only parade we actually sponsor
[3:58:03] the only parade that actually happens
[3:58:04] when kids can ride their bike down the
[3:58:05] street.
[3:58:07] Are there any events that either of you
[3:58:09] would say we definitely want a
[3:58:12] requirement for a permit?
[3:58:14] » Well, closing off a block.
[3:58:16] » Okay. So, maybe that would be the line
[3:58:18] we draw.
[3:58:19] » Well, I also think through that any I
[3:58:21] mean, if you were to have a wedding at
[3:58:23] the city buildings, I think that's a
[3:58:26] place where there should be a permit,
[3:58:29] but that should just be part of the
[3:58:30] application or rental fee.
[3:58:34] So on city properties or closing down
[3:58:37] streets
[3:58:39] the two.
[3:58:41] » Well,
[3:58:43] » No.
[3:58:43] » Well, because my parade comment is
[3:58:46] streets closed for a half hour,
[3:58:48] » But it does impact the residents of that
[3:58:50] street and
[3:58:52] it seems fair that they would need
[3:58:54] notification or that they would get
[3:58:56] notification of that.
[3:58:57] » Yeah.
[3:58:59] » They all know what's happening.
[3:59:00] » So then they would easily get the permit
[3:59:01] most likely.
[3:59:03] who's going to pay the insurance policy
[3:59:07] to commit to that.
[3:59:10] » Yes.
[3:59:11] » But what if someone gets hurt
[3:59:14] and there's no insurance?
[3:59:18] » It happens.
[3:59:20] » You got a road crash.
[3:59:26] » Now we've had fatalities and crimes
[3:59:28] nearby.
[3:59:34] What do you need from this?
[3:59:36] » You just direction on modifications,
[3:59:39] feedback on a couple of those questions
[3:59:41] if you
[3:59:44] are good with what we've included.
[3:59:46] » Go back to the questions to
[3:59:50] » Yeah. The household notification. Do you
[3:59:52] want to include a required signature
[3:59:55] that the neighborhood has been
[3:59:58] » Or just a flyer
[3:59:59] » Or just a flyer?
[4:00:00] » I think just
[4:00:02] » Okay. So, we'll leave it as it's
[4:00:04] written. And then
[4:00:07] » Do we want to include signature blocks
[4:00:09] from the department heads on the actual
[4:00:12] permit that they've been signed off from
[4:00:14] the public safety, public works, the
[4:00:16] parks and wreck?
[4:00:17] » I think it's done
[4:00:18] » Administration. why you're doing the
[4:00:20] permit. This is the city. Everyone's
[4:00:22] aware of it. They've signed up.
[4:00:24] That's my thought.
[4:00:26] » Yeah, I would agree with that.
[4:00:30] » You absolutely want public safety to
[4:00:32] sign off on a permit before we grant it.
[4:00:34] » Yeah.
[4:00:36] » Yeah. And I'm wondering
[4:00:41] I mean if
[4:00:43] Well, no
[4:00:45] I answer question. So if we add to take
[4:00:48] place on city property, I think that
[4:00:50] helps with the wedding theme. And if we
[4:00:53] add in the event of road closures,
[4:00:55] » I just think we I gave the exemption of
[4:00:59] school facilities, houses of worship or
[4:01:02] private residents for where no road
[4:01:05] closures or city services are needed or
[4:01:07] requested
[4:01:09] are exempt.
[4:01:11] Are there any other types of properties
[4:01:14] that we that aren't city property that
[4:01:16] we do want a permit for?
[4:01:18] » So, we do have an event requiring a
[4:01:21] permit outlined here. Walks, fun runs,
[4:01:25] parades, festivals, celebrations, public
[4:01:27] gatherings, community events, charity
[4:01:29] events, outdoor concerts, markets, any
[4:01:31] event requiring a street closure. So
[4:01:34] this is where you would make whatever
[4:01:35] modifications you want.
[4:01:37] » Celebrations would be the one we would
[4:01:39] need to modify. I think celebrations
[4:01:43] on public property.
[4:01:46] » Oh, I think you can you don't have to.
[4:01:48] You can just say events. You can put a
[4:01:51] clause there about the events
[4:01:54] that occur within those places. school
[4:01:59] or district facilities, houses of
[4:02:01] worship, private residences
[4:02:04] where no road closures or city services
[4:02:06] are requested are exempt from this
[4:02:08] policy.
[4:02:09] » So, if you're having a trunk or treat at
[4:02:12] a local church,
[4:02:14] you don't need to get a permit to have a
[4:02:17] trunk or treat.
[4:02:18] » I would I would actually suggest if
[4:02:20] you're going to go with that, which I
[4:02:22] think is really good, instead of private
[4:02:24] residence, you just say private
[4:02:25] property, right?
[4:02:26] » Yeah. Because if McDonald's wanted to do
[4:02:30] something, it's
[4:02:31] » Walmart.
[4:02:32] » Yeah.
[4:02:34] » And that covers churches.
[4:02:38] » Schools, aren't they just a completely
[4:02:40] separate beast? I mean, they have their
[4:02:42] own rules and process.
[4:02:44] » Well, we would consider them private
[4:02:46] property. Oh,
[4:02:49] » Yeah. And it's technically public.
[4:02:51] » It is technically public property.
[4:02:53] That's why I think it's good to clarify
[4:02:56] just for clarity. You are correct. Those
[4:02:59] schools don't happen to listen to very
[4:03:01] much that we have to say. So
[4:03:03] » They have a lot of their own rules
[4:03:04] though.
[4:03:05] » So are there any other amendments you'd
[4:03:07] like to make before the required
[4:03:12] » Just the disclosure addition of that
[4:03:14] disclosure statement at the end?
[4:03:20] » I think so.
[4:03:21] » All right. On the permit itself,
[4:03:24] it says this application must be turned
[4:03:26] in within 60 days of the event. Did you
[4:03:30] mean to say
[4:03:32] at least
[4:03:35] » Within means you know a week within?
[4:03:38] » Yes.
[4:03:39] » So the recommendation actually is
[4:03:42] between 45 to 60 days. So I say no no
[4:03:45] later than 45 days ahead. No prior than
[4:03:49] 60 days cuz within seems to say if they
[4:03:52] go 90 days prior they can't.
[4:03:55] » Yeah, we're already getting outreach for
[4:03:57] events in February. So I don't know that
[4:03:59] I would say they have to be within that
[4:04:02] window.
[4:04:03] » But I'm just saying the verbage.
[4:04:05] » Yeah,
[4:04:06] » It must be turned in within 60 days.
[4:04:08] Sounds like the equation.
[4:04:10] » Yeah, I like your suggestion of and I
[4:04:13] would actually put it to 45 days of
[4:04:16] » Yeah. has a minimum of four to five days
[4:04:18] before
[4:04:19] » Minimum contact in at least rather than
[4:04:21] within.
[4:04:29] » Okay.
[4:04:32] » Okay. Let's go on to the next.
[4:04:34] » We need to do an action on that though,
[4:04:37] right?
[4:04:37] » If if you're okay with the discussion
[4:04:39] and everything else included in that.
[4:04:42] » So, we need an action. I need a motion.
[4:04:46] And I make a proposal that we adopt
[4:04:49] resolution 2624,
[4:04:52] special event policy permits with
[4:04:55] all of the guidance that we've given to
[4:04:57] Jenny 9 as far as amendments and
[4:05:00] changes.
[4:05:03] » Okay, we got a motion. We have a second.
[4:05:05] » Second.
[4:05:07] » Got a motion and a second.
[4:05:11] This is a roll call vote.
[4:05:16] Councilman McGomery.
[4:05:20] » No, I must say explanation. I I think
[4:05:22] generally the policies are fine. I just
[4:05:28] sty these neighborhood
[4:05:31] traditions and puts a burden on them
[4:05:34] that is not needed.
[4:05:37] » Council member Billhson.
[4:05:39] » Yes.
[4:05:40] » Council member Hadley.
[4:05:43] » Yes.
[4:05:44] Council member Paul,
[4:05:46] » Yes.
[4:05:47] » Council member Christensen,
[4:05:48] » Yes.
[4:05:50] » Okay.
[4:05:53] On to the next item on our agenda, and
[4:05:55] that's the closed executive session.
[4:06:00] For purposes described under UCA
[4:06:03] 52-4-2051
[4:06:06] strategy session to discuss pending
[4:06:09] reasonable and imminent litigation and
[4:06:12] UCA 52-4-2051
[4:06:17] strategy session to discuss purchase,
[4:06:19] exchange and lease of real property
[4:06:21] including the employment of water
[4:06:22] rights, water shares to discuss the
[4:06:25] proposed development agreement project
[4:06:28] proposal or financing proposal related
[4:06:31] to development or land owned by the
[4:06:33] state political subdivision if public
[4:06:37] discussion would expose the increase or
[4:06:41] estimate value of property or under the
[4:06:44] consideration or two prevent the public
[4:06:46] body from completing the transaction
[4:06:49] transaction on the best possible terms.
[4:06:54] I have a motion to a close executive
[4:06:56] session.
[4:06:58] » I have a motion that we go to a closed
[4:07:00] executive session.
[4:07:02] » Have a motion.
[4:07:04] » You have to read the whole thing in your
[4:07:06] to read the whole thing.
[4:07:09] » Then I withdraw my motion.
[4:07:11] » And then I'll make the motion so he
[4:07:13] doesn't have to. I motion that we go
[4:07:15] into close executive session. close
[4:07:18] executive session for the purposes
[4:07:20] described under UCA 52-4-2051C.
[4:07:25] Strategy session to discuss pending or
[4:07:27] reasonable imminent litigation in UCA
[4:07:30] 52-4-2051D.
[4:07:33] Strategy sessions to discuss the
[4:07:35] purchase, exchange or lease for
[4:07:37] property, including any form of water
[4:07:39] right or water shares or to discuss a
[4:07:42] proposed development agreement, project
[4:07:44] proposal or financing proposal related
[4:07:46] to the development of land owned by the
[4:07:48] state or a political subdivision. If
[4:07:50] public discussion would one disclose the
[4:07:53] appraisal or estimated value of the
[4:07:55] property under consideration or to
[4:07:57] prevent the public buy from complete
[4:07:59] transaction on the best possible terms.
[4:08:02] So we have a motion. Do we have a
[4:08:04] second?
[4:08:05] » Second. Second. All in favor.
[4:08:10] » Okay. My roll call list.
[4:08:17] Council member Christensen,
[4:08:20] » Yes.
[4:08:20] » Council member Hadley,
[4:08:22] » Yes.
[4:08:23] » Council member Wilhelm,
[4:08:25] » Yes.
[4:08:26] » Council member Montgomery,
[4:08:27] » Yes.
[4:08:28] » Council member Crawl,
[4:08:29] » Yes.
[4:08:31] » Okay, we're now in a close session.
[4:08:35] » Thank you.
[4:08:36] » Okay, so we're to item number seven,
[4:08:39] mayor, council, staff followup.
[4:08:43] Assistant Chief.
[4:08:45] » Yeah, I got just a few things. uh back
[4:08:48] to school last two weeks. We've uh
[4:08:51] integrated back in there, put a new SRO
[4:08:54] there that's doing awesome. It's kind of
[4:08:56] come out of our patrol rotation doing
[4:08:58] good over there. Uh we had our night out
[4:09:02] against crime with the Tri City agencies
[4:09:05] in North Odin a few weeks ago. I think
[4:09:09] it was awesome. It was a good success. I
[4:09:11] think they had a good turnout with
[4:09:12] everybody that came there. That was a a
[4:09:15] really cool thing that happened.
[4:09:17] » So like who who attends those things?
[4:09:20] » Uh Weaver Metro SWAT team was there,
[4:09:24] North View Fire, Pleasant View, North
[4:09:27] Ogden, Harrisville Police, Weber County
[4:09:30] Sheriff, the CTC Community Coalition,
[4:09:35] had some volunteers that were there. Uh
[4:09:39] the MOP was there cooking food for
[4:09:42] everybody and stuff. It was just a
[4:09:43] chance for the citizens to come out and
[4:09:46] interact with us on a more personal
[4:09:48] level and ask questions and do things
[4:09:50] like that. Lots of people brought their
[4:09:52] kids out and stuff and happened to be on
[4:09:54] a back to school night and they had it
[4:09:56] at the North Ogden Park. So I think that
[4:09:58] probably bolstered attendance a lot of
[4:10:01] people coming from out back to school
[4:10:03] and stuff but it was really good.
[4:10:08] » Anything else?
[4:10:09] » That's all I got. Jenny,
[4:10:12] » I only have one item. The Utah League of
[4:10:15] Cities and Towns Conference registration
[4:10:18] is now open. The conference will be held
[4:10:20] October 27th and 28th in this is the
[4:10:24] conference that's held in Salt Lake
[4:10:25] City. So, if you'd like, we'd like to
[4:10:28] take advantage of their early bird res
[4:10:30] registration, which I believe ends the
[4:10:32] end of September. So, I'll need to know
[4:10:35] in the next few days uh so that staff
[4:10:39] can make appropriate arrangements for
[4:10:41] registration if you'd like to attend
[4:10:43] that.
[4:10:46] » Okay.
[4:10:48] Council,
[4:10:51] one of the things that came out from the
[4:10:53] last subcommittee from the Utah League
[4:10:56] when they were trying to get feeling
[4:10:58] from different cities, what are they
[4:11:00] doing about certain topics? One is
[4:11:03] direct towards the police.
[4:11:06] Do we
[4:11:08] participate in license pl?
[4:11:13] No, we don't have any LPRs that are
[4:11:16] assigned to the Harrisville Police
[4:11:17] Department. For that, we have a resource
[4:11:20] we can utilize with anou that's through
[4:11:24] the RTCC that's set up through Ogden. on
[4:11:27] critical cases, we can um utilize that
[4:11:32] and get data from the LPRs they have set
[4:11:35] up through um all the Ogden and other
[4:11:39] agencies that participate do
[4:11:42] » But actually in Harris we don't have any
[4:11:44] other than whatever agreements we have
[4:11:46] with other communities to use that that
[4:11:48] technology.
[4:11:49] » Yeah, as of now we do not have anything.
[4:11:51] And then do we have the uh
[4:11:55] what are the uh surveillance camera
[4:11:58] » Flock? Yeah,
[4:12:00] » Flock. No. Um we've recently applied for
[4:12:05] a grant that the Utah Highway Patrol has
[4:12:09] put together based off of a fentanyl
[4:12:12] grant fund that they've had nationwide.
[4:12:15] What they've done is they uh conducted a
[4:12:17] study. Ogden has several flop cameras.
[4:12:21] North Ogden has them. Uh Pleasant View
[4:12:24] has just I think got approval to get
[4:12:27] one. And what they do is they look at
[4:12:29] the study and they look at blind areas
[4:12:31] based off of flock maps. And the travel
[4:12:34] corridors that we have here in traffic
[4:12:36] Harrisville is a blind spot. So with
[4:12:40] that grant, I think uh we're in a
[4:12:44] position where we'd be able to at least
[4:12:46] get one. Okay. Okay. A couple other
[4:12:50] things that came out um
[4:12:53] one was um
[4:12:58] about inspections
[4:13:00] and that the legislature really pushing
[4:13:02] hard that there be private inspectors
[4:13:05] that could be allowed saying that the
[4:13:08] cities aren't responding to the 3-day
[4:13:09] inspection notice.
[4:13:12] And I don't know how we do that on our
[4:13:14] contract with them if we if they respond
[4:13:18] to those days or if it's other cities
[4:13:21] kind of say, "Well, you do it on this
[4:13:24] day. We're close this day and this day
[4:13:25] is really starts on the following
[4:13:28] Tuesday or something like that." They're
[4:13:30] saying, "There's just been some
[4:13:33] misunderstand how this is used and just
[4:13:35] check how your community is using that
[4:13:38] 3-day inspections notice." Yeah, we
[4:13:40] haven't had any issue with our
[4:13:42] contracted services for building
[4:13:44] inspections. He's conducting them. He
[4:13:46] has multiple inspectors. So, we we
[4:13:50] haven't had any complaints
[4:13:51] » Cuz I know they're really talking about
[4:13:53] they got a lot of push back to just that
[4:13:54] the contractors hired their own
[4:13:56] inspector. I guess this is probably the
[4:13:59] third legislative season they've been
[4:14:01] having this discussion,
[4:14:03] » But they implemented the mandatory
[4:14:06] uh backup list that we have, but we
[4:14:08] already have a contracted service. We we
[4:14:11] we don't have any employees that conduct
[4:14:13] those inspections.
[4:14:15] » Okay.
[4:14:17] And then the final one um
[4:14:21] they're just talking about of course the
[4:14:25] push again two things that they're
[4:14:27] hearing. One is there'll be a real push
[4:14:30] to try to eliminate sales tax I mean
[4:14:33] property tax from the legislature which
[4:14:36] that was disastrous to communities.
[4:14:39] So there'll be a fight again for that.
[4:14:41] And then the other one is of course to
[4:14:44] say no matter what your zone is, you
[4:14:46] have to allow a 5,000 foot lot.
[4:14:50] » So, um I was just wondering, do we ever
[4:14:53] have any meetings as a council with our
[4:14:57] representatives with the our state
[4:14:59] legislature representatives over our
[4:15:01] district?
[4:15:02] » We have in the past. We we have met with
[4:15:05] uh Ryan Wilcox.
[4:15:08] Um and
[4:15:12] » We haven't had John
[4:15:14] » John Johnson. We have not had one-on-one
[4:15:17] meetings with John Johnson, but we have
[4:15:19] with Ryan Wilcox in the past. And uh
[4:15:24] » I would say this just as a pragmatic
[4:15:28] answer to your question, the league will
[4:15:32] push this, but the senators and members
[4:15:35] of the house uh give you as city council
[4:15:38] members quite a big ear. So if you feel
[4:15:41] like there's something you want to talk
[4:15:43] about or discuss it with them, email
[4:15:45] them or call them because they'll listen
[4:15:46] to you
[4:15:49] » Do that rather than have a
[4:15:51] » Just get them on the phone
[4:15:54] and I have both Brian and John's number.
[4:16:00] I have John's number because I do think
[4:16:03] again some of these things
[4:16:05] » Again are just
[4:16:07] » An overreach
[4:16:09] » And they'll the the league is really
[4:16:11] good as we go into the session since
[4:16:14] » I don't know if you were participating
[4:16:16] in this last January so they'll do the
[4:16:18] blitzes where they notify us and ask us
[4:16:21] to reach out to our legislators which
[4:16:22] are super helpful when things get close.
[4:16:25] » Um but yeah, thank you. I think I missed
[4:16:28] the last update. So, I appreciate that.
[4:16:31] » Yeah, that came out the fall. So, I I've
[4:16:34] got a couple things they said, you know,
[4:16:38] I mean, questionnaires
[4:16:41] doing. I just want to make sure I was
[4:16:42] answering correctly when I
[4:16:44] » The slido polls.
[4:16:46] » Yeah.
[4:16:51] » Last month, we uh talked a little bit
[4:16:53] about the Weaver Community Orchestra
[4:16:55] that we have at and we were able to let
[4:16:59] the music happen for our rehearsals and
[4:17:04] the last one letter wasn't here so we
[4:17:06] couldn't get it on. So the question is
[4:17:08] question is is that we're in the process
[4:17:11] to try to create
[4:17:15] is a little bit more broad than I
[4:17:18] thought it was going to but he used to
[4:17:20] say we'd still like to do some
[4:17:22] rehearsals with the potential of doing
[4:17:24] concerts and I didn't know what the
[4:17:26] blessings were or or Harrison said this
[4:17:29] is a nonprofit organization it's not
[4:17:32] even organized right now it's more of a
[4:17:34] community based
[4:17:36] orchestra as what it is. We can still
[4:17:39] use
[4:17:40] the cabin for rehearsals, but then the
[4:17:43] question comes up where
[4:17:46] you are housing
[4:17:49] and then the IBS is with liability
[4:17:51] insurance. We want to have a concert
[4:17:53] where we can have a concert.
[4:17:55] So the question is is first of all is
[4:17:58] the camera available
[4:18:00] and you brought up the process what the
[4:18:04] North community is doing with North
[4:18:11] public works facility
[4:18:13] that they allow us to use. We are under
[4:18:18] we're not an individual 501c3. in the
[4:18:20] north community band is actually an
[4:18:22] organization, volunteer organization
[4:18:25] within the city. We don't uh everything
[4:18:30] is funded by us for us, but they do
[4:18:34] allow us a facility. We're there to
[4:18:37] perform whenever the city wants us or
[4:18:39] needs us. Um and we go around our
[4:18:43] goodwill representatives of the city.
[4:18:48] So anyhow, there's a need a lot of
[4:18:51] people want to have an orchestra, but
[4:18:54] right now we're in the process of trying
[4:18:55] to go through
[4:18:57] articles of cooperation and get it
[4:18:59] going. That's going to take time. And
[4:19:02] then there's a broader picture that
[4:19:04] starts to look like a Weaver Community
[4:19:07] Alliance, which would include all arts.
[4:19:09] Now I'm talking to the arts committee
[4:19:11] here. We're in
[4:19:15] needless to say good last time.
[4:19:19] » That was a question I had for you.
[4:19:22] » As a member of the orchestra, is that a
[4:19:24] conflict of interest to a motion to
[4:19:26] allow us to use the cabin?
[4:19:28] » Uh, are you financially making a lot of
[4:19:31] money with the orchestra?
[4:19:32] » No. No.
[4:19:34] » Okay.
[4:19:36] » They're like most businesses, they're
[4:19:37] nonprofit.
[4:19:41] » Any other council comments?
[4:19:43] » Yeah, I have just one. So I I've met
[4:19:47] twice now with the with representatives
[4:19:50] from Pleasant View, North Ogden, and
[4:19:53] Harris
[4:19:55] um talking about um economic development
[4:20:00] and um we're at the point that we want
[4:20:03] to start organizing
[4:20:06] some possible things and I'm not asking
[4:20:08] to know tonight, but if you have
[4:20:12] thoughts on
[4:20:14] the the proposition is they're looking
[4:20:17] at possibly having a joint,
[4:20:21] you know, I don't know if you'd call
[4:20:23] them an economic development
[4:20:25] officer or person that's there to help
[4:20:28] promote. Um the thought process is that
[4:20:32] we would advertise not Harrisville as
[4:20:36] Harrisville, not North Ogden as North
[4:20:38] Ogden, and not Pleasant View as Pleasant
[4:20:41] View.
[4:20:42] But when it comes to economic and
[4:20:44] drawing businesses that this is a tri
[4:20:46] city economic development team and
[4:20:49] you're dealing now with 70,
[4:20:52] you know,
[4:20:54] 60ish,000
[4:20:55] households to bring businesses to rather
[4:20:58] than 12 for Harrisville. I know we're
[4:21:02] not there yet, right? Uh 20 for North
[4:21:06] Ogden, 15 for Pleasant View. And uh and
[4:21:12] we even have Far West who's interested
[4:21:15] as well and thinking that we might be
[4:21:17] able to create a very strong business
[4:21:20] district business districts along our
[4:21:23] our main thorough affairs Washington 89
[4:21:26] and 2700
[4:21:28] that impact our community. And so um
[4:21:32] what thoughts you might have regarding
[4:21:35] something to that effect and if we would
[4:21:38] be interested in pursuing that further.
[4:21:40] we grow to the point where we want to
[4:21:43] start putting together like a
[4:21:47] you know interlocal
[4:21:49] agreement or memorandum of understanding
[4:21:52] whatever you would call it
[4:21:54] um to uh
[4:21:57] to move forward with something like
[4:21:58] this.
[4:22:03] » Any other comments? Well, I just comment
[4:22:05] on I think that's a a good idea because
[4:22:09] the power is going to be in the legion,
[4:22:11] not as an individual. You know what I
[4:22:13] mean?
[4:22:16] You know, basically I-15 is now the main
[4:22:19] street of the state. You look at all the
[4:22:22] development happens along I5 and how the
[4:22:25] other streets have kind of just kind of
[4:22:27] taken whatever is left
[4:22:29] and to try to tell you all of us were
[4:22:32] not on I15.
[4:22:35] We need to pull together to have some
[4:22:37] strength and security development to
[4:22:40] happen.
[4:22:43] I think it's a good idea.
[4:22:45] you know, we're already involved with
[4:22:48] supporting a lot of stuff that's in
[4:22:50] North Aton with, you know, by 2700. It
[4:22:54] makes sense that when we do a tri city
[4:22:56] or quad city area, it gives a lot of
[4:23:00] clout, but uh we want to approach
[4:23:03] businesses or recruit for businesses.
[4:23:07] We've been trying to do that for years.
[4:23:11] I think I think it could give us more
[4:23:13] power in the table if there's
[4:23:18] some person that's actively searching
[4:23:21] for all the interest.
[4:23:33] » Thank you.
[4:23:38] » Okay. Well, I just A heads up for for
[4:23:42] all the council, all the staff knows,
[4:23:45] but I'm headed to the hospital tomorrow.
[4:23:52] » So I my I have open heart surgery on
[4:23:55] Thursday.
[4:23:58] I'll be there for at least seven days
[4:24:06] for your speed.
[4:24:10] You still haven't told me what I need to
[4:24:13] I know I need to run this meeting, but I
[4:24:16] would like to know more like if you can
[4:24:18] include me on what I need to just
[4:24:22] leave and you're good.
[4:24:24] » So,
[4:24:25] » How was it you do the first you want?
[4:24:28] » What's that?
[4:24:30] » How'd you do the first meeting? You just
[4:24:31] kind
[4:24:36] » Okay, so item number eight is in German.
[4:24:40] How about a motion for 1110?
[4:24:43] » You know, you could say without
[4:24:45] objection.
[4:24:49] » Okay, that's the same thing
[4:24:51] when you're the
[4:24:54] motion that need to be second.
[4:24:58] » Okay. All in favor? I I
[4:25:13] What was it? Yeah, there may couple
[4:25:16] things.