[0:07] We would like to welcome you to our work

[0:10] meeting. It is Thursday, May 7th, 2026.

[0:13] We would like to excuse council member

[0:14] Fowers that has another obligation

[0:16] tonight. We are going to start off

[0:19] because we have Deputy Gast with us. So,

[0:22] we're going to start off with him. You

[0:25] probably are aware if you've been on

[0:27] well, we've actually received a couple

[0:29] of emails sent to us. If you've been on

[0:32] social media, we're having a problem

[0:34] with some motorcycles.

[0:38] >> You're probably aware if you've been on

[0:41] >> and we have a new law that came out

[0:43] yesterday. So, I thought you just

[0:47] explain that to us a little and then

[0:48] maybe give us give us something of what

[0:51] we can in a city, what we can do and

[0:53] what we can't do because I've let our

[0:55] residents know we are aware of this

[0:57] problem and so anyway, so we appreciate

[1:00] you being here with us.

[1:02] >> Absolutely. So, I'll be honest with you,

[1:04] the law was posted to the

[1:06] legislaturator's website yesterday. So,

[1:09] it's like swimming through mud trying to

[1:12] understand all of it. Um, because

[1:14] they've got five different sections on

[1:16] five different things and each of them

[1:18] coincide a little bit and they weave in

[1:21] and out. Um I will say in my own

[1:24] experience enforcing the law and traffic

[1:27] out here traffic is all I do. Hoper does

[1:29] have a traffic problem with electric

[1:32] motorcycles, regular dirt bikes

[1:36] and anything that has wheels on it

[1:37] essentially is a problem here.

[1:39] Um, so there are different

[1:42] classifications for what an ebike is or

[1:45] an electronic motorcycle.

[1:48] Um, a bunch of different rules on

[1:50] helmets and different things. So now

[1:52] everything if it's got two wheels on it,

[1:54] pretty much you wear a helmet. Depending

[1:56] on what type it is will depend on

[1:59] whether you have to have like a full

[2:00] dirt bike helmet or just a regular

[2:02] bicycle helmet. Um, again, trying to get

[2:05] through all that is like swimming

[2:07] through mud to figure out what each

[2:11] specific piece goes to. And I imagine as

[2:14] highway safety continues to push this year that some of those things are

[2:18] going to come out a little bit clearer

[2:19] for us.

[2:21] >> Um,

[2:22] >> you said everything in two wheels

[2:23] requires a helmet. I haven't read the

[2:24] new law. Is that uh up to a certain age?

[2:27] I know historically Utah's allowed

[2:28] motorcyclist to not wear helmets if

[2:30] they're over 18.

[2:31] >> Yeah. So, a normal motorcycle obviously

[2:34] it falls in a completely different

[2:35] category.

[2:37] So, if you were over the age of I think

[2:40] it's 21 now, and I could be wrong.

[2:42] >> It's not one we run into a lot. Most

[2:45] people on motorcycles, especially out

[2:46] here, are wearing helmets. Um,

[2:50] on a traditional motorcycle though, from

[2:52] what my understanding is, if you are 21

[2:54] or older, you you don't have to wear

[2:56] one. But if you're 20 or younger, you do

[2:58] have to wear it.

[2:59] >> Okay.

[2:59] >> Um,

[3:02] if you are 16 or younger, you can't

[3:05] operate a

[3:06] electric assisted bicycle. If you're

[3:09] under 14, you can't operate an electric

[3:11] assisted bicycle with the electronic

[3:13] motor engaged on any public property,

[3:16] highways, pathways, sidewalks,

[3:18] unless you are under the supervision of

[3:20] a parent or guardian. And anybody under

[3:23] 8 years old can't do it at all.

[3:26] Um,

[3:29] there are definitions as to what each of

[3:31] those is. So, I'll give you just a quick

[3:32] rundown. A class one electric assisted

[3:34] bicycle state statute. State

[3:38] equipped with a motor or electronics

[3:39] that provide assistance only when you

[3:41] are pedaling and stops providing

[3:43] assistance when the bicycle reaches a

[3:45] speed limit of 20 mph. A class 2

[3:48] electric assisted bicycle is the same

[3:51] thing equipped with a motor or

[3:52] electronics that may be used exclusively

[3:54] to propel a bicycle and is not capable

[3:57] of providing assistance when the bicycle

[3:59] reaches a speed of 20 mph. So, as soon

[4:02] as you hit 20, it says, "We don't know

[4:04] how to do this anymore when it stops."

[4:06] So, obviously, if you're going downhill,

[4:08] um I guess the best one you could take

[4:10] is 30th Street Monroe Boulevard. If

[4:12] you're on it and you're you get to your

[4:14] 20 m hour and then you kick it up

[4:16] pedaling, then yeah, you're going to get

[4:17] faster than that. Your electronic motor

[4:20] is not doing any of that assistance

[4:22] after that point.

[4:24] The class 3 assisted bicycle is an

[4:27] assisted bicycle equal to motor

[4:28] electronics that provide assistance only

[4:32] stops providing assistance when the

[4:33] bicycle reaches a speed limit of 28

[4:35] miles an hour and is equipped with a

[4:37] speedometer.

[4:38] Um

[4:40] really countywide ebikes are a problem

[4:43] statewide they're a problem. Every

[4:44] single police agency is posting about

[4:46] them weekly it seems like on social

[4:48] media. Um

[4:51] but nobody like the a couple of these

[4:53] things they're like I said they're just

[4:55] muddy on what we're allowing and what

[4:58] we're not allowing. Um,

[5:02] >> so yeah.

[5:02] >> So what type of support do we have for

[5:05] enforcement? A lot of the things we've

[5:06] seen posted on social media or people,

[5:09] you know, they're they're tearing up our

[5:10] street, they're running down the

[5:12] sidewalk, you know, our culde-sacs, you

[5:14] know, what are we going to do about this

[5:15] is are those things that we just need to

[5:17] case by case basis have them calling and

[5:19] turning in and we'll try our best.

[5:21] >> Yeah, exactly. Uh, I'll be honest with

[5:22] you, we get a lot of calls for service

[5:24] out here every day on reckless drivers

[5:26] and our dispatch is known or permanent

[5:29] protocol is to just broadcast the

[5:31] attempt to locate and then the call

[5:33] vanishes off our screen. So if there's

[5:35] not a deputy or traffic deputy out here

[5:37] to go and grab it as soon as it comes in

[5:39] by the time if the call sits and it's

[5:42] just cold for a minute because we have a

[5:44] deputy on a priority call or for example

[5:46] I'm coming from far west and have to

[5:48] come out here by the time I come to the

[5:49] spot where they called it in the

[5:51] person's gone.

[5:52] >> Yeah.

[5:52] >> Um the same even if we're out here they

[5:55] take off on us. I've been in more dirt

[5:57] bike pursuits in Hooper or ebike

[5:59] pursuits in this little city than any

[6:01] other city in this in the county. Um,

[6:03] and we can't chase them because they're

[6:05] kids and they're going they're going to

[6:07] hurt themselves and we can't be

[6:09] >> we don't want to be held liable for

[6:11] that. We want we don't want to put them

[6:12] in a position where they can hurt

[6:13] themselves. Um, we have a great track

[6:17] record of following up and finding them

[6:20] eventually.

[6:21] That's just it's going to have to be

[6:24] case by case that it's called in. If

[6:26] even better if they can identify them,

[6:28] if they have video footage of it, it

[6:29] helps even more, especially if we're

[6:31] going to start looking at sighting

[6:33] juveniles or their parents. You know, if

[6:36] we're not here watching it happen in

[6:37] front of us, but you have it beautiful

[6:39] on your Ring doorbell camera. You know,

[6:43] we're we have deputies who know how to

[6:45] reverse engineer the math on frames per

[6:47] second to tell you how fast a vehicle is

[6:48] driving past your house, right? It takes

[6:51] a lot of leg work and stuff to go back

[6:52] in and do, but we're willing to do that

[6:54] to address the problem. We got we just

[6:57] did one far west on the hidden road

[6:59] truck mailbox. took us a week to get

[7:02] through all the math and whatnot, but

[7:03] the deputy was able to determine the car

[7:05] was doing almost 50 miles an hour

[7:06] through this residential neighborhood

[7:07] when it guy's mailbox.

[7:10] Um, but if they can identify them, that

[7:13] is the biggest part because we just have

[7:15] so many people in all the communities

[7:17] out here that soon as you throw a helmet

[7:19] on, I don't know you. I don't know

[7:22] anything about you. The ebikes aren't

[7:24] equipped with license plates, so I can't

[7:26] just go back and look at my dash camera

[7:28] and hope that the video caught the

[7:30] license plate or identifier number. You

[7:32] know, we had one in September last year.

[7:36] We were over at uh we were over by

[7:40] Sinclair and we were coming or actually

[7:41] we were 5700 South, 5,500 West just

[7:44] running speed right there for the cars

[7:46] coming out of Davis that are cruising.

[7:48] The motorcycle came by us like 12 hour.

[7:51] We were just going to give the kid a

[7:52] warning. Just say, "Hey, slow down." He

[7:54] took off on us. The only thing we had on

[7:56] it was just he had a Monster Energy logo

[7:58] on the side of his dirt bike that we

[8:00] could

[8:01] And within an hour, we had caught him

[8:03] just right here west of the city hall.

[8:05] So there are great opportunities to do

[8:08] that. It's just a matter of identifying

[8:10] the person to hold them accountable.

[8:13] >> So what's the best thing we can do then

[8:15] as a city, like you said, try to get the

[8:17] people, but they write on our city

[8:19] property. And I know, you know, we've

[8:21] called it in. We had them do they were

[8:24] doing donuts over on our basketball

[8:27] court. So what what you want to what help can we be as a city council so

[8:33] our residents know we we we understand

[8:35] this is a serious problem we're not

[8:37] turning a blind eye to this

[8:39] >> right I think it's just understanding

[8:41] what our limitations are as a sheriff's

[8:43] office like people will give us the

[8:46] spiel all the time if I stop somebody

[8:48] for speeding and they're upset about it

[8:50] like well you never stop the cars that

[8:51] are speeding past you know my house or

[8:54] you that car speeding right there my

[8:56] favorite thing to tell people is I'm not

[8:58] an an amoeba I can't split into two

[9:00] things at one time. You happen to be the

[9:02] one I caught now. I will be more than

[9:04] happy to pay attention to these areas.

[9:07] Um, but it's just being patient with us

[9:09] and knowing that our staffing levels are

[9:11] coming up, so you're going to see more

[9:12] deputies on the road. I mean, we have

[9:14] six deputies in their third phase of

[9:15] training right now. A couple of them are

[9:18] going to need another month or so, but

[9:20] they're almost done. So that's six to

[9:23] seven more police officers who are going

[9:25] to be ready to go that can start

[9:27] bolstering some of these numbers so that

[9:28] you have better opportunity to see the

[9:30] sheriff truck out here and just be

[9:34] patient with us. Get as much information

[9:35] for us as possible and just be

[9:38] persistent. I know that's a lot of

[9:42] people especially in the area of like

[9:43] 6300 West there's a lot of complaint

[9:45] about reckless bikes and speeding and

[9:47] everything. And the same thing I hear

[9:50] day in and day out is just that we don't

[9:51] care. I absolutely care. Um, speeding is

[9:55] my favorite thing. I have two lasers in

[9:58] my car. One that takes a video of you

[10:00] and a radar in my car that it sws all

[10:03] day on all night if I let it. So these

[10:08] residents know where these kids live.

[10:10] Like they do it enough

[10:13] times.

[10:15] If we had video on a phone,

[10:19] >> I would think so.

[10:24] » It's a good point, Ryan. You know, one

[10:26] of the things that the mayor, she posted

[10:28] on the mayor page about the

[10:33] doing donuts on our basketball court,

[10:35] and one of the people commented, you

[10:38] know, Mayor Karen, you know, there

[10:40] >> and and it's like this idea that's like,

[10:42] you know, we have nice,

[10:44] >> we don't have a lot of money, but we

[10:45] have nice stuff. We try to keep it nice,

[10:47] you know what I mean?

[10:48] >> And um

[10:51] >> like I said, those are my kids. I don't

[10:53] want somebody to tell me because I would

[10:55] be the to walk them down here and put

[10:56] them in a service project to clean up

[10:58] the mess they made, let alone deal with

[11:00] the ramifications of probably losing

[11:02] those bikes if they mine. And so I I

[11:05] think that it also falls on the parents.

[11:07] I don't know. We get them encouraged to

[11:09] feel that they have a sense of

[11:10] responsibility to protect this as well.

[11:13] >> Yeah.

[11:13] >> The other thing is we live in the

[11:14] country and from what I hear the

[11:17] conversation is about public roads,

[11:19] public ways, all that stuff. There are a

[11:21] lot of folks who have a little bit of

[11:22] property you can rent your dirt bike on.

[11:24] You can be in the dirt. you can do the

[11:25] thing, you know, live out in the country

[11:26] and play and you're side by side on the

[11:29] in the field if it's yours, you know,

[11:32] but um so I don't understand this idea,

[11:35] but it happens at our house with a

[11:36] culdeac behind us. They spook our horses

[11:38] constantly. They sit out there, rev up

[11:40] their engines on the dirt bikes and the

[11:41] horses take off running and I don't know

[11:44] who these kids are and who they belong.

[11:45] See what happens.

[11:46] >> It's adults, too.

[11:47] >> Yeah.

[11:48] I mean, we run into all kind of

[11:50] clients along. Um, it's just some of the

[11:54] parents we we call them and it's like,

[11:57] >> oh, Johnny would never.

[11:59] >> It's like I have Johnny by the scruff of

[12:02] his neck right now. Like

[12:03] >> my son's name is Johnny. Let's not use

[12:05] Johnny.

[12:07] >> No, Johnny better not.

[12:08] >> You know what I mean? Like we get those

[12:10] parents and we get the parents who are

[12:11] like I stopped the kid in South A the

[12:14] other night for doing 61 and the 25.

[12:17] >> And when I called his mom, she was like,

[12:19] "That's it. I'm selling this car."

[12:20] >> Yeah.

[12:21] I think if we had more support on the

[12:24] back end that we didn't feel like we

[12:26] because there's only so much law

[12:28] enforcement can do, right? We come, we

[12:31] give you a piece of paper, we say,

[12:32] "Don't do that again. Stop your wrist."

[12:34] Right? We can now take and hold the

[12:36] ebikes um on a law enforcement hole if

[12:39] we need to. That's something they just

[12:41] put in. I just saw that earlier as well.

[12:44] Um

[12:46] and the only people we can release them

[12:47] to is a parent

[12:52] Are you getting to the point I've heard

[12:54] it mentioned that there may be

[12:56] repercussions for the parents of these

[12:57] kids too if they're not dealing with

[13:00] >> I the state hasn't put any legislation

[13:02] in for it. Um

[13:06] if they're on a dirt bike for example

[13:09] dirt bikes can't operate on the roadway

[13:10] unless they're street legal which means

[13:12] they need to have blinkers they need to

[13:13] have a functioning headlight or whatever

[13:16] >> the whole laundry list of things.

[13:18] >> Um the can be issued a citation for

[13:21] allowing an unlicensed person to drive

[13:23] and the state just upped that violation

[13:25] fine to I think $500.

[13:28] >> I could be wrong. It could be could be

[13:30] plus or minus, right?

[13:31] >> Whatever will help.

[13:32] >> Um

[13:33] we the state just put a brand new law

[13:35] and it went into effect yesterday that

[13:36] if you don't have a valid driver's

[13:37] license, we shall impound your vehicle.

[13:40] We've already done three vehicle

[13:42] impounds for that countywide just as

[13:44] sheriff's office this week. And the same

[13:46] can be done on these dirt bikes and

[13:47] whatnot like You know, I I'm touching

[13:51] nearly every city in this county, and I

[13:53] just stopped a kid in Pleasant View the

[13:55] other day who was ripping down Pleasant

[13:56] View Drive and took me on a wild goose

[13:59] chase through the entire city and then

[14:01] hid on the side of his house so I

[14:02] wouldn't find him. And he was 13.

[14:06] So I don't think so much ebikes dirt

[14:13] out near your house that loves to blast

[14:15] through that through that back road.

[14:16] >> I mean I don't see going over 20 miles

[14:19] an hour.

[14:21] >> Usually it's adults and they're just

[14:23] leisurely riding. It's not the kids.

[14:25] >> It's the kids under

[14:27] >> you said they're already illegal to be

[14:29] on the road in the first place.

[14:31] >> There's plenty

[14:35] to be on the road because they don't

[14:36] have a license and blinkers and all

[14:38] these things.

[14:39] >> Yeah.

[14:39] And the ebikes and whatnot in that

[14:41] statute are allowed to operate on on the

[14:44] road if they want. Um just because we're

[14:47] encouraging bicyclists to already be on

[14:49] the road anyway because I don't want an

[14:51] adult bicyclist running your kid over on

[14:52] the sidewalk rather than be in the road.

[14:55] >> But I want the kid to be on the sidewalk

[14:57] because I want them to be safe because

[14:58] they don't know how traffic works,

[14:59] right?

[15:00] >> But the ebikes can be there. They can be

[15:02] on pathways and trails. But each

[15:04] individual city or municipality can

[15:06] create a city ordinance wherever that

[15:08] tightens that and says no, we're not

[15:10] going to allow it on our trail system.

[15:13] Um I was looking through the city code

[15:14] earlier. I didn't I couldn't find it

[15:17] because that's another big point of

[15:18] complaint is the walking trail. Um when

[15:21] the dirt bike we had an ebike take off

[15:23] on us one I think the same day as the

[15:25] other one I was talking about down here

[15:27] and he actually it was the same bike. He

[15:29] took off right there at 5100 south

[15:31] through the field and onto the canal or

[15:32] on the walking trail and up all the way

[15:35] to 5100 west where we lost him. We just

[15:38] managed. But day in and day out that is

[15:41] a complaint on at least the west side of

[15:43] 5900 west is that they're out on the

[15:45] walking trails and they're causing

[15:46] problems.

[15:47] >> Yeah. So, as a city council, maybe we

[15:49] look at or maybe you guys look at

[15:51] creating a new ordinance that puts the

[15:54] teeth down on that and says, you know,

[15:56] electric bikes, dirt bikes, any electric

[15:59] assisted vehicle,

[16:01] motorized vehicle, however it needs to

[16:03] be worded, shall not be operating on the

[16:06] trails within Hooper City or however you

[16:09] guys see that that ordinance needs to

[16:11] work, right? Plane City, for example,

[16:13] created an ordinance six or seven years

[16:15] ago that allows street legal ATVs and

[16:18] sideby sides to operate on the state or

[16:19] on a city-owned property, city roads

[16:23] because everybody in the city wanted to

[16:24] be able to take their side by side

[16:25] Maverick to get their drink right

[16:29] here. If you're operating it on the road

[16:31] and side by side that doesn't have a

[16:33] license plate, it's not street legal,

[16:35] we're going to stop you and we're going

[16:36] to have a conversation. But in Plane

[16:38] City, because their ordinance says they

[16:39] can, we just say, "Oh, wow, that's

[16:42] crazy."

[16:43] >> Yeah.

[16:43] >> You know what I mean?

[16:44] >> Yeah.

[16:44] >> So,

[16:46] I mean, we got some golfers around here.

[16:48] >> We need to look at the ordinance. I know

[16:50] last year we had talked about it because

[16:51] we were having problems on the one

[16:53] trail. So, we need to look at that

[16:55] again.

[16:56] >> Well, I think we have signs on most of

[16:58] the trails that says no vehicles.

[17:00] >> Yeah, but I don't know if we have an

[17:01] ordinance in the back.

[17:02] >> And that's where I'm because like I

[17:04] said, I went looking. I'm all about

[17:06] having the teeth on the back end. I will

[17:08] go enforce whatever ordinance you want

[17:09] me to go enforce.

[17:10] >> Yeah.

[17:10] >> As long as I have the teeth to go do it

[17:13] >> because I'll go plug, you know, not me

[17:15] off the trail and say, "Hey, you can't

[17:17] be here." You know, I drove my patrol

[17:19] car down the trail two weeks ago. We had

[17:22] a complaint. I was nearly on top of it.

[17:25] I popped off the road and I drove my

[17:26] patrol car down from 5900 West all along

[17:29] the trail and popped out on 6300 West

[17:31] and never found anybody. And then did

[17:33] the same going back up off the east side

[17:36] back on 5300 South. And I had good

[17:38] conversations with the people who were

[17:39] walking on the trail. Saw the police car

[17:41] with the lights flashing. who were

[17:43] excited to see a police car on the

[17:44] trail. They're like, "Oh, you actually

[17:46] do care. You are here, right?"

[17:48] >> Um, but give us I mean, if we can get

[17:50] the teeth behind it to say, "No, we're

[17:53] going to do this as a city. We can't

[17:55] have this." I think it's going to help

[17:56] out for that problem.

[17:58] >> And should people call 911, the

[18:01] dispatch?

[18:01] >> I would just call have them call the

[18:02] non-emergency dispatch line unless it is

[18:04] an active emergency.

[18:06] >> Okay? because they're the 911 taker is

[18:08] going to give you the non-emergency line

[18:10] anyway and say next time don't use this

[18:12] line.

[18:12] >> Okay. Okay.

[18:14] >> Mayor, can I ask another question that's

[18:16] not related to ebikes but kind of in the

[18:17] same field? Um we had an opportunity

[18:19] recently to see the incident report. Um

[18:23] the trending incidents in our city and

[18:25] we tend to have a lot less calls than

[18:27] other cities even our size. Um and I'm

[18:29] curious what are some of the things that

[18:31] you're seeing trend here? I most of all

[18:33] seem like traffic

[18:35] and with the increased headcount and the

[18:37] increased, you know, cost that we're

[18:39] talking about in our budget meeting

[18:40] tonight um to maintain the contract with

[18:42] the sheriff. What are some things that

[18:43] we should be kind of considering?

[18:45] Because when I looked at our report,

[18:46] it's like there's really not

[18:49] really traffic incidents or what you get

[18:50] called out here for. So, you're not

[18:52] really seeing any other issues.

[18:54] >> I think it's just it's hit or miss. And

[18:55] I think that the data doesn't tell the

[18:57] whole story, right?

[19:00] Every city has unique challenges, unique

[19:02] problems, and they're problem people.

[19:05] Um, one of my favorite Hoper residents

[19:07] who was a royal pain in the butt no

[19:08] longer lives here, um, lives in Ogden,

[19:11] which is a very good thing for the city.

[19:14] Um, which I'm sure has driven your call

[19:16] volume down, right? Um, it's a positive

[19:19] if the call volume's low, means things

[19:21] are going well out here, right? Um,

[19:24] >> but we need to justify like we need to

[19:26] be able to explain to our residents

[19:27] because the

[19:29] And so I want to be able to, you know,

[19:31] have a

[19:32] >> a clean conscience of telling people if

[19:34] we need to discuss taxes or something

[19:36] like that, like the value they're

[19:38] getting out of the sheriff's department.

[19:39] And I know I know there's

[19:40] >> there I'm going to give you the best

[19:42] political answer I can give you. I am

[19:44] the low man on the polling pool for

[19:45] that.

[19:45] >> Sure.

[19:46] >> Um, so I don't have all of the intric

[19:49] intricate answers that,

[19:51] >> you know, the political answer that I'm

[19:52] sure my lieutenant would love me to give

[19:54] right now.

[19:55] There's a lot of stuff on the back end

[19:57] that citizens aren't seeing that we are

[19:59] doing things in the city, right?

[20:01] >> The the extra cost is going to help pay

[20:04] for additional detective positions. So,

[20:06] when you're hit with a string of vehicle

[20:08] burglaries, we have detectives who can

[20:11] start working through those problems and

[20:12] helping identify a suspect to get your

[20:16] property back or hold somebody

[20:18] accountable for those things. Um, an

[20:21] extra traffic deputy when the traffic

[20:23] unit goes back to

[20:25] does. I mean, I spend I try to come out

[20:27] here at least twice a week. In fact, I

[20:29] just I was just telling you guys, I just

[20:31] wrote a speeding ticket on 5,500 right

[20:34] >> right before I came in here. Traffic is

[20:36] a big concern. It is the biggest concern

[20:39] of mine, right? My specialty is, but

[20:42] this city is a freeway. If we can have a

[20:45] couple extra deputies out here, I'm sure

[20:47] that our complaints from citizens are

[20:49] going to go down and additionally the

[20:52] safety is going to go up, right?

[20:54] >> We we actually talked a little bit about

[20:56] having our residents do more stuff and

[20:57] get caught so we get more bang for our

[20:59] bucks. I mean, that is an option, too.

[21:03] >> But then that buck will go up.

[21:06] >> Do you have worse 1800 becomes the offer

[21:10] for the freeway?

[21:11] >> Y this is just a pass through.

[21:14] 595

[21:20] » and we're already seeing that. Um,

[21:23] speed wise, some of my biggest speed

[21:25] violations have come out of work

[21:28] in terms of miles hour, right?

[21:30] >> Especially because you cross a couple

[21:31] school zones and we have some lower mile

[21:34] areas.

[21:34] >> Yeah. And what we've done to drop or

[21:36] what you guys have done to drop the

[21:37] speed limit to 30 on all of our thorough

[21:39] affairs has been in my opinion great as

[21:42] an opportunity is awesome. Nobody goes

[21:45] 30 miles an hour on 51 and nobody goes

[21:48] 30 miles an hour on 55

[21:51] >> control.

[21:53] >> Yeah, Mayor's husband does.

[21:56] >> At 4700 West, we went from having you

[21:58] could go out there and sit for an hour

[22:00] and stop 30 cars between two of you. And

[22:04] now we we lucky if we're getting like

[22:06] two or three a day.

[22:07] >> You guys are attention.

[22:08] >> Yeah, it got

[22:10] >> people you'd see two deputies because we

[22:11] would have to two deputies there. The

[22:13] problem was so big. As soon as one

[22:15] person was stopped, here comes another

[22:16] car at 45 miles an hour and it's just a

[22:18] concession all day long, right? And with the increase, obviously, we're

[22:23] asking for a couple of new deputy

[22:24] positions, right? Is that's needed. I

[22:27] think the best part or the best way you

[22:29] can articulate that to the citizens is

[22:31] our number. We're trying to shoot for

[22:34] one deputy per 10,000 residents, right?

[22:37] Presently, our number is, if I remember

[22:39] correctly,

[22:41] 52 deputies per 10,000. So we're we're under half of what we should be.

[22:46] Right.

[22:47] >> Ogden City is two for one, for example.

[22:50] >> And they're running their tails off all

[22:52] night long. They absolutely need two for

[22:54] one, right?

[22:54] >> Or three or four.

[22:55] >> Exactly. And there are nights where we

[22:57] could need three or four, you know,

[22:59] depending on the the night. I mean, the

[23:01] weather is getting warmer, so the call

[23:03] volume is going to go up. And you're

[23:04] going to see that in your

[23:06] >> daily reports or your weekly report. As

[23:08] the weather gets better, the crime

[23:10] starts to get worse and the problems at

[23:12] home start to get worse.

[23:14] The same can be said as the weather gets

[23:16] really bad because now people are kicked

[23:17] up at home and they start fighting with

[23:19] their spouse and they start beating each

[23:20] other.

[23:21] >> So, you know,

[23:23] >> but I think the best way to articulate

[23:24] that to everybody is we're pushing to

[23:26] get more deputies to push us to getting

[23:28] a safer ability for everybody, not just

[23:31] the citizens, but for us, too. Well, I

[23:33] think being able to articulate that the

[23:34] one to a thousand, I mean, that puts 10

[23:36] deputies out here, you know, and we

[23:38] probably don't have a four or five that

[23:40] are able to come out regularly. So, that

[23:42] helps us understand how to explain that

[23:44] as well.

[23:45] >> Yeah. And I think right now, if I

[23:47] remember the sheriff's exact number, I

[23:48] think it takes us from 0.52 to 73

[23:51] deputies.

[23:51] >> Yeah.

[23:52] >> To because I think they're adding six

[23:54] additional positions.

[23:56] >> Yeah.

[23:56] >> And I know the ask is obviously I'm sure

[23:58] the ask is going to be more over the

[24:00] next few years.

[24:03] How's retention? Are you still

[24:05] struggling with that a lot?

[24:06] >> Since the pay study went through, the

[24:07] retention has been great.

[24:09] >> I know like couple a while back you had

[24:12] like eight deputies leave in 30 days.

[24:14] >> I think it was like 13.

[24:18] >> I know from January 1 to today, I think

[24:20] we lost one.

[24:22] >> Good.

[24:23] >> And he was in the patch that was going

[24:24] to leave anyway.

[24:25] >> Yeah.

[24:25] >> In the background. He just took longer

[24:27] to get done.

[24:28] >> So things are getting better. We just

[24:29] had a new lateral deputy start

[24:31] yesterday.

[24:32] from West Valley City.

[24:34] He'll he'll need like a week or two in

[24:36] the truck with a deputy here just to

[24:38] learn our processes and then we're going

[24:39] to kick him out say please go be your

[24:42] own. So we have two two that are

[24:45] graduating the academy as we speak.

[24:47] That's why Lieutenant Kger's not here.

[24:49] So they're coming through and then I

[24:51] think we're taking a couple more out of

[24:52] the jail

[24:54] putting them through an academy and it's

[24:56] just a slow process.

[24:57] >> I want jail like inmates locked up.

[25:00] behavior.

[25:08] » So, tonight we have a public hearing and

[25:10] because we're doing our um tenative

[25:13] budget and then we're going to talk

[25:15] about doing a truth and taxation and

[25:16] part of that as council member Craig

[25:18] said is for because we have an increased

[25:20] amount. So if would you feel comfortable

[25:24] if during the public not to call you on

[25:27] the spot then but as we're discussing

[25:29] that you could address just so some of

[25:31] those same things you just told us I

[25:33] think would help and we don't even know

[25:35] we don't know if we're going to have a

[25:37] lot of people come no one come but

[25:40] >> just explaining that increase are you

[25:42] going to be here

[25:43] >> I will be here I am your event security

[25:44] for that

[25:46] >> um I'm sure I can at least touch on a

[25:48] couple of the staffing issues and Yeah,

[25:51] >> if we saw a large imposition of

[25:52] questions, maybe we could follow you if

[25:54] you wouldn't mind and speak to that the

[25:56] value of the staffing increase or maybe

[25:58] even

[25:59] >> articulating the challenge that you have

[26:00] with speeding out here and the ability

[26:02] to have one or more officers could just

[26:04] offset that to a measure.

[26:05] >> Yeah.

[26:07] >> Okay. Well, thank you. Absolutely.

[26:09] >> We appreciate you being here. Okay.

[26:11] We're going to move on because we have a

[26:12] few other things. So, commercial hobby

[26:15] kennel uses. So, we have a conditional

[26:18] use permit right now for a kennel hobby

[26:21] kennel license.

[26:23] So, I'm going to let Malcolm just

[26:25] explain that and then I'll tell you what

[26:27] our attorney because I asked him for his

[26:29] help on this

[26:31] as far as what we can and can't do.

[26:34] >> The planning commission reviewed a CUP

[26:37] for a hobby kennel. It's been tabled,

[26:39] but it'll go back to the next planning

[26:41] commission and it's going well. They're

[26:43] handling it well. had some additional

[26:44] information they needed that was

[26:46] pertinent to making a decision, but

[26:49] staff and talking with Sher as well

[26:52] thought that we should just take the

[26:54] opportunity to look at our ordinance and

[26:56] make sure there's not anything we want

[26:59] to update. um

[27:01] planning commission handled it well, but

[27:02] I do think they felt a little bit

[27:06] surprised maybe at some of the amount of dogs that were allowed in

[27:13] different different options. So, if you

[27:16] look at the print out or the handout and

[27:21] go down to those definitions, you can

[27:23] see our kennel for commercial license.

[27:26] Looks like four or more dogs and nine or

[27:29] more cats,

[27:31] no more than 10 animals for each acre.

[27:36] Those are permitted in R1 zones. It does

[27:38] look like when we about a year or two

[27:40] ago, we introduced a R 75 zone. It's a

[27:44] 3/4 acre zone. It's also permitted

[27:48] through a different ordinance for

[27:50] commercial kennels. So, think of like

[27:52] Kimble Estates over by the burnt church.

[27:55] they could have a commercial kennel

[27:57] under our current ordinance and then

[28:00] with a hobby kennel, which is the one

[28:02] we're dealing with specifically, four to

[28:04] 10 dogs can be maintained there.

[28:08] So, there's really only so many

[28:10] conditions you can place on these.

[28:11] Obviously, if we were going to change

[28:12] anything, we'd work through it with

[28:14] legal counsel to make sure, you know,

[28:16] the numbers were.

[28:19] But I uh we probably get Morgan, do you

[28:22] think you've been here longer? one or

[28:24] two applications a year for a hobby

[28:26] kennel or a couple a year. So, not a

[28:29] ton, but we do see them. We do have one

[28:32] commercial kennel that I'm aware of out

[28:34] on 7500 West, but I don't know of any

[28:37] others. Do you know of any others?

[28:45] » Yeah, I think they're I think they're

[28:47] not working.

[28:52] » Yeah. Yeah, they had three acres if I

[28:55] recall. So by the ordinance they could

[28:56] have had about 30 dogs in.

[28:59] >> Well, I I sent this message to Darren.

[29:02] He's Darren's actually out of town at a

[29:04] conference and so he's not going to be

[29:06] with us tonight. So I asked him this

[29:08] because I wanted to know and reason why

[29:10] I wanted you to hear about this is

[29:12] because you end up hearing about it

[29:14] anyway. You know, this is something that

[29:16] goes to planning commission, but if it's

[29:18] an ordinance change, you know, they are

[29:20] fulfilling whatever our ordinances are.

[29:22] And so he said, according to Utah code

[29:25] 182

[29:27] 101-1,

[29:29] a municipality may not adopt or enforce

[29:32] a breed specific rural regulation or

[29:34] ordinance regarding dogs. Any breed

[29:37] specific rural regulation policy or

[29:40] ordination regarding dogs as far as what

[29:43] the breed is void. So we can't because

[29:46] that was some of the questions that came

[29:47] up at planning commission is that some

[29:50] you know there were residents because

[29:52] this specific breed of dog. But but so

[29:56] we can't do this specific debris, but we

[29:59] could change our ordinance as far as how

[30:02] many they could have.

[30:06] » Yeah.

[30:07] >> Is there anything you're seeing in

[30:09] county planning that is indicating we

[30:12] might want to tighten the rings at all?

[30:14] Are we seeing it at a point where it's

[30:15] like, "Hey guys, we might be allowing a

[30:16] little too much." Or is it just at the

[30:18] point that they were reviewing the code

[30:19] to make an approval? They were like,

[30:21] "Wow, I didn't realize we're opening

[30:22] that much."

[30:23] >> The ladder.

[30:24] >> Yeah.

[30:24] >> I don't think demand is huge. I don't

[30:26] think the demand is problematic. It

[30:28] would just be the singularity. One

[30:29] instance of it just being a lot

[30:31] potentially, but that's not for me to

[30:34] say. I just wanted to make sure we're

[30:36] all aware of how many dogs you have. So,

[30:37] you can have 10 for a hobby kennel,

[30:38] which can be a lot in a resident's

[30:40] neighborhood, I guess.

[30:41] >> Yeah. What is a dog like? I know you can

[30:43] have four animal units on an acre. What

[30:45] is a dog considered in an Is it a fourth

[30:47] of an animal unit or is there like a

[30:50] >> Is a dog one animal unit

[30:52] >> a quarter? I think it was

[30:54] >> I I can look. I'm not sure if I ever

[30:56] noticed if it called it out. That's

[30:57] Yeah, horse is one, cows are one. I'll

[31:00] pull it up real quick.

[31:01] >> Yeah, I know cuz I looked into it. Like

[31:02] a buffalo two.

[31:05] You can get a elk. There's a lot of cool

[31:06] things about animal units. I looked into

[31:08] this. But but I want you to look through

[31:10] this and you know we this is just a

[31:12] discussion. We certainly aren't voting

[31:15] but I think if this is something as a

[31:18] council you would like to see changed.

[31:21] Again our planning commission is just

[31:22] doing an excellent job at following our

[31:24] ordinances but they and it's really hard

[31:27] when you have residents come and say

[31:28] well wait a minute we don't want to have

[31:30] this breed of a dog this many dogs but

[31:32] they're following our ordinance.

[31:35] >> So if there's something legislative we

[31:37] would like then that has to be up to us.

[31:40] You know, it's not for this one that's

[31:41] already applied because the ordinance

[31:43] that is in place now is what they

[31:44] applied under.

[31:46] >> Doesn't look like our animal unit

[31:47] contemplates dogs because we have a

[31:49] separate ordinance and I would say

[31:50] that's unique to us. I looked at West

[31:52] Point and Plain City and West Haven and

[31:56] they didn't really have it the same way

[31:58] we do. It was kind of hard to

[31:59] understand, but generally they would

[32:00] have a maximum number you could have,

[32:04] you know, um without any different

[32:06] conditions being placed. But then they

[32:07] didn't define it specifically. It was

[32:09] more it was looser at that point. You

[32:11] would need conditional permit. You would

[32:13] need it was kind of a one-off basis. So

[32:14] they didn't limit themselves or you know

[32:16] and I'm not sure that's exactly how it

[32:18] could be done. But I guess what I mean

[32:19] by that is for ours for instance I think

[32:20] the hobby kennel was four to 10. Is that

[32:22] what it says there?

[32:23] >> That's right.

[32:23] >> So I would imagine you can have three

[32:25] dogs uh prior to needing also someone

[32:28] could have three dogs I'm guessing. But

[32:30] >> that's how most cities handled it. We

[32:31] kind of do it inversely. We imply how

[32:33] many dogs you can have before you need

[32:34] to kennel. most of them at a maximum and

[32:36] then after that implied that it would be

[32:38] conditional or you know something extra

[32:41] and then they didn't really limit

[32:42] themselves and how many you know they

[32:45] could allow or not and I guess at that

[32:48] point then you can maybe one off decide

[32:50] but

[32:51] >> that seems how their ordinance read but

[32:52] it was different than ours right or

[32:54] wrong just a thought

[32:55] >> well the reason why I'm asking is

[32:56] because you think of like uh you know

[32:58] especially commercial this is done for a

[33:00] business and you got a guy who's raising

[33:02] cattle and like you know, obviously it

[33:05] takes a certain amount of feed, but like

[33:07] that's also a business and it's like so,

[33:09] you know, are we are we being consistent

[33:11] there? That's my my question is like

[33:13] we're allowing 30 on three acres. Well,

[33:15] we allow 30 cows on three acres and what

[33:18] does that break down animal unit as far

[33:20] as commercial consideration? Like for a

[33:22] hobby kennel in your personal life,

[33:23] you're breeding for hunting, whatever. I

[33:25] think that's probably a little different

[33:27] private property use in my mind. But

[33:29] when I think of like somebody

[33:30] commercially raising like German

[33:32] shepherds and selling them and uh it's

[33:35] the same business model. Am I raising

[33:37] goats or sheep or whatever and are we

[33:39] being consistent or restrictive of

[33:41] animal units there? I'm just curious.

[33:43] >> Look into it as separating as

[33:48] » Yeah, that's what I'm saying. like even

[33:49] though we're not eating the dogs, you

[33:51] know, even though we're, you know, but

[33:53] we're of course we're using them for a

[33:54] commercial purpose if they're at a

[33:56] commercial kennel versus alpacas, you

[33:58] know, um and so we would have a

[34:01] restriction on that considering it is an

[34:02] agricultural business use and this is a

[34:05] version of animal has been dreaming

[34:07] those dogs. I'm just curious if that's

[34:09] part of the consistent consideration.

[34:11] >> Well, when you review this and I don't

[34:13] know what we have already lined up for

[34:15] our next agenda, then I know we have

[34:17] budget So, we'll see. I mean, when we

[34:20] can fit this in, but we'll give you

[34:22] enough notice that, you know, let's look

[34:24] at this and see if if we think we're

[34:26] fine with this. If we're not though, it

[34:28] needs to be something that we decide so

[34:30] we can give that direction to the

[34:33] >> Just curious on the agenda for the one

[34:36] that we discussed when planning

[34:38] commission discussed there were two on

[34:39] the agenda, but one of them pulled their

[34:41] application. Does anybody know exactly

[34:43] why they pulled that?

[34:45] >> There there was the owner of the

[34:46] property. It was a tenant and the owner

[34:48] didn't actually want a kennel. So, there

[34:50] was just a

[34:52] >> there was an error on processing. We

[34:53] didn't realize it wasn't the owner

[34:55] specifically in Well, we didn't realize

[34:56] the owner had a problem with it. So,

[34:58] >> yeah. Was there a rental unit?

[35:01] >> Yeah, we can look at it in the future,

[35:03] but so we're saying $4.

[35:07] I mean, if you go with any less than

[35:09] four out here in Hooker, the way I look

[35:11] at it, we're going to run into problems

[35:13] because there's a lot of people that

[35:15] have three, four dogs,

[35:19] you know,

[35:21] and so then are we going to have to have

[35:22] them fill that out? I mean, are we going

[35:26] to run any more issues?

[35:29] >> I mean, my kids uh that live with me

[35:32] right now, they have three dogs and uh

[35:37] Real dogs are they little?

[35:38] >> No, one's actually a shepherd that they

[35:41] train with the police. It's an attack

[35:44] >> shepherd. But

[35:45] >> I can go out and play with that dog all

[35:47] I want. When he's in train training

[35:50] mode, he's got a jacket on. And you

[35:53] know, you better watch out.

[35:54] >> But without that jacket on, that dog

[35:57] knows he's just a a regular dog. But you

[36:01] know, they've got three dogs in ours.

[36:03] It's not just our house. I give you a

[36:06] >> list.

[36:08] You know, so if we go less than that, I

[36:10] think we're

[36:10] >> No, I don't think it would be less. I

[36:13] think it's Do we want to go up to 10,

[36:15] >> I think that is it, you know. I I don't

[36:18] think it and and um I I'm grateful for

[36:21] these people that came in and tried to

[36:23] do this the right way. You know, we

[36:24] probably have other people that are

[36:26] doing it and we just don't know about

[36:27] it.

[36:28] >> Sure.

[36:28] >> So, I really, you know, kudos to them

[36:30] that they did, but but that's the

[36:32] question. We can't do it. We can't discriminate, but do we want to

[36:37] have it be 10?

[36:39] >> So,

[36:40] >> and that's where it's at right now.

[36:41] >> Now, it's they can have it up to

[36:42] >> four to 10.

[36:44] >> And I think that's interesting, too,

[36:46] because there's also an animal

[36:47] restriction on like if it's a calf, like

[36:50] when it's paired with the mother. So, I

[36:51] wonder if like we consider, well, it's a

[36:54] litter they just had and maybe they're

[36:55] getting rid of some of them so we're not

[36:56] going to pick on it because they got six

[36:57] dogs, you know?

[36:58] >> Yeah.

[36:59] >> Sorry.

[37:00] >> Yeah, you can make it that

[37:04] raising

[37:05] dogs to sell commercially

[37:08] hobby.

[37:11] >> A lot of codes use four months. A lot of

[37:14] codes contemplate four months as a

[37:16] threshold, right? That's I guess that's

[37:18] when they can go at least safely. So, a

[37:20] lot of them will have four months once a

[37:21] day. That's another thing if you did do

[37:23] it. Two thoughts just come to mind. I

[37:24] was looking over it again. We're

[37:26] allowing hobby kennels even in our four

[37:28] so quarter acre zones. So, that could be

[37:31] another thought. Even if you didn't

[37:32] reduce the number, you could at least

[37:34] consider what zones do we want hobby

[37:36] candles in. Quarter acre seems small,

[37:38] but maybe not. I don't know.

[37:40] >> It does seem small for 10,

[37:42] >> but uh so right now it is. Um and then

[37:45] beyond that, another little nuance if

[37:48] you guys do dive into if the council

[37:49] dives into this. The other cities all

[37:52] had, and I'd have to read it again

[37:53] thoroughly, but they all make you

[37:54] register your dog.

[37:56] >> That's right.

[37:56] >> And we don't have anything requiring

[37:58] that. So I don't know if it's that

[37:59] significant but you do register your dog

[38:01] with the help or animal control so that

[38:04] >> it has to have shots.

[38:06] >> Yeah. And we don't require that. So not

[38:08] probably not a huge deal but they do. So

[38:10] if we're going to go after it we might

[38:12] want to add some details like that. So I

[38:14] don't know.

[38:14] >> Especially if it's a kennel. I mean if

[38:16] it is a commercial I think there is a

[38:18] little bit difference but okay. Okay.

[38:21] We'll look at this and we'll

[38:24] >> So are we just going to put it on the

[38:25] agenda and come up with something? Yeah,

[38:28] my feeling is if Yeah, we just say,

[38:31] "Well, go look at it."

[38:32] >> No, it'll be on June. I haven't seen why

[38:34] we have on our next upcoming I know in

[38:36] June when we do the budget, it can only

[38:38] be budget.

[38:40] >> Yeah, we were going to do that probably

[38:41] June 4th. That was one thing I wanted to

[38:43] just kind of ask real quick.

[38:45] >> Yeah.

[38:45] >> Is um we have a public hearing um on the

[38:49] resolution for August 6, but we probably

[38:52] ought to add one for June. And I was

[38:55] >> Did you say August 6?

[38:58] And maybe I was proposing that we

[39:00] probably ought to add in the resolution

[39:02] to add the June 4th when we adopt that

[39:05] resolution is

[39:06] >> okay

[39:07] >> and have two of them to cover ourselves

[39:09] to make sure we have

[39:10] >> okay so we probably could then without

[39:14] >> I haven't seen up in May but

[39:17] >> I think without

[39:19] >> I don't know

[39:20] >> what's the August meeting for

[39:22] >> the August would be also for a public

[39:25] hearing

[39:26] >> yeah thought we

[39:28] in tax. But but if you're doing the

[39:30] truth and taxation,

[39:32] >> they change

[39:34] more time. Okay, that's the same.

[39:37] >> Yeah. So the June 4th

[39:40] >> for and I'll have to read the exact

[39:43] wording because it's all changed so much

[39:46] this last year. But the June 4th would

[39:50] give us the option to basically say yes,

[39:52] we are for sure doing truth and

[39:54] taxation. We, you know, acknowledge that

[39:57] and we're waiting to do that final

[40:01] budget

[40:02] >> even though July 1.

[40:04] >> What's that?

[40:05] >> Start July first.

[40:06] >> Well, with when you have truth and

[40:08] taxation, they give you till August. So,

[40:10] you operate on the tenative budget until

[40:14] you adopt the budget in August.

[40:17] So, that's

[40:18] >> So, could you do it all in June the

[40:20] same?

[40:21] >> I don't know if you could. I would love

[40:24] to. We could, but I don't know if you

[40:26] actually legally can.

[40:28] >> I know. And I talked to understand you

[40:29] can

[40:30] >> county we you have to there's certain

[40:32] time and you have to ours can't be on

[40:35] the night of any other. So if like in

[40:37] Wever Sewward District isn't doing one,

[40:39] but if the school district was doing

[40:40] one, if the fire they all have to be

[40:42] different nights and I'm and I don't

[40:44] know that we I don't know that's a good

[40:46] question.

[40:46] >> Yeah, because Darren was telling me I

[40:48] was asking questions about this like

[40:50] >> how committed we are on this proposal of

[40:52] the resolute whatever and explaining

[40:55] that we're going to still have like

[40:56] three more opportunities to vote this

[40:58] down beforehand because the process

[40:59] requires specific amount of times for us

[41:02] to change our say no to this

[41:04] >> and everything I've ever and I've again

[41:07] I'd have to pull the law but every time

[41:09] I've done truth and taxation the final

[41:12] truth and taxation is adopted in August

[41:15] and that's everything I've heard from

[41:16] every city. Now that being said, if the

[41:19] truth and taxation

[41:22] relates to some type of a um

[41:25] expenditure, I of course encourage us

[41:29] not to do that expenditure

[41:32] until after that's been adopted because

[41:34] that can cause problems. So, you know, I

[41:38] know

[41:38] >> Oh, what you're saying is like if it is

[41:40] we've committing to paying for

[41:41] something, then we don't get the truth

[41:42] of taxation approved and now it's in our

[41:44] budget and we have to pay a bill.

[41:46] >> Yeah.

[41:46] >> We don't have the money. Yeah, we're

[41:48] like, "Oh, you're in the headlight

[41:49] look."

[41:50] >> Where in this case, I don't think the

[41:52] >> I don't think it's an option. Our option

[41:54] is

[41:54] >> not going to let us pay less, are they?

[41:55] >> I was going to say

[41:58] >> that's on your right.

[42:01] >> I mean, part of the part of the um

[42:03] impact the property tax um proposed

[42:07] property tax impact schedule. It has the

[42:10] police on there, but I did that because

[42:14] that's what we're doing it for. But if

[42:17] it doesn't go through, we still have to

[42:19] pay that amount. It's just we're paying

[42:21] it from fund balance. So that's why I

[42:23] added at the very end. Therefore, let's

[42:26] say this will be a continued cost to the

[42:28] city. Therefore, it is not advised to

[42:30] use fund balance to fund these

[42:32] increases. you know, if it was a

[42:34] one-time expenditure, then, you know,

[42:37] maybe you use some fund balance and you

[42:39] don't do the tax increase, but it's it's

[42:42] going to continue. So, if we don't do it

[42:45] this year, I would still advise to do it

[42:47] next year because you can only use fund

[42:49] balance so long and fund balance runs

[42:52] out.

[42:53] >> Yep. So, let's plan on then back to to

[42:56] answer your question then because we're

[42:57] thinking about June. So at our next

[42:59] meeting in May, we will plan on having

[43:01] this on the agenda to have some

[43:05] consideration for us to vote on.

[43:08] >> So maybe be thinking of that and you

[43:10] know, we'll get even more with Malcolm

[43:12] and some recommendations as far as do we

[43:15] want to reduce the amount of animals.

[43:17] The notes I wrote down, what zone do we

[43:19] allow them in, how many do we allow

[43:21] them, and do we want to then require

[43:23] them to have a licensing process along

[43:25] with that?

[43:27] Anyway, those are some things we need to

[43:29] be considering. Okay. So, the next thing

[43:32] then is the lease agreement which is

[43:35] also in there because we passed the

[43:37] ordinance where all lease agreements

[43:38] will go before the city council. We've

[43:41] had someone that come came in and asked

[43:43] about doing a lease agreement along the

[43:45] Slooh, but they haven't finished all

[43:48] their paperwork yet, but that we may see

[43:51] that also in May. So, again, look at

[43:54] this. So, happened in the past is this

[43:57] was something that staff did and there

[43:59] was a place there where the mayor signed

[44:01] it but it basically was they came in

[44:03] with some considerations with the staff

[44:05] and so you can read through this and see

[44:08] there's some things that I think we need

[44:10] to look at and maybe some things we we

[44:13] want to change is this something we want

[44:15] to continue it's been $1 a year for 50

[44:18] years not all lease property along even

[44:22] along the slooh are the same amount of

[44:24] property

[44:25] Some have more, some have less. Some

[44:27] have animals in their lease property,

[44:29] some we haven't allowed animals, some we

[44:32] say it can only be so close to the

[44:34] slooh.

[44:36] So, I think this is something we need to

[44:38] look at a little more because we passed

[44:40] the ordinance saying we're going to do this, but we never looked at

[44:44] this as far as what we're going to do.

[44:47] I rent through it actually twice and I

[44:50] don't know what I tried on it looked

[44:52] pretty good but uh

[44:56] you know since those homes got put in

[44:58] along the I mean we used to live in it

[45:01] growing up as kids uh I knew it all real

[45:04] well but now with the homes there you

[45:06] know everything I read there I

[45:11] >> I do find it interesting that we have it

[45:12] clearly state here in the lease that no

[45:14] motorized vehicle ATVs or whatever

[45:16] allowed, but then our ordinance doesn't

[45:18] say about our lease to the people who

[45:19] have the property next to that trail.

[45:22] >> It's in that agreement, but it's not in

[45:23] the ordinance.

[45:24] >> Yeah.

[45:24] >> Um what what I think is interesting

[45:26] though, we talked about is is like

[45:29] animals.

[45:30] >> And I mean, I feel like one of the

[45:32] things I love about it is that

[45:34] everyone's been able to do kind of their

[45:36] own thing as long as it's an improvement

[45:38] and it's not a damage. You know, it's

[45:40] like something that's going to be

[45:41] beneficial. And walking along the trail,

[45:43] I mean, if they're not like vicious

[45:46] like people might like to see that. It's

[45:48] a little bit of connection to nature,

[45:50] whatever. So, I don't I don't know how

[45:52] everyone else feels about having animals

[45:54] that closer or in that area of lease

[45:56] property, but I guess it depends on what

[45:58] animal, what type of animal, what we're

[46:00] doing.

[46:01] >> Goats would be great.

[46:02] >> Yeah.

[46:02] >> To eat all the

[46:05] >> Yeah.

[46:06] >> A little bit of a problem. People

[46:07] walking down the trail with

[46:11] horrible.

[46:12] >> Yeah. gives join

[46:15] goats right there all the weeds and it

[46:17] works great. Yeah. Well, and in here it

[46:20] says they have to be they can't be

[46:22] within 35 ft of the Slooh, but like you

[46:25] mentioned, you know, the one um the RV

[46:28] it's beautiful along there and right

[46:30] down here unfortunately the P's home is

[46:33] had that tragic fire, but they've

[46:35] landscaped down by the Slooh and it's

[46:36] really nice. But but that's something

[46:39] that we probably need to look at because

[46:41] currently ours says they they're not

[46:43] allowed to be within 35 ft. So anyway,

[46:46] those are just some things. Let's look

[46:49] at this and see because I know in the

[46:51] past it's been we've had um a particular

[46:53] individual that wanted to put some

[46:55] horses and we've said no, you can't.

[46:58] Well, can we or not? Or is that

[47:00] something we want to change? If they

[47:02] can, is it a limit to how many they

[47:04] could put so they don't completely dirt

[47:15] Say your SWIP plan might have a problem

[47:18] with that. You might want to check with

[47:19] JB on your SWIP

[47:20] >> board

[47:27] of these days. So I know exactly.

[47:30] >> Yeah. Well, and it's different. You take

[47:32] the Hard Landing Slooh is a little bit

[47:34] different of an area than when you take

[47:36] the one from 59 West. But anyway, this

[47:39] will be on our agenda next time, too. So

[47:41] if you would just because if there are

[47:43] any if this is great how it is then and

[47:46] again do you want them do you want them

[47:48] to come to a city council meeting and

[47:51] present this to you so you have a chance

[47:53] to vote that's how our ordinance reads

[47:56] so that's why we just want to have

[47:57] everything right you know and there

[47:59] might be bigger than even a slute we

[48:01] have another piece of property that

[48:03] again is a problem with our kids on

[48:05] motorbikes and I've had four different

[48:07] individuals that have asked about

[48:08] leasing that you know can they lease

[48:10] that and they'd put a fence around it,

[48:12] but again, they'd want to put maybe two

[48:14] or three horses or something in it to

[48:16] help eat it down because our our public

[48:20] works, they don't really have time to go

[48:21] mow it. Now it's tall and now we have

[48:24] these kids and but then we need to I

[48:27] think we need a little more maybe some

[48:28] specific rules of what we want

[48:32] >> even maybe in addition.

[48:34] >> I thought we

[48:36] like talked about these leases not being

[48:41] when we were talking about wanting to

[48:42] see leases. I thought we excluded these

[48:44] like didn't I don't know. I thought when

[48:46] we said

[48:46] >> ones were already in place.

[48:48] >> Okay. We did want to see every new

[48:52] visited.

[48:52] >> Okay.

[48:53] >> Yeah. But but even even though one might

[48:56] be bigger than the other, I think we

[48:58] still needed to have some designations

[48:59] with that then. You know, we can't say

[49:01] well yours is only 30 feet. You don't

[49:04] have this. Well, yours is 60 feet or

[49:06] some of those behind Herbert Landings

[49:08] are quite a distance or that one that

[49:10] runs along the Slooh that's on the

[49:12] corner of 51 and 55. We're having

[49:14] problems with the dirt bikes.

[49:16] >> Well, and like if they're going to put

[49:18] animals on it, it needs it would be

[49:20] really

[49:22] helpful if the adjacent land owner

[49:24] because water is going to be an issue

[49:26] when you're talking about down there.

[49:28] >> Yeah.

[49:28] >> Especially with a 35T setback from the

[49:31] so they don't walk the bank.

[49:32] >> So, it would make sense to probably gear

[49:35] it towards the local land owner than it

[49:39] would be somebody else is going to have

[49:40] to haul water. That's going to be their

[49:41] option.

[49:43] >> What do what do we do to maintain

[49:44] consistency of approval of these leases

[49:46] since everyone's going to be kind of a

[49:48] unique scenario if we're going to visit

[49:51] it every time somebody's coming and want

[49:53] to approve something? How do we make

[49:54] sure we're not just like arbitrarily

[49:55] deciding on a Tuesday here's how we feel

[49:58] about animals? You know what I mean?

[49:59] Like I'm being a little hyper. You know

[50:00] what I mean? Like how do we make sure It

[50:03] was kind of an administrative task. I

[50:06] think it'd be important that because the

[50:08] whole point of this, right, was so the

[50:10] city doesn't have to maintain

[50:11] maintenance. So, if we don't issue a

[50:12] lease, now the city has to maintain that

[50:14] piece. Right.

[50:15] >> Exactly. And Darren even said in a lot

[50:18] of cities it's called a license rather

[50:20] than a lease which has a little bit

[50:22] different feel to it and then it is done

[50:23] administratively. I'm fine with these

[50:26] coming to city council, but I agree. we

[50:28] need to have something a little more

[50:30] written so it doesn't feel like we're

[50:32] letting you and not you then it becomes

[50:34] not fair. I think it needs to be and and

[50:37] we need to look at some of those other

[50:39] you know extenduating circumstances

[50:42] >> like just like you mentioned you know

[50:45] >> that

[50:47] if we're going to spend a ton of money

[50:49] on administrative uh

[50:53] things to deal with all this and all the

[50:55] issues that we're going to have to would

[50:56] it be cheaper just to

[50:58] them and it not do a lease.

[51:02] >> Well, it it might except for in the past

[51:03] they really haven't had time and it

[51:05] hasn't gotten done and it is property

[51:08] that probably could be useful for

[51:11] somebody next to it. But

[51:12] >> I think it's something the residents

[51:13] like, right? Like a lot of our I mean

[51:16] people like making it a little bit

[51:17] custom. It makes the trail look cool

[51:19] because it you have to trust that people

[51:21] are doing the right thing, right? But it

[51:23] is kind of a fun thing to see everyone's

[51:24] unique

[51:25] >> approach to that piece. Can you give me

[51:27] a ride down there one time

[51:29] >> with a live

[51:30] >> locket? Yeah,

[51:31] >> we start at the top.

[51:33] >> I think when they say electronic

[51:35] vehicles, they don't mean your jazzy

[51:36] scooter. You can ride the Jazzy scooter.

[51:39] >> Remember, there's no ordinance

[51:40] currently.

[51:42] >> Put your jazzy scooter on there.

[51:44] >> Okay. So, we have one more thing to

[51:45] cover, but Cammy, I don't want to run

[51:47] out of time. Do you have anything you

[51:49] need to address us before when it gets

[51:51] to this portion of the agenda? I am

[51:53] turning it over to Cammy because there

[51:55] is exactness.

[51:56] >> Yeah, I have to read. You're gonna be

[51:58] tired of hearing me. Sorry, I apologize

[52:02] in advance. Oh, my husband does. So, I'm

[52:04] sure he's

[52:06] >> You might be watching.

[52:09] Can I bring up one thing with the

[52:11] budget? Yes, I just

[52:14] typed

[52:23] property tax impact schedule.

[52:25] >> Okay, I think I know what type

[52:27] >> the one with the property tax rate.

[52:30] >> Yeah,

[52:30] >> the current property tax rate is 283 and

[52:34] the proposed one4798.

[52:38] I don't think that's accurate. I think

[52:41] it's got to be

[52:44] 364ish.

[52:48] » To get the $368,000

[52:53] » probably. We We could be missing

[52:56] >> a couple of zeros for sure.

[52:58] >> I think so. That's on on the this impact

[53:02] schedule.

[53:04] >> It's on the It's right on the very front

[53:07] of the proposed property itself.

[53:09] >> I did the math on a $450,000 home. Even

[53:13] 0447

[53:15] was too high for what we're asking for.

[53:19] I came up with 0000 364.

[53:22] >> I think what I did

[53:25] and the county will actually

[53:27] >> give that to us, but it's good to have.

[53:29] >> Yes, I'm like,

[53:30] >> yeah,

[53:31] >> please double check me on everything.

[53:33] I'm paranoid on all this stuff.

[53:34] >> Why does the top say it's going from

[53:36] zero to zero and Yeah, that's what I had

[53:40] seen and we've corrected that.

[53:43] >> So I didn't know how important that

[53:47] >> I think it has to be. Yeah. Yeah.

[53:50] >> Somebody in the community.

[53:51] >> Okay. Well, Cammy's looking because I

[53:53] we're almost out of time here and we

[53:55] only have five minutes left. So last

[53:57] year and it was I don't remember how

[54:00] many months we put a moratorum on

[54:02] issuing business licenses for it was

[54:05] child any kind of youth facility because

[54:10] we had the drug treatment center that

[54:11] came. This is also something that we

[54:14] need to look at because we have another

[54:17] one that is coming through and again

[54:18] this is one that's already in place but

[54:20] planning commission is going to see that you we need to see what we're going

[54:25] to do with this because we because it

[54:27] came and went that moratorum came and

[54:29] went and we never did anything else

[54:32] about it. So the mortorium is lifted at

[54:34] this point

[54:35] >> and and currently in our ordinance and

[54:38] we don't have a lot with that either do

[54:40] we other than our ordinance states that

[54:43] we do allow that in residential. So

[54:47] that's something we need to look at and

[54:48] if that's something we might need to

[54:50] change because currently our ordinance

[54:51] allows it.

[54:54] We did look at that.

[54:55] >> Yeah,

[54:56] >> we promised the res.

[54:57] >> We did

[54:58] >> and it's robust. Drug and alcohol, child

[55:00] treatment, nursing, foster. We have a

[55:04] code and I think our code for a while

[55:05] was adequate. We shouldn't have a lot of

[55:07] requests, but we're getting more

[55:09] requests there.

[55:10] >> Yeah. And I was hoping

[55:11] >> I know we don't have a ordinance to

[55:14] solve it. So,

[55:14] >> and I asked Darren if he would also look

[55:16] into that and I didn't hear back from

[55:18] him. So, I can't give you any more

[55:20] information because I told him I said

[55:22] what we need to legally what we can and

[55:25] cannot do. It doesn't smell good for us

[55:27] to say, "Oh, we didn't have this

[55:29] ordinance, you know, but then legally we

[55:31] can't." And then he wasn't we didn't get

[55:33] >> so how long was that previous one?

[55:38] >> We It was six months, but it expired how

[55:41] many months ago?

[55:43] >> Yeah. So, can we just reenact the same

[55:47] exact one for another six months and

[55:49] then give us time to look at it or

[55:51] >> Well, I feel like that was kicking the

[55:54] can down the road a little bit. I feel like we need to be proactive on

[55:57] this and get something done.

[56:00] >> Yeah, we need to do it was that we would

[56:04] do something.

[56:05] >> We did.

[56:08] >> Yeah.

[56:11] » Put some heat on it.

[56:13] >> Yeah. So, so we need to So, again, you

[56:15] know, those So, I feel like the

[56:17] commercial these three things we've, you

[56:19] know, talked about in our work meeting

[56:22] and I always like to bring them to you

[56:23] to a work meeting first so you can kind

[56:25] of have it on your radar so we're not

[56:27] just throwing an ordinance at you. So,

[56:30] this you'll see this. So, again, I don't

[56:33] know what else we have. Sometimes we

[56:35] already have things that are already

[56:36] pres but anyway, but let's I think we

[56:40] absolutely need to do that. Yes.

[56:43] >> Yeah.

[56:45] >> Okay. Cammy, did you have anything else

[56:47] for us then on that?

[56:50] >> I'm glad you saw that.

[56:52] >> I noticed the zeros, but I didn't notice

[56:53] all the other zeros.

[56:56] >> Okay.

[56:59] >> Yeah.

[57:03] » My card.

[57:04] >> What's that?

[57:05] >> So, I'm just going to go put this away

[57:06] and I'll come back.

[57:07] >> Okay. What was that? What was that

[57:09] again? It's 0417736

[57:15] is the estimate.

[57:16] >> Okay.

[57:17] >> Yeah. Well, I was trying.

[57:21] >> At least it's not the 2.8.

[57:22] >> I don't think anybody.

[57:24] >> Yeah. Somebody else is coming.

[57:27] >> Oh,

[57:29] I'm glad it's not us.

[57:30] >> I can't even imagine.

[57:32] >> I can't imagine for

[57:35] >> city.

[57:36] >> Well, they didn't get theirs approved

[57:38] last year. That's part of the reason we

[57:40] had so much this year. They didn't do it

[57:41] right last year.

[57:42] >> They did their raises for their employ

[57:49] 2.8.

[57:53] » Yeah. It's like a 67% increase.

[57:58] >> Our sounds bad,

[58:01] >> you know.

[58:02] >> Yeah.

[58:17] Well, I read the list.

[58:29] Can you

[58:45] » How do I get that job?

[58:59] How many elk are we let?

[59:03] » We're not allowed.

[59:05] >> No elk. Come on. That'd be awesome.

[59:07] >> But I do think I think an elk is two

[59:09] units.

[59:10] >> That's hilarious.

[59:11] >> You do have to get a special permit from

[59:12] the state before you can do any wild.

[59:15] >> Oh yeah.

[59:16] >> Yes. But it is interesting to know

[59:18] >> what what's qualified as it.

[59:21] >> We had an analopee in my neighborhood a

[59:22] while back and that got removed

[59:25] >> because that's not legal.

[59:31] » Isn't the internet fun?

[59:35] » Well, I mean I think like 25 chickens is

[59:39] something to

[59:41] >> but I mean imagine one and you got like

[59:44] you know 100 chickens.

[59:57] Recording in progress.

[1:00:14] We would like to welcome you to our city

[1:00:16] council meeting. It this is for Hipper

[1:00:19] City and it is Thursday, May 7th. I am

[1:00:22] Sheri Bingham. I'm the mayor and I will

[1:00:24] be conducting this meeting.

[1:00:27] We are going to have our opening

[1:00:28] ceremony, a pledge of allegiance by

[1:00:30] Council Member Craig and then a

[1:00:32] reverence by Council Member Hancock. And

[1:00:34] we to excuse council member Fowlers who

[1:00:36] have another obligation.

[1:00:42] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[1:00:45] United States of America and to the

[1:00:47] republic for it stands nation

[1:00:54] for all.

[1:01:01] » Our father as we come before you tonight

[1:01:02] we wish to thank thee for this beautiful

[1:01:05] city that we have to live in and

[1:01:08] the things that we enjoy as citizens of

[1:01:11] the city. We to continue to watch over

[1:01:14] us, keep the residents out of harm's

[1:01:16] way, and guide us in directions that

[1:01:18] will benefit our city and help maintain

[1:01:21] an atmosphere out here that we have all

[1:01:24] grown to love. We ask you to

[1:01:28] watch over um members of the community

[1:01:32] and help us to answer questions that

[1:01:34] they may have as best as we can and

[1:01:37] guide us in the directions that we

[1:01:39] should proceed with the things that we

[1:01:40] decide. We ask these things in the name

[1:01:42] of Jesus Christ. Amen.

[1:01:46] >> Thank you.

[1:01:48] We don't have any upcoming events to

[1:01:50] announce right now and so the first

[1:01:52] thing on our agenda is public comments.

[1:01:54] If you have a public comment, if you

[1:01:56] would come to the microphone, state your

[1:01:59] name and you have three minutes.

[1:02:06] Okay. Seeing no public comments, then

[1:02:08] we're going to move on to the approval

[1:02:10] of the minutes. Hopefully, all of you

[1:02:13] have had a chance to review the minutes.

[1:02:16] If there's any corrections to those,

[1:02:19] >> I have one correction there. Um, it

[1:02:21] says, "Council members, excuse it hasn't

[1:02:23] been listed there. I actually joined for

[1:02:25] the closed door meeting. I was stuck in

[1:02:27] transit in an airplane and couldn't

[1:02:29] attend the meeting virtually, but I did

[1:02:31] join for the closed door meeting and

[1:02:33] voted on the water attorney and voted on

[1:02:35] the adjournment." So I need to update

[1:02:37] that and say I was present for the

[1:02:39] closed door meeting and the adjournment.

[1:02:43] » Is there any other corrections that

[1:02:46] anyone saw?

[1:02:49] >> Okay. Is there someone then that would

[1:02:50] like to make a motion with that

[1:02:52] correction to approve the minutes?

[1:02:54] >> So moved.

[1:02:56] >> Move. The motion was made by council

[1:02:58] member Craig. Is there a second?

[1:03:00] >> Second.

[1:03:01] >> Second's made by council member Heel.

[1:03:03] Any discussion on the motion?

[1:03:07] See no discussion. All in favor say I.

[1:03:11] >> Any opposed? Okay. The minutes are

[1:03:13] approved.

[1:03:21] Okay. So the next thing we have then on

[1:03:25] our agenda, this is a public hearing to

[1:03:30] on our for the fiscal year 2026

[1:03:34] to 2027 tenative budget. Again, you can

[1:03:38] come to the microphone and have three

[1:03:40] minutes and if you would please state

[1:03:42] your name.

[1:03:48] » Okay.

[1:03:49] Is is this open for anybody or are we

[1:03:51] talking about the budget?

[1:03:53] >> We already had our public comments. So,

[1:03:56] this is open for on the budget.

[1:04:04] Okay. And I actually needed to move that

[1:04:07] have someone move us into a public

[1:04:09] hearing and then bring us back out of

[1:04:10] the public hearing. So, if I could have

[1:04:12] a motion to move this into a public

[1:04:15] hearing. I make a motion to move us into

[1:04:17] a public hearing to discuss the uh

[1:04:20] fiscal year 2026 2027 tenative budget.

[1:04:24] >> Motion was made by council member Craig.

[1:04:26] Is there a second?

[1:04:27] >> I'll second it.

[1:04:29] >> Second was made by council member

[1:04:30] Hancock. All in favor?

[1:04:32] >> I.

[1:04:33] >> So now we're moving into our public

[1:04:35] hearing. So if there's anybody, and this

[1:04:38] is on the budget, the tenative budget

[1:04:40] for fiscal year 2026 27. there's anyone

[1:04:44] that has a comment to make.

[1:04:49] Okay, seeing none, then we have to have

[1:04:51] a motion to move back into our regular

[1:04:53] meeting.

[1:04:55] >> I'll make a motion to move back into the

[1:04:57] regular meeting of the public hearing

[1:04:59] for the tenative budget fiscal year

[1:05:02] 2627.

[1:05:03] >> The motion was made by council member

[1:05:05] Hancock. Is there a second?

[1:05:08] >> I'll second.

[1:05:09] >> Second is made by council member Rapto.

[1:05:12] All in favor?

[1:05:13] >> I.

[1:05:14] >> Okay. So, now we're back into our

[1:05:16] regular meeting. So, tonight our action

[1:05:19] item number eight has to do with our

[1:05:22] tenative budget and we're going to turn

[1:05:25] the time over to County Moss who is our

[1:05:28] city treasurer and she's going to take

[1:05:31] us through exactly what we need to do as

[1:05:33] far as this process. Thank you for being

[1:05:35] here with us.

[1:05:38] >> Okay. So, um

[1:05:42] Is it okay? Morgan's got a little

[1:05:44] slideshow, but um it's basically just a

[1:05:48] summary of the budget that you've all

[1:05:51] gone through and uh studied with all the

[1:05:55] fun that we've had. So, um and then

[1:05:59] there's also handouts for the puppet

[1:06:01] over there on the table. Um just with

[1:06:05] the summary. Uh however the budget once

[1:06:08] the tenative budget has been approved

[1:06:10] we'll put it on the website and do all

[1:06:12] the proper um information that we need

[1:06:15] to with this. Um so right now the

[1:06:18] tenative budget is got a total income of

[1:06:22] 4.2 million for the general fund and

[1:06:26] then our expenditures would be 4.8.

[1:06:30] Um there's a shortfall of uh 601,000

[1:06:34] in that budget. Uh that 601 is planning

[1:06:39] on being spent from the class C roads

[1:06:42] restricted funds to do some road

[1:06:44] improvements. So we are spending part of

[1:06:47] our class C roads money down. Um but

[1:06:51] that I feel is a good decision. Um on

[1:06:55] the next page, next slide, um the

[1:06:59] proposed property tax that that amount

[1:07:03] does include a proposed property tax.

[1:07:06] Um, everybody uh was given the

[1:07:09] opportunity to pick up the proposed

[1:07:11] property tax impact schedule. Um, we did

[1:07:14] see one little typo. We forgot to add

[1:07:16] some zeros on the proposed tax rate. So,

[1:07:19] that has been replaced over by the door

[1:07:20] for anybody that would like to grab

[1:07:22] that. Um, so basically, uh, the prop for

[1:07:27] city's proposed property or current

[1:07:29] property tax rate is 0.00283.

[1:07:34] Um the current property tax revenue

[1:07:37] generates about 268,000.

[1:07:41] Um the proposed property tax rate would

[1:07:46] be 0.004736.

[1:07:52] That generates 396,94

[1:07:56] approximately. These are estimates of of

[1:07:59] course um the additional property tax

[1:08:01] revenue that we are trying to generate

[1:08:03] is 128,000.

[1:08:06] Um the 128,000

[1:08:09] would estimated increase in the property

[1:08:12] tax rate is 47.61%.

[1:08:15] But that is um just a that percentage is

[1:08:20] kind of misleading I'll be honest.

[1:08:22] Um as we've all discussed um

[1:08:26] increase for a primary residence of

[1:08:29] $450,000

[1:08:30] would be approximately $36.38

[1:08:34] a year. Um, so it's not a huge increase.

[1:08:38] The estimated increase for business

[1:08:40] value at that $450,000 would be about

[1:08:43] $6063

[1:08:45] a year.

[1:08:47] Um,

[1:08:49] again, these are estimates. We won't

[1:08:51] know the totals exactly until the county

[1:08:53] actually provides that to us.

[1:08:56] Can I just can have you make one um

[1:08:59] clarification this too because I'm sure

[1:09:01] a lot of people are looking at this and

[1:09:03] saying when we talk about a primary

[1:09:06] residence of 450,000 and people are

[1:09:08] saying our home is valued at more than

[1:09:11] that but it's because the county you do

[1:09:15] not get taxed on 100%.

[1:09:17] >> No, you do not get taxed on 100% when

[1:09:20] you're a primary residence. However,

[1:09:22] you're a business, you are taxed on

[1:09:24] 100%. So that's why there is the

[1:09:27] difference on that. Um, so just because

[1:09:30] your home's valued at 450,000,

[1:09:34] you're not taxed on that 450,000.

[1:09:36] There's the residency exemption on that.

[1:09:41] Um okay. So on the next page,

[1:09:46] the proposed property tax impact fee

[1:09:49] schedule states that the effective

[1:09:52] department would be within the police

[1:09:54] department. Um we've discussed I don't

[1:09:56] think it's any front page news that the

[1:09:59] um county uh sheriff's department has

[1:10:02] asked for $128,000

[1:10:05] increase to fund six new officers. Uh as

[1:10:09] part of funding that six new officers

[1:10:12] that will be a well the 128,000 will be

[1:10:16] a continual expense to the city. Um that

[1:10:19] being said it is not advised from a

[1:10:23] financial standpoint to use fund balance

[1:10:26] to pay for that. Unfortunately you have

[1:10:30] to come up with new money in order to

[1:10:31] pay for that increase in cost. So, it is

[1:10:35] advised to do um a property tax increase

[1:10:39] because fund balance can only be used

[1:10:41] for so long and then it runs out and

[1:10:44] this is going to be a year after year

[1:10:46] expense that we need to um recognize

[1:10:50] that we're going to have not just a one

[1:10:52] time expense with this. Um so, the hope

[1:10:56] with this is to generate the $128,000

[1:10:59] increase from the police department if

[1:11:03] this property increase does not go

[1:11:05] through we will have to pull that from

[1:11:07] fund balance is what the tenative budget

[1:11:10] has got included

[1:11:13] any questions up to that point

[1:11:16] >> I apologize

[1:11:17] >> you're I don't want to get no weeds on

[1:11:19] the rate but my math comes up $60 per

[1:11:23] res

[1:11:32] incorrect Again, these are estimates,

[1:11:35] but yeah, thank you, Ryan.

[1:11:37] >> Before we vote on that, I'd like it to

[1:11:39] be fairly accurate.

[1:11:41] >> Okay.

[1:11:41] >> Before we

[1:11:46] can figure that out real quick.

[1:11:48] >> Okay.

[1:11:49] >> Um,

[1:11:49] >> go ahead and come back to that.

[1:11:51] >> Okay. Yeah, I'll come back on that. Um,

[1:11:54] okay. So the capital projects fund on

[1:11:57] the next slide we've uh

[1:12:01] got $526,000

[1:12:04] worth of income. Our expenditures are

[1:12:07] 474,000.

[1:12:09] Um so that's the capital projects fund.

[1:12:14] Then we go to the sewer fund.

[1:12:17] The total income on that one is 2.3.

[1:12:21] The total expenditures is 3.2.

[1:12:25] Part of that is some large capital

[1:12:27] improvements that we've discussed that

[1:12:29] the sewer system needs and we've um

[1:12:32] decided which ones we want to fund this

[1:12:34] year with that. That does leave that

[1:12:36] fund in a decrease in fund balance of

[1:12:39] 894,000.

[1:12:44] Um okay, on our next one, garbage. Our

[1:12:49] total income is 92,000

[1:12:52] and our expenditures are also 92,000.

[1:12:56] We're pretty close to break even on that

[1:12:57] fund.

[1:12:59] And then our sewer storm water is um

[1:13:03] 478606.

[1:13:06] Um revenue expenditures is 1.1 that

[1:13:10] includes a capital project of 880,000

[1:13:14] that we have also discussed. So that is

[1:13:18] what the tenative budget in a nutshell

[1:13:20] but you have the whole beautiful one.

[1:13:24] So

[1:13:25] um so that is what the tenative budget

[1:13:28] has included.

[1:13:31] Um, so as part of this, um, I have to

[1:13:37] say certain wording and stuff. So I'm

[1:13:39] just going to read it exactly off the

[1:13:41] agenda so that we are hopefully covered

[1:13:44] with everything because they are become

[1:13:46] very very picky on this. So

[1:13:50] um,

[1:13:52] >> you are referring to the state, right?

[1:13:54] >> Yes.

[1:13:56] So um,

[1:14:01] Basically, uh, I'll just read through

[1:14:04] it. Um, the action item is a motion to

[1:14:07] adopt the tenative budget for fiscal

[1:14:09] year 26 to 27, including a proposed

[1:14:13] property tax increase. Consideration of

[1:14:17] resolution

[1:14:18] 2026-01,

[1:14:20] a resolution for the city for the

[1:14:23] council of River City acknowledging the

[1:14:25] filing of the tenative budget for fiscal

[1:14:28] year 2627

[1:14:31] prepared by the budget officer pursuant

[1:14:34] to section 10611

[1:14:36] of the Utah code adopting the tenative

[1:14:39] budget subject to further review and

[1:14:41] consideration by the council. We're

[1:14:44] establishing a date and time to place a

[1:14:47] public hearing on the timid budget prior

[1:14:49] to the adoption of the final budget for

[1:14:52] the fiscal year 2627 subject to the

[1:14:55] requirements of section 59 to 9119 and

[1:15:00] 592924

[1:15:02] of the Utah code ordering public

[1:15:05] publication of notices as required by

[1:15:08] law and ordering the tenative budget to

[1:15:10] be available to the for public

[1:15:12] inspection in the office city and on the

[1:15:16] city's website for at least 10 days

[1:15:18] prior to the adoption of the final

[1:15:20] budget. The budget officer intends to

[1:15:23] state that the tenative budget includes

[1:15:25] a proposed property tax increase, which

[1:15:28] I have done. Statement of the public

[1:15:31] officer that the tenative budget

[1:15:33] includes a proposed property tax rate

[1:15:35] increase. Oh, sorry, I read that twice.

[1:15:38] The office budget officer presents and

[1:15:41] makes available to the public of

[1:15:44] property tax impact schedule as a

[1:15:46] separate document from the budget

[1:15:48] documents.

[1:15:53] Consideration of resolution 261, a

[1:15:57] resolution of the city council of

[1:15:59] acknowledges that a separate item is on

[1:16:03] the agenda for the public meeting on May

[1:16:06] 7th, 2026,

[1:16:08] notifying the public that the budget

[1:16:11] officer intends to state the city

[1:16:13] council state to the city council that

[1:16:16] the intended bud or the tenative budget

[1:16:19] for the fiscal year 26 includes a

[1:16:22] proposed tax increase. Acknowledging

[1:16:25] that the budget officer made a statement

[1:16:27] of to the city council on May 7th, 2026

[1:16:31] public meeting that the tenative budget

[1:16:33] includes a proposed property tax

[1:16:35] increase. Acknowledging that the budget

[1:16:37] officer presented to the city council as

[1:16:39] a separate item on the agenda in the

[1:16:42] same meeting as proposed property tax

[1:16:46] impact schedule from other budget

[1:16:49] documents as defined in section 592924

[1:16:53] of the Utah code directing that the

[1:16:56] property tax impact schedule shall be

[1:16:58] available for public inspection and will

[1:17:01] be included in a separate agenda item at

[1:17:05] each public hearing prior to June 30th

[1:17:08] at which the city council discusses the

[1:17:10] proposed general fund budget for the

[1:17:13] fiscal year 26 and 27. The city council

[1:17:17] intends to make a statement that city

[1:17:19] hoper city is considering levying a tax

[1:17:22] rate that exceeds its certified tax rate

[1:17:25] the approximate dollar amount andor

[1:17:28] public purpose for the additional alarm

[1:17:31] tax revenue that would be generated by

[1:17:34] the tax increase and that if the Humber

[1:17:37] City proceeds with the property tax rate

[1:17:40] increase, Her City will provide notice

[1:17:42] of and conduct a public hearing at which

[1:17:46] members of the public will be will have

[1:17:49] an opportunity to provide comments on

[1:17:51] the proposed tax rate increases. State

[1:17:54] of the budget officer of executive of

[1:17:58] the entity of section 592919

[1:18:02] or The Utah code

[1:18:06] consideration of resolution 26-01,

[1:18:09] a resolution of the Hooker City Council,

[1:18:12] acknowledges that a separate item is

[1:18:15] included on the agenda for the public

[1:18:17] meeting on June 4th. And I'm I would

[1:18:21] like to also add u August 6 uh notifying

[1:18:26] the public that the budget officer or

[1:18:28] executive executive intends to make a

[1:18:32] statement as required by statement

[1:18:33] 592194B

[1:18:35] of the Utah code acknowledging that the

[1:18:37] budget officer or executive make the

[1:18:40] statement as required by section 592

[1:18:43] 9194 of the Utah code setting the date

[1:18:46] and time and place of the public hearing

[1:18:49] on the

[1:18:50] property tax increase as required by

[1:18:52] section 59219 of the Utah code and

[1:18:55] directing the budget officer to

[1:18:57] designate to send notice before June

[1:19:00] 1st, 2026 to the Utah State Tax

[1:19:02] Commission and Weaver County Auditor

[1:19:04] stating that the city is considering a

[1:19:07] property tax increase and the time and

[1:19:10] date of the place of the public hearing

[1:19:11] required by section 596 219 of the Utah

[1:19:15] State.

[1:19:18] Sorry.

[1:19:25] » So, if you want to wait for a second,

[1:19:27] I'll hurry and recomputee that Ryan and

[1:19:31] then

[1:19:33] Yes, that would be good.

[1:19:34] >> Is it because

[1:19:39] the business

[1:19:42] comes out correctly?

[1:19:48] While you're figuring that, I just

[1:19:50] wanted to inform those that are here and

[1:19:53] those listening online. So, Herper has

[1:19:56] not done a truth in taxation since 2013,

[1:19:59] and we know this is something that a lot

[1:20:02] of people maybe are not as familiar

[1:20:04] with, including those of us sitting here

[1:20:07] um on the rushroom. So, next Wednesday,

[1:20:11] May 13th at 6 o'clock, we are going to

[1:20:13] have a town hall meeting and we have

[1:20:17] we're going to have Carrie Makamura that

[1:20:20] she's with Carrie Makamura and

[1:20:22] Associates is going to come and do a

[1:20:23] presentation. She is considered an

[1:20:26] expert in the state as far as truth in

[1:20:29] taxation. I attended a seminar, well,

[1:20:32] three of us did down at the last down in

[1:20:36] St. George with the Utah League of

[1:20:37] Cities and Towns and it was excellent.

[1:20:39] And she presents it in a way that we

[1:20:42] felt like we we do not have that

[1:20:45] ability. And so we hope that you'll be

[1:20:47] willing to come tell your neighbors to

[1:20:49] come. She'll do a presentation and then

[1:20:51] it'll certainly be open for questions as

[1:20:54] far as how the whole truth and taxation

[1:20:57] process works. And so if you put that

[1:21:00] I'll repeat that date again. and it'll

[1:21:02] be next Wednesday, May 13th at 6 o'clock

[1:21:06] here at the city offices to come and

[1:21:08] learn more about truth and taxation.

[1:21:11] >> Can I just that, Mayor? Um,

[1:21:15] government budgeting is totally

[1:21:18] different than what I've been used to my

[1:21:20] whole life and as far as I'm concerned,

[1:21:22] it's messed up. But I'll just say it how

[1:21:26] it is.

[1:21:28] Miss Carrie uh she opened my eyes down

[1:21:32] there at this meeting and taught me an

[1:21:34] awful lot. So any of those of you who

[1:21:37] are listening from home, this would

[1:21:39] really be worth your time to listen to

[1:21:43] her and have her explain to you really

[1:21:45] how good this truth in taxation is. So

[1:21:50] just and then second everything that the

[1:21:52] mayor said.

[1:22:00] Are we okay to go ahead and start

[1:22:01] discussing county while you're figuring

[1:22:03] that out?

[1:22:04] >> Okay, we'll turn some time then to the

[1:22:06] council we be discussing.

[1:22:09] >> Um, so I just want to say a few things

[1:22:12] on this. U

[1:22:15] I don't take lightly a consideration of

[1:22:19] asking our residents to reach in their

[1:22:21] pockets to pay for something.

[1:22:25] I know the percentage can seem

[1:22:27] misleading because it's 40 something%

[1:22:29] because we have a lower tax base here,

[1:22:31] but the reality is we're asking our

[1:22:34] residents to reach in their pockets and

[1:22:35] pay for something. Um, so I I kind of

[1:22:39] categorically object to that. I have a

[1:22:40] hard time with that. It's not something

[1:22:42] I support. It's not a platform I run

[1:22:43] for. Uh, I'm true to the core

[1:22:46] conservative when it comes to asking

[1:22:48] people to keep their money and not

[1:22:49] asking for more.

[1:22:52] This being said, I've asked a lot of

[1:22:53] questions in our budget meetings about

[1:22:55] this. Um, my first question is, are we

[1:22:59] using the sheriff's department enough to

[1:23:02] justify this? And in all honesty, we're

[1:23:05] not using it proportionately to what the

[1:23:06] increase would be. And the increase, uh,

[1:23:09] I feel probably initially in my mind

[1:23:11] wouldn't justify having to spend this.

[1:23:15] I've talked to our lawyer and I fully

[1:23:16] understand that as a city to be a city

[1:23:18] we have to provide a police force and

[1:23:21] the amount of money we spend with that

[1:23:23] contract couldn't substitute and support

[1:23:26] our own police force. We don't have the

[1:23:28] ability to hire our own police force

[1:23:29] judges, hold star jail, do all the

[1:23:32] things that we have today. And

[1:23:33] unfortunately, the officers have stepped

[1:23:35] out when we talked to them during the

[1:23:37] work meeting and asked, can you kind of

[1:23:39] put in your words what this would help

[1:23:40] with? And one of the things is is it

[1:23:42] would essentially raise um the residents

[1:23:45] to almost uh one officer per thousand

[1:23:48] where right now we have about a half

[1:23:49] officer per thousand. It's around 7

[1:23:52] something%

[1:23:53] or 7 of an officer. Um so I like that

[1:23:57] because we get a lot of calls from our

[1:23:59] residents asking how we're dealing with

[1:24:00] things like traffic and whatnot in the

[1:24:02] city. Um, and it's 30 some bucks a year

[1:24:06] and it seems like yeah, we could

[1:24:07] probably afford that. I just want to be

[1:24:09] on record of saying this is not

[1:24:11] something that I personally take

[1:24:12] lightly. Um, we made it a point through

[1:24:15] these budget meetings and I know some of

[1:24:17] them were long to go through and look at

[1:24:19] anywhere we can take from to try to look

[1:24:22] at this and as Cammy instructed uh and

[1:24:25] talked to us through this is a recurring

[1:24:27] thing. This isn't really something that

[1:24:29] we can just jump into the fund balance

[1:24:31] for. Other things we did get into the

[1:24:34] fund balance for. You see those uh

[1:24:36] negatives on the you know loss or delta

[1:24:38] of the 800,000 here and there and the

[1:24:41] way we try to keep the trash budget uh

[1:24:44] consistent. Um I do believe government

[1:24:47] should try to find out what they can do

[1:24:48] with the money they have and not ask

[1:24:50] people for more. Um, and uh, if there

[1:24:53] was any way that we could do this, I

[1:24:56] even said, "Can we just tell the can we

[1:24:58] just tell the sheriff's department, "No,

[1:24:59] we're not paying for this."

[1:25:01] >> Uh, apparently, we can't do that.

[1:25:03] >> U, but I did ask that question because

[1:25:04] I'm very curious, like, is it possible

[1:25:06] for us to just say no? And so, um, I

[1:25:09] think that, you know, I'm surprised we

[1:25:11] don't have more residents who've

[1:25:12] attended today for the public hearing.

[1:25:14] Hopefully, they have more as this comes

[1:25:15] down. If I just understand, we are

[1:25:18] genuinely considering every when it

[1:25:21] comes to the seriousness of even asking

[1:25:24] for a dollar from our residents more

[1:25:25] than what we have currently and so it's

[1:25:28] not something I take lightly I don't

[1:25:29] think it's anything that anything my co-

[1:25:30] counselor take lightly

[1:25:33] >> I agree and if we added up how many

[1:25:35] hours we spend and I'm not talking about

[1:25:37] all the hours that our treasurer has

[1:25:39] spent on this as a city council that

[1:25:42] spend at least 10 plus hours in meetings

[1:25:45] not as with this individually and when

[1:25:48] it comes to a city you know you really

[1:25:51] three ways that you can end up getting

[1:25:53] more money in your city. One of them is

[1:25:55] you cut or reduce services and like

[1:25:57] we've already said we as far as part of

[1:26:00] us being able to incorporate as a city,

[1:26:02] we have to have a police department.

[1:26:04] That isn't something that we can't do.

[1:26:06] So we went through our budget and you

[1:26:08] saw when we went through this and some

[1:26:10] of these were already in the negative

[1:26:11] and were doing from fund balance. So

[1:26:13] that will only last so long. Another

[1:26:15] thing is then is you have increased

[1:26:18] revenue. So that's we probably need to

[1:26:21] look at here in upper city. How do we

[1:26:22] get increased revenue? And the third way

[1:26:25] is to raise taxes. And I think that was

[1:26:27] all of our last option that any of us

[1:26:30] wanted to do. And council member Craig

[1:26:34] is right. None of us that was we didn't

[1:26:36] run and say we're going to raise the

[1:26:37] taxes, but you can only go so long

[1:26:41] trying to make your budget work when you

[1:26:43] don't have any additional money to make

[1:26:45] it work. And and I was telling Council

[1:26:48] Member Craig earlier, you know, Like we

[1:26:50] look at our budget and we say, "Wow, we

[1:26:52] have this extra money. What What do we

[1:26:54] want to do with it this year? Would we

[1:26:56] want to put in a splash pad or could we

[1:26:59] do a walking trail around the the park?"

[1:27:01] We look at our budget and we say, "What

[1:27:03] sewer pumps absolutely have to be

[1:27:06] replaced this year." So everything in

[1:27:09] our budget was an absolute exactness of

[1:27:12] what it did. And so I just I just hope

[1:27:15] all our residents understand this is

[1:27:16] something we take very seriously as a

[1:27:21] We also had extensive discussions with

[1:27:24] our public works director of the items

[1:27:28] that he is anticipating

[1:27:31] that we are going to have to deal with

[1:27:32] in the next few years and the figures

[1:27:35] are staggering of the things that

[1:27:37] potentially could come and we're just

[1:27:39] trying to work around that. We are

[1:27:42] literally potentially looking at

[1:27:44] millions of dollars in things that need

[1:27:47] to be changed and uh

[1:27:51] could potentially come up and bite us on

[1:27:53] the rear and and take our fund balance

[1:27:55] down very rapidly. And I the one thing I

[1:27:58] do hope people understand is if you see

[1:28:01] this thing and it says we have a 47%

[1:28:05] uh revenue

[1:28:07] increase, that sounds like a ton, but

[1:28:10] when you back to, you know, the average

[1:28:13] home is like $125,000

[1:28:16] out here. Um, it's a lot less than um it

[1:28:22] seems like I I know like we've been

[1:28:24] watching Roy and they have a 50 some odd

[1:28:27] percent increase and people having

[1:28:29] meltdown, but that will increase their

[1:28:32] budget by like $2.8 million up there.

[1:28:37] And they didn't get um their tax

[1:28:40] increase. applied for last year. One

[1:28:41] thing we did learn from the trainings

[1:28:45] that we went to was um it has to be

[1:28:48] exactly perfect in order for you for the

[1:28:52] state to allow you to do any kind of a

[1:28:54] tax increase. Uh if it's not exact, they

[1:28:58] won't let you do it. Ironically, there

[1:29:01] were a lot of entities last year,

[1:29:02] schools and and uh

[1:29:06] cities that didn't get uh the ability to

[1:29:10] increase their uh tax rates to cover

[1:29:14] their bills because they didn't apply

[1:29:16] correctly. And another item that came

[1:29:18] before the legislature was one that was

[1:29:21] going to restrict what a city could

[1:29:25] impose upon their residents um as an

[1:29:29] increase down to 5%.

[1:29:32] That bill did not pass. Had that passed,

[1:29:35] the most any uh the most that we could

[1:29:38] would it would have increased our taxes

[1:29:40] by the most we could have increased per

[1:29:43] resident would have been like $10 a

[1:29:46] year, which 2500 residents that would

[1:29:49] have not been

[1:29:51] >> would have generated us about $13,000.

[1:29:53] >> Yeah. Not not much money. 13,000 a year

[1:29:56] that won't even keep us up with the cost

[1:29:58] of living that we are incurring. And you

[1:30:02] know, one budget item that isn't built

[1:30:04] in really well right now is the cost of

[1:30:06] fuel, which has gone through the roof.

[1:30:09] And and I know you're all dealing with

[1:30:11] that, but we are dealing with it as a

[1:30:13] city and probably at a much higher rate

[1:30:16] than most individuals are that um and

[1:30:19] the amount of gallons, let's say, that

[1:30:21] we use. So while we don't like this, it

[1:30:27] seems like something that we necessarily

[1:30:31] need to do. And I say that specifically,

[1:30:34] but um we're going to do everything we

[1:30:38] can to make this work. We have had so

[1:30:40] many discussions. We are looking at

[1:30:43] alternatives on several items, but some

[1:30:46] of these items just don't have any

[1:30:47] alternatives. So, we are going to keep

[1:30:50] pursuing stuff as we can. I know um

[1:30:54] Council Nolto was has spent a bajillion

[1:30:58] hours going over line items in the

[1:31:00] budget trying to find a place here and

[1:31:02] place there. We cut stuff and and has

[1:31:05] raised some valid questions of things

[1:31:06] that we will look into. But for this

[1:31:09] year, this is kind of where we're at.

[1:31:10] Hopefully by next year, we might be able

[1:31:12] to accommodate some stuff. Anyway,

[1:31:19] I'm done.

[1:31:24] » Do you have different numbers?

[1:31:25] >> So, it doesn't change a whole lot, but

[1:31:28] the estimated primary residence would

[1:31:30] increase by 3941

[1:31:33] $3941.

[1:31:36] So, currently it's approximately $83.

[1:31:40] Excuse

[1:31:42] me. Go up to $122

[1:31:45] for primary

[1:31:47] and then the uh business is correct.

[1:31:51] >> Okay. 3638 is not correct. It's the 39

[1:31:54] >> 3941.

[1:31:56] So we're talking a couple dollars.

[1:31:59] >> Well, and I know sometimes residents

[1:32:00] think too and Carrie will explain this

[1:32:02] better next Wednesday, but sometimes

[1:32:04] they think, "Ah, our taxes are going to

[1:32:06] go up 50%." No, only your

[1:32:10] And if you've looked at your tax notice

[1:32:12] that you get see that little tiny sliver

[1:32:16] what Her receives um it it really does

[1:32:19] only average out to be well if you take

[1:32:21] the whole average about$1 to $110 a

[1:32:24] household currently which again any

[1:32:26] money is any money if we thought we had

[1:32:29] a different avenue

[1:32:31] that

[1:32:32] >> you know may or may it's splitting cars

[1:32:33] but I think it's worth saying at least

[1:32:34] for the record for our citizens

[1:32:36] listening or those that are here in

[1:32:37] attendance um you know If you look at

[1:32:39] that comparatively to like what the

[1:32:41] school district gets, they get like $2

[1:32:42] million from the city.

[1:32:44] >> Yeah. About five. Yeah. And um you know,

[1:32:47] the the school district was presented

[1:32:49] with an option to pay for their resource

[1:32:51] officers fully because currently they

[1:32:53] pay 7030. Um and that would have offset

[1:32:56] for the city's needs to do this, but the

[1:32:58] school district opted to not do that.

[1:32:59] They said they didn't want to do it. And

[1:33:01] so I'd like the city staff to come up

[1:33:03] with the ability to pay for this

[1:33:04] themselves. So it's not that there are

[1:33:06] other alternatives that we've tried to

[1:33:08] figure out. I we're already as a city

[1:33:09] handing them about $5 million in tax

[1:33:11] revenue from our properties and we're

[1:33:14] hitting 200,000, you know what I mean?

[1:33:16] So, um it is interesting to kind of see

[1:33:18] how that system works. Um and that's

[1:33:21] like Larry said, there's things you

[1:33:22] learn in government budgeting. I I

[1:33:24] didn't know the school district could

[1:33:25] say no. They're not going to pay for the

[1:33:26] resource officer and we're not allowed

[1:33:28] to say no. So, um there's just a

[1:33:30] difference in what that looks like. Um

[1:33:32] so, sometimes it seems like it's just

[1:33:34] kind of straightforward, but it's not.

[1:33:36] The other thing that I think is just

[1:33:38] kind of important in noting this

[1:33:40] resolution as we, you know, once we make

[1:33:43] the motion is to move forward in the

[1:33:46] process. This doesn't lock it in. We

[1:33:48] have multiple other meetings as are

[1:33:50] listed here, the June 4th meeting, the

[1:33:52] August 6th meeting, more public

[1:33:53] hearings, more opportunities. And we do

[1:33:55] luckily live in a state. If you look up

[1:33:57] truth and taxation is very unique to our

[1:34:00] state that our state has made it, it's

[1:34:02] not just easy for us to just generally

[1:34:04] say we're raising taxes on our people.

[1:34:06] And so I do love that about our state

[1:34:07] that it makes it hard and it should be

[1:34:09] hard. It should be difficult. We should

[1:34:10] have to walk through the hoops if we're

[1:34:11] going to ask you for more money. Um, and

[1:34:13] there are more opportunities for folks

[1:34:15] to come and express their concerns and

[1:34:16] opinions. And I, as a council member,

[1:34:19] would like to hear the residents

[1:34:21] opinions on this as we move forward in

[1:34:22] it as well. Another

[1:34:26] thing that I heard um through the grape

[1:34:28] vine was that some people actually

[1:34:32] couldn't figure out um why we were doing

[1:34:35] this that it would come through their property taxes assessed by the

[1:34:39] county. But I think there are people out

[1:34:41] there that don't understand that um law

[1:34:44] enforcement comes directly out of our

[1:34:45] city's budget is not a land item on your

[1:34:48] county property taxes. wildfire and

[1:34:52] things like that on our schools. The law

[1:34:55] enforcement comes directly from us and

[1:34:58] it is not included in your line items on

[1:35:01] your taxes. And actually, if you look at

[1:35:04] your taxes, the city itself generally

[1:35:07] gets we're like about sixth down the

[1:35:10] list. We actually get less money back

[1:35:12] from the county from your property taxes

[1:35:14] than the library does, which kind of

[1:35:17] gives me a headache, but it is the way

[1:35:20] the situation is set up. So, we're going

[1:35:23] to do the best we can to keep it down.

[1:35:28] >> And just a little bit of an explanation

[1:35:30] with that because they will also see a

[1:35:32] sheriff line under Weaver County, but

[1:35:35] that pays for the jail. There are

[1:35:38] specific things like SI there are those

[1:35:41] functions that does pay for but the

[1:35:44] county but as far as paying the officers

[1:35:46] and I'm I'm hoping I'm saying this

[1:35:48] correctly but that does we are

[1:35:50] considered a contract city those cities

[1:35:53] in Weaver County that do not have their

[1:35:55] own police departments we are a contract

[1:35:57] city and so we are paying sovere county

[1:36:00] out of their budget pays for so many

[1:36:02] officers the contract cities pay for so

[1:36:05] many officers but there still is that

[1:36:07] overhead that is

[1:36:09] as well.

[1:36:13] » Okay. Is everybody got a headache?

[1:36:18] » So, is there any other discussion by the

[1:36:21] council? So what we need to do tonight

[1:36:23] is we need to make a motion to adopt our

[1:36:26] tenative budget for fiscal year 2026

[1:36:30] 2027 which includes a property tax

[1:36:32] increase and then also a motion for the

[1:36:36] resolution

[1:36:38] which is number 2601 and what the

[1:36:41] resolution is just stating the city

[1:36:45] council is considering to level a tax

[1:36:48] rate. So the resolution basically in a

[1:36:50] nutshell gives um the budget

[1:36:55] gives us the authorization to notify the

[1:36:58] county and the state and to set these

[1:37:02] public hearings as well so that we can

[1:37:06] actually move forward with the proper

[1:37:08] means to do this. We can't just say,

[1:37:10] "Oh, we think there should be a property

[1:37:12] tax increase, so we're just going to do

[1:37:14] these." You have to give us permission

[1:37:16] that you feel like there's warrant

[1:37:20] detail that we're going to do this that

[1:37:22] we should pursue this basically. Still,

[1:37:25] you're not agreeing to the property tax

[1:37:27] increase. You're just giving us

[1:37:29] permission to pursue it. So that that's

[1:37:32] your intentions.

[1:37:33] >> As a rule of order, do we need to make

[1:37:35] the motion to approve the budget

[1:37:37] separately from the resolution or are

[1:37:39] they all done as one?

[1:37:40] >> I would say let's air on the side of

[1:37:42] summary.

[1:37:42] >> Yes, I agree. It would be better to

[1:37:45] better on that side.

[1:37:46] >> And with the resolution, I would propose

[1:37:48] that we only have the public hearing of

[1:37:51] August 6th in there. We need to add the

[1:37:53] June 4th at 6:00 as well. So when you

[1:37:57] make that motion, we want to add that

[1:37:59] additional public hearing.

[1:38:01] >> Okay. Okay. So, I'll get us started and

[1:38:02] I'll make a motion to adopt the tenative

[1:38:04] budget for fiscal year 2026 2027

[1:38:07] including the proposed tax increase with

[1:38:09] the amendment of the uh resolution or

[1:38:13] would that be separate?

[1:38:15] >> Okay. So, I'll pause there.

[1:38:17] >> Okay. So, the motion was made by council

[1:38:19] member Craig. Is there a second?

[1:38:23] >> I'll second it.

[1:38:24] >> The second is made by councilto.

[1:38:27] Any discussion on the motion?

[1:38:31] Okay, we are going to do this by roll

[1:38:33] call vote. So, we will start with

[1:38:36] council member Hill.

[1:38:37] >> Hi.

[1:38:38] >> Council member Rapalo.

[1:38:39] >> I.

[1:38:40] >> Council member Craig.

[1:38:41] >> Hi.

[1:38:42] >> Council member Hancock.

[1:38:43] >> Hi.

[1:38:44] >> Okay, that motion passes. So now the

[1:38:47] next motion then will be for the

[1:38:49] resolution and that's the one that

[1:38:51] you'll need to make that addition to

[1:38:53] with that additional public hearing.

[1:38:57] >> You're on the roll.

[1:39:02] I'll make a motion consideration of a

[1:39:04] resolution 26-01 resolution for the

[1:39:07] council to um seek the proposed

[1:39:12] tax increase or notify notice of the

[1:39:15] proposed tax increase.

[1:39:16] >> Adopt the resolution.

[1:39:17] There we go.

[1:39:18] >> There we go. um with the amendment or

[1:39:21] change to the wording to include the

[1:39:24] August 6, 2026 date in addition to the

[1:39:27] June 4, 2026 date notifying the public.

[1:39:32] » Okay. The motion has been made by

[1:39:34] council member Craig. Is there a second?

[1:39:38] >> Second.

[1:39:39] >> The second is made by council member

[1:39:41] Hancock. Any discussion on that motion?

[1:39:46] Okay, seeing then this is a resolution.

[1:39:48] We are also going to do this by roll

[1:39:50] call vote. So this time we will start

[1:39:52] with council member Hancock.

[1:39:55] >> Hi.

[1:39:55] >> Council member Craig.

[1:39:57] >> Hi.

[1:39:57] >> Council member Ralto.

[1:39:59] >> Hi.

[1:40:00] >> Council member Hill.

[1:40:01] >> Hi.

[1:40:01] >> Okay, that passes.

[1:40:04] >> Thank you. County.

[1:40:06] >> And again, we just want to make sure

[1:40:07] everyone knows as we have stated this

[1:40:11] doesn't mean that we are doing this.

[1:40:13] means we are considering this and

[1:40:16] that's just gives authorization for our

[1:40:18] budget officer to let this the county

[1:40:20] and the state know.

[1:40:23] Okay. And then make sure again I'm just

[1:40:25] going to remind everybody to come next

[1:40:27] Wednesday at 6 o'clock. Okay. The last

[1:40:30] thing on our agenda then is approval of

[1:40:33] oversized structures and secondary

[1:40:36] dwellings. And this is something that

[1:40:39] our planning commission has worked very

[1:40:42] diligently on. It's gone through a

[1:40:45] complete vetting process with our

[1:40:47] attorney. And so hopefully you've had a

[1:40:50] chance to look through this and we can

[1:40:53] discuss this and see if you have any

[1:40:56] that you would like to add or change

[1:40:59] with us.

[1:41:04] Malcolm, is there any sort of thing you

[1:41:07] would like to add to this or explain

[1:41:10] about this motion or this approval?

[1:41:14] >> I think the I know summarizes it. If you

[1:41:16] guys want me to add any context for

[1:41:19] listeners audience, you can or if you

[1:41:22] have questions

[1:41:24] like

[1:41:25] my question just maybe a matter of

[1:41:27] opinion from the planning commission.

[1:41:28] You know, one of the things that we keep

[1:41:30] hearing about in the state is uh

[1:41:33] potential the governor offering

[1:41:35] preeemption to take away zoning rights

[1:41:37] because he wants affordable housing. How

[1:41:39] do you feel that the increased uh square

[1:41:42] footage on the ADUs is going to be able

[1:41:46] to help our discussion towards offering

[1:41:48] affordable housing options to like our

[1:41:49] children or those that we may want to,

[1:41:51] you know, bring out here and live in and

[1:41:54] make it a little more affordable for

[1:41:55] them to come out? Do you think that this

[1:41:56] helps address that issue?

[1:42:00] I think that one of our moderate income

[1:42:04] housing strategies is was you know DA

[1:42:07] has been identified by the state as a

[1:42:10] strategy that can help out. Um, I think

[1:42:13] there's some higher level discussions

[1:42:14] that that are kind of hard, but I think

[1:42:16] it can we get a lot of residents that

[1:42:18] come in and their primary intention is

[1:42:20] for their children more than even for

[1:42:23] you know a mother-in-law like

[1:42:24] traditionally been called a

[1:42:25] mother-in-law apartment a lot of times

[1:42:27] for their children which I do think

[1:42:28] they're able to realize you know a

[1:42:31] discounted rental rate it's a win-win

[1:42:34] for parents and I think from those

[1:42:36] standpoints it's very helpful. I do

[1:42:38] think a couple highlights. We increasing

[1:42:41] ours to,250 square feet. That would be

[1:42:44] tied for the largest living space of the

[1:42:46] state. So I think it's pretty favorable.

[1:42:48] I think Moab is does that as well if I

[1:42:50] remember right. So I think that we're,

[1:42:52] you know, we have large lots. That's one

[1:42:54] thing that sometimes we get a little bit

[1:42:56] of criticism for. But I think the one

[1:42:58] thing that our large lends themselves to

[1:43:00] these detached dwelling units that can

[1:43:04] provide opportunities for people

[1:43:07] realize, you know, moderate rental rates

[1:43:10] and help them get in the homes

[1:43:11] eventually. You think it can increase

[1:43:13] the value of the homes for the people

[1:43:14] who are putting them in that can benefit

[1:43:18] people as well to, you know, increase

[1:43:20] their own value?

[1:43:22] >> Well, there also is I'm just going to

[1:43:24] read from the mandates we have that the

[1:43:27] state law updates require detached

[1:43:29] accessory dwelling units to be

[1:43:31] principally permitted in most instances.

[1:43:35] um specific municipalities shall adopt a

[1:43:38] land use regulation that permits a

[1:43:39] detached accessory dwelling unit on any

[1:43:43] lot or parcel that is 11,000 ft or

[1:43:46] larger and contains a single family

[1:43:48] dwelling if a single family dwelling is

[1:43:50] a permitted use on that lot or parcel.

[1:43:54] Um

[1:43:56] I think these are going to be really

[1:43:57] beneficial to us because they're

[1:43:59] obviously all going to qualify under

[1:44:01] moderate income housing statute if we

[1:44:03] can get people employ them and use them

[1:44:05] in as many instances as possible. Um, I

[1:44:10] think it can do nothing but benefit our

[1:44:12] city.

[1:44:16] » So, two concerns I have here. And the

[1:44:20] first one, uh,

[1:44:23] talk to me about the parking. Uh, you

[1:44:26] know, I see they want either asphalt or

[1:44:29] concrete.

[1:44:31] Uh, you know,

[1:44:33] home's going to be different in that.

[1:44:36] Um, you know, is, uh, you know, a good

[1:44:40] road base sufficient enough or were they

[1:44:44] pretty adamant about having the concrete

[1:44:48] and and or asphalt?

[1:44:51] No, they weren't adanted

[1:44:54] kind of towards the end. Um, I think

[1:44:57] parking would be the main consideration.

[1:44:59] You know, obviously just want to make

[1:45:01] sure we have adequate which we did

[1:45:03] upate, but our prior ordinance wouldn't

[1:45:06] regulate the the surface of them for

[1:45:10] this is this would be a little more

[1:45:11] stringent, but I think the idea is if

[1:45:13] we're going to have more people calling

[1:45:16] other

[1:45:19] gravel or road or something like that.

[1:45:22] >> Yeah. I'm just wondering about the

[1:45:24] runoff. I mean, if you have all

[1:45:26] concrete, all cement out there and we

[1:45:29] get a good rain, where's that water

[1:45:32] going to end up because it's not going

[1:45:33] to go into the ground? Just, you know,

[1:45:36] I'm just thinking kind of down my street

[1:45:38] where it's at or, you know, is there

[1:45:41] good runoff

[1:45:43] for that?

[1:45:47] And uh that was my first one, unless

[1:45:50] somebody has something else on that. So

[1:45:54] my other question with these ADUs and

[1:45:57] what's the other one anyway the

[1:46:00] different what's that

[1:46:01] >> oversized?

[1:46:02] >> Yeah oversized u

[1:46:06] in the future uh what's going to be you

[1:46:10] know one acre lot I get it put an ADU on

[1:46:14] it whatever and that

[1:46:17] you know what's the overall picture

[1:46:19] going to look like or would Hover be a

[1:46:22] better or be nicer if we went to

[1:46:28] halfacre lots than that. I'm not trying

[1:46:31] to get more homes than that in here. I

[1:46:32] know that's what it's going to sound

[1:46:34] like, but we start putting so many of

[1:46:37] these aus in. And I just don't know as

[1:46:39] an overall picture,

[1:46:42] you know, if I like it. Uh the uh I

[1:46:45] don't even know what the subdivision's

[1:46:46] called, but the one down by the

[1:46:48] cemetery, those are all halfacre lots.

[1:46:50] And I that's one of my favorite

[1:46:53] subdivisions. Maybe it's because I drive

[1:46:55] through it so much. It's so clean. Every

[1:46:58] all the yards are well kept and that and

[1:47:01] then you end up uh you know with the one

[1:47:05] acre lots. They're hard to take care of

[1:47:09] that. So I'm just throwing that out.

[1:47:14] >> So a couple of things back to what

[1:47:16] council member Hancock read. It is now

[1:47:19] state law updates that they they are

[1:47:22] principally permitted, you know,

[1:47:24] according to state code. So, if we have

[1:47:27] any lot that has 11 or parcel that's

[1:47:31] 11,000 square ft or larger and contains

[1:47:34] a single dwelling,

[1:47:37] we need to have an ordinance that

[1:47:39] permits

[1:47:41] an ADU, a DAU. And so that is something

[1:47:45] that is mandated from the state and

[1:47:49] Hooper was above it ahead of the time

[1:47:52] because we were having DUS and there's

[1:47:54] been a lot of conversation with a lot of

[1:47:56] the legislative about doing this. But I agree with what you were saying. I

[1:48:01] understand what you are saying. I I

[1:48:03] understand too that this is a real help

[1:48:05] if you have a child or a grandchild that

[1:48:07] maybe needs a lot. Um, one question I

[1:48:11] had and again this is for discussion

[1:48:13] with city council had to do with number

[1:48:15] eight that said no part of the detached

[1:48:18] accessory dwelling. This is on page

[1:48:20] seven and number eight under eight unit

[1:48:24] may extend beyond the center of the

[1:48:26] primary residential structure. So they

[1:48:28] used to be that they could be even with

[1:48:29] the front then they moved them behind

[1:48:32] then they moved them to the center. And

[1:48:34] again we have some large lots out here

[1:48:37] that maybe they have more on the side

[1:48:40] that it really doesn't. So that would be

[1:48:43] one thing I I would say is I I am fine.

[1:48:46] I don't think they should be on be in

[1:48:49] front of the front of the house, but I I

[1:48:51] don't wouldn't have a problem if they

[1:48:53] were even with the front of the house

[1:48:55] rather than being in the center.

[1:48:57] >> Yeah. And I honestly call me crazy um

[1:49:01] care if it's in front or behind. And the

[1:49:03] reason why I say that is kind of similar

[1:49:05] to what you're saying council is

[1:49:09] I mean it's kind of sexist. We end up

[1:49:11] because if I understand correct we you

[1:49:14] can have essentially if we adopt this a

[1:49:17] detached and an attached accessory

[1:49:20] dwelling unit and your primary

[1:49:21] residence, right?

[1:49:22] >> Yeah.

[1:49:23] >> So we essentially have three residents

[1:49:25] on one property

[1:49:26] >> on an acre. We're just we're just doing

[1:49:30] 30-year lots without doing it. Right.

[1:49:32] We're just doing it in a different way

[1:49:34] without calling it what it is. And so

[1:49:35] that's kind of interesting. And I don't

[1:49:37] it's not that I mind that. just, you

[1:49:39] know, I know that this kind of restricts

[1:49:41] that the owner has to live on the

[1:49:42] property and there are other things, but

[1:49:44] in my mind, I'm going if it's designed

[1:49:46] well and I'm not trying to get wild out

[1:49:49] here, but I also have seen some shipping

[1:49:51] container conversions that have been

[1:49:53] really nice. Some people have done those

[1:49:54] very modern and they look really great.

[1:49:56] I'm not trying

[1:49:57] >> Yeah, I know it's not allowed. I see

[1:49:58] that. But I'm just saying like I I feel

[1:50:01] like if you know somebody is there's

[1:50:03] very tasteful ways that people can do

[1:50:05] things. And so I think that we're we're

[1:50:08] at kind of making this possible to

[1:50:11] prevent all the exceptions that we have

[1:50:12] to make constantly or conditional

[1:50:14] things. We should just kind of make it

[1:50:16] with a consideration of what we really

[1:50:18] want to allow. And I would at least be

[1:50:20] willing to consider the removal of the

[1:50:22] center of the property expectation. I'm

[1:50:25] not saying we have shipping containers.

[1:50:26] I'm not trying to get a trade park. I'm

[1:50:28] just saying there are some things that

[1:50:30] we could maybe just consider, especially

[1:50:32] in modern capabilities and modifying

[1:50:34] things.

[1:50:36] It's amazing how quickly you're

[1:50:37] converting to a redneck.

[1:50:40] >> I grew up in the deep south.

[1:50:43] >> I also agree with you, Council Member

[1:50:46] Rapto, that I don't know that we

[1:50:47] necessarily need to state it needs to be

[1:50:49] concrete asphalt. I think it could be a

[1:50:53] hard packed surface,

[1:50:56] even gravel. I don't I don't know that

[1:50:58] seemed a little restrictive to me.

[1:51:00] >> Well, don't run into impervious uh hard

[1:51:03] pack hard

[1:51:05] percentage considerations where we order

[1:51:09] concrete and fall

[1:51:12] for example that percentage is obviously

[1:51:15] going to skyrocket when you got a

[1:51:16] building and a building concrete as so

[1:51:21] what point I mean there's no language in

[1:51:23] here that talks about calculating the

[1:51:25] improve service that's that's one of our

[1:51:28] codes and so that's got to be taken into

[1:51:31] consideration so I agree as well We want

[1:51:34] to consider non impervious to satisfy

[1:51:39] requirement.

[1:51:40] >> How would we not at this point based on

[1:51:42] that call out how would we probably

[1:51:45] consider that to maintain the water

[1:51:47] table and the impervious you know

[1:51:48] expectation we have if you had a

[1:51:51] oversized structure DAU an AU and I mean

[1:51:56] pretty much you got you know quarter

[1:51:57] acre of grass left if everything's in

[1:51:59] concrete you know you got 3/4 of an acre

[1:52:01] of concrete.

[1:52:02] >> Yeah we have

[1:52:04] % max

[1:52:08] structure.

[1:52:11] So calculates beyond proceed.

[1:52:18] » So would it be something we want to

[1:52:20] consider that would allow something

[1:52:23] other than Yeah. Because I mean somebody

[1:52:25] goes well technically I can build this

[1:52:26] but technically I can't because I got

[1:52:27] too much concrete.

[1:52:29] >> Yeah.

[1:52:30] It feels very counterintuitive to

[1:52:32] say we're allowing this but now you

[1:52:34] can't allow it because you have too

[1:52:36] much. So those would be my two suggestions, you know, and in the

[1:52:43] packet there was our old code and the

[1:52:45] new code. And so we would need to make a

[1:52:48] motion to approve this. And this is

[1:52:50] again has been something that's been in

[1:52:53] the works for quite some time. And so I

[1:52:55] would like to see us get this approved

[1:52:57] tonight if council feels comfortable

[1:53:00] with maybe then making that change in

[1:53:02] number five that it does not require

[1:53:06] concrete or

[1:53:07] surface and then if you're again on

[1:53:10] number eight if it could be to the front

[1:53:12] of the primary residential was there

[1:53:14] anything else any of you

[1:53:17] >> can I just ask about 14

[1:53:20] shall be rented for 30 consecutive days

[1:53:22] or longer

[1:53:24] is that just to prevent less than 30

[1:53:26] days rentals or what's the purpose of

[1:53:31] most included is for short rentals

[1:53:44] speak to me a little bit more about if

[1:53:46] we get rid of the hard surface number

[1:53:48] five

[1:53:52] as marking that's defined. So we can

[1:53:56] leave that loosely and then we have the

[1:53:57] definition. How do you want to do you

[1:54:01] care at all what the surface is or do

[1:54:04] you want to

[1:54:07] >> be as determined by you know staff or

[1:54:11] something? How do you How do you want

[1:54:12] that?

[1:54:13] >> Do we have an ordinance currently that

[1:54:14] deals with the green? I don't know. That

[1:54:16] currently deals with like parking and

[1:54:17] grass like something that addresses that

[1:54:19] like you got to grab.

[1:54:22] No, I know some cities do. So, I wasn't

[1:54:24] sure if there's like a substrate

[1:54:25] requirement. I don't know what every

[1:54:27] engineering build would require you to

[1:54:29] build it on, but as far as the parking,

[1:54:30] I mean, gravel parking, you know, side

[1:54:34] or whatever I would be supposed to or

[1:54:37] like you said, something. So maybe if we

[1:54:40] just want to have the accessory drilling

[1:54:42] sh provide adequate off streetet parking

[1:54:44] space. Period.

[1:54:47] >> What that looks like?

[1:54:49] >> Yeah.

[1:54:51] >> Do you see a complication for that?

[1:55:05] » You can't

[1:55:11] I don't like I suppose that works if we

[1:55:13] just use adequate off street parking

[1:55:15] that number of spaces defined in other

[1:55:18] codes that'll be

[1:55:21] I think it would

[1:55:25] » well because we look at our primary

[1:55:26] residences now we don't require all of

[1:55:29] our primary residences to have a

[1:55:31] concrete or asphalt surface. We we don't

[1:55:34] we have a lot of homes out here in

[1:55:36] Hooker that have a dirt driveway.

[1:55:38] >> So I don't I don't know why we would to

[1:55:41] say an accessory dwelling has to have a

[1:55:43] concrete or asphalt if we're not

[1:55:45] requiring our primary residents to have

[1:55:47] that.

[1:55:48] >> Yeah, I think I would agree with just

[1:55:50] striking the with concrete or asphalt

[1:55:52] service.

[1:55:54] >> That's fine. We can do that.

[1:55:57] >> Any questions on how we need to reward

[1:55:59] that because we we don't think that

[1:56:00] there needs to be the requirement for

[1:56:06] I would just modify part of the detach

[1:56:09] going extend beyond the build line the

[1:56:12] primary resure the front build line

[1:56:20] » is that restriction we want

[1:56:25] » I think so the front line

[1:56:28] >> I'm okay with that but here's a question

[1:56:30] what if somebody has something that's

[1:56:34] just going to look absolutely great for

[1:56:37] the community and that that goes beyond

[1:56:39] that. Can they come in and apply for a

[1:56:42] special request on that or not?

[1:56:45] >> I think just to clarify these would just

[1:56:47] be for detach structures attached could

[1:56:51] still

[1:56:52] go beyond

[1:56:55] attach it forward. So they have

[1:56:57] >> So there you go. somebody could create

[1:56:59] in the test increase their front

[1:57:01] building line and they move their ADU

[1:57:03] test.

[1:57:04] >> So yeah, that's the question I have.

[1:57:06] There's a lot of people that have a

[1:57:07] little bit larger lots that build way

[1:57:09] back off their building. So we don't

[1:57:11] want to that, you know, that's going to

[1:57:13] be kind of a complex if they can't build

[1:57:17] something to the front or if they had a

[1:57:19] wide lot that had room.

[1:57:22] I'm not quite sure that

[1:57:25] how we're going to regulate that. Well,

[1:57:27] I'm just thinking my house. I have one

[1:57:30] that's sits way back off the road and

[1:57:33] it's on the one acre and uh it wouldn't

[1:57:36] have sat that far back if it would have

[1:57:38] been on one acre. And if I was to put

[1:57:41] one of those units in, I probably would

[1:57:44] still want it back as far as my house.

[1:57:47] So, I'm not so sure that will run into a

[1:57:50] problem.

[1:57:51] >> But if somebody wanted to or saying you

[1:57:54] can't basically, right? then get

[1:57:56] creative and it

[1:58:00] go

[1:58:03] from the line I feel comfortable with.

[1:58:05] >> I think not to interrupt your discussion

[1:58:08] but I just wanted to highlight I

[1:58:10] appreciate the thought at one point

[1:58:14] council had recommended or planning

[1:58:15] commission had recommended these be

[1:58:17] quite large. We worked with legal and we

[1:58:19] refined it came out a lot smaller living

[1:58:21] space specifically.

[1:58:22] Um the primary thought that me and

[1:58:26] Darren discussed these are accessory in

[1:58:28] nature, right? What these are and

[1:58:30] they're peritted as you can see state

[1:58:31] laws peritted now and they're they have

[1:58:34] a different functionality. So I

[1:58:35] appreciate the zoning discussion. I just

[1:58:37] think we can do those with this

[1:58:42] we can we can create both at the same

[1:58:44] time you know just a different

[1:58:45] discussion. Zoning can come at another

[1:58:47] time and this would be subsidiary and

[1:58:49] supportive of housing but never the

[1:58:52] primary right.

[1:58:55] We found the same we had the living

[1:58:56] space really

[1:59:03] you guys come up with down the road

[1:59:05] these accessory will be options for any

[1:59:07] primary

[1:59:08] want to make sure that they stay

[1:59:10] accessory in nature to that the only

[1:59:12] other thought I'd bring up and I not

[1:59:14] suggest state law I know it's mandated

[1:59:17] for DA use to not be allowed on you know

[1:59:20] single family dwellings Only caveat is

[1:59:23] you can prohibit them for 11,000 square

[1:59:25] foot or less lots. So just something to

[1:59:28] throw out. I'm not recommending that by

[1:59:30] any means

[1:59:32] state law.

[1:59:38] I use it

[1:59:45] detach

[1:59:48] a little squishy

[1:59:49] >> right now we allow it and I think the

[1:59:52] comments always been as long as we meet

[1:59:54] their setbacks like anyone else right

[1:59:56] the setbacks and the impervious surface

[1:59:57] those are broader ordinances that

[2:00:00] protect you know if they don't meet

[2:00:02] their service they can't do it even if

[2:00:04] you know you know or they right or they

[2:00:07] don't setbacks

[2:00:09] too. So, it's not the macro requirements

[2:00:13] or that's how we have it set up.

[2:00:15] >> Absolutely.

[2:00:16] >> One additional thing too was that we

[2:00:18] talked about having them come in and do

[2:00:20] a license.

[2:00:22] >> Would you explain that?

[2:00:23] >> Yeah, they have to be they're they're

[2:00:25] principally permitted now. Um, so we

[2:00:27] can't have them go through a conditional

[2:00:29] use permit process anymore if they want

[2:00:31] to be less stringent. We still will have

[2:00:33] an administrative license. The primary

[2:00:36] reason for that is We have some specific

[2:00:38] ordinances we want to make sure

[2:00:40] acknowledge via the licensing that you

[2:00:43] know they'll live in one of the units.

[2:00:44] So that's something that we'll monitor.

[2:00:46] But also from a reporting standpoint,

[2:00:48] it's really helpful if they have this

[2:00:50] license attached to the permit that they

[2:00:53] pull so that we can keep track of how

[2:00:56] many of these are one of our moderate

[2:00:57] income housing plans. So this way we

[2:01:00] know how many and how effective this is

[2:01:01] and what the appetite is for them across

[2:01:04] the city. Uh so we won't have a

[2:01:07] permit and it won't ever prevent anyone

[2:01:09] but they will license

[2:01:13] acknowledge the ordinance and keep track

[2:01:16] of how many city.

[2:01:21] » Can I ask one more question? 18

[2:01:24] um

[2:01:26] shall not be sold separately or

[2:01:28] subdivided from the principal drawing

[2:01:30] unless compliant with subdivision

[2:01:33] regulations. When edu ever the

[2:01:36] subdivision regulations.

[2:01:39] >> I guess they could

[2:01:43] if we allowed them to come to the build

[2:01:44] line, which we're going to, they have

[2:01:47] 300 frontage and they wanted to

[2:01:50] subdivide it down the middle, they could

[2:01:52] effectively create two lots. Or if

[2:01:56] they drag a road down the side and it

[2:01:58] was on the rear of their building and

[2:01:59] they could yield enough frontage on the

[2:02:01] new road, then that could theoretically

[2:02:05] Even if the zoning didn't

[2:02:08] >> they have to be zoning still they have

[2:02:10] that large enough

[2:02:11] >> tricky right

[2:02:13] >> it' be pretty hard rare instances but

[2:02:15] something I think one thing is bring an

[2:02:18] interesting thought by the way continue

[2:02:21] but city I believe yeah was city they

[2:02:24] actually now allowing them to be sold

[2:02:27] separately which is interesting but let

[2:02:29] them for

[2:02:34] So, what do you think about that?

[2:02:36] >> I mean, the way I think of it is, like

[2:02:38] you said, it's probably going to be a

[2:02:39] rare occasion. It's going to be

[2:02:40] something that would have to zoning. So,

[2:02:43] it's probably like a rare like a hot

[2:02:44] flag type situation maybe or like a, you

[2:02:47] know, um, somebody already have to be

[2:02:51] able to pull up to the the frontage line

[2:02:54] and then split it off and it would have

[2:02:56] to fit the zone. So, I mean, if we're in

[2:02:59] acre or half acre zones, it' be hard to

[2:03:01] split the property right in the middle.

[2:03:03] I don't know. I don't know how many

[2:03:05] houses we have kind of sitting offset

[2:03:06] half of that. I know it seems like a gray area we don't want to go to,

[2:03:11] >> but I also wonder like

[2:03:15] are we going to do a lot of stuff that

[2:03:16] probably wouldn't be likely to happen?

[2:03:19] >> Well, I'm just wondering at all because

[2:03:26] » well then you've got sewer because I

[2:03:29] understand right and that's going to go

[2:03:33] pump one the side of my house that's

[2:03:35] coming into my sewer. If you subdivide

[2:03:37] that off now, they're going to have to

[2:03:39] change all that, right?

[2:03:42] >> Well, with sewer, you can have two

[2:03:44] residents in one sewer pit. So, it all

[2:03:47] depends, I guess, if they ran it their

[2:03:49] laterals out to the sewer pit versus

[2:03:51] coming through. I can't think of one

[2:03:54] instance though, but I had someone ask

[2:03:56] once that was on a larger lot like this

[2:04:00] and there was actually a side road and

[2:04:02] they've asked about possibly doing this

[2:04:05] and for a child

[2:04:08] later on, but then they could never

[2:04:10] separate that off and I've only ever

[2:04:13] heard of one. So again, it would have to

[2:04:15] be if it if they happen to be you said

[2:04:18] it would have to fit with the zoning,

[2:04:21] but I don't I don't know that we

[2:04:22] necessarily want to not allow it at the

[2:04:26] case that it could possibly, but again,

[2:04:28] it would have to be like it says unless

[2:04:31] compliant with subdivision regulations.

[2:04:34] So there that is a pretty stringent set

[2:04:36] of rules right there that I think would

[2:04:39] eliminate just anybody coming in and

[2:04:41] doing it.

[2:04:43] >> So

[2:04:47] Okay. Anything else with that? So if

[2:04:51] not, then we need to then what this

[2:04:53] motion would be then is to approve this.

[2:04:57] And if you want to make those changes in

[2:04:59] the wording that we have and then we can

[2:05:02] get this and again this we're making

[2:05:05] this motion. We're incorporating this

[2:05:07] into our code.

[2:05:09] So is there anybody that wants to do

[2:05:11] that motion? I believe we talked about

[2:05:14] number five changing that wording so it

[2:05:17] just needs to provide adequate off

[2:05:19] street parking space. Number eight which

[2:05:22] was um no part of it may extend beyond

[2:05:26] the front field line

[2:05:29] and I think those were only the only two that we had actual word verbage

[2:05:33] changes.

[2:05:34] >> All right. So, I make a motion to

[2:05:36] approve the oversight structure and

[2:05:38] secondary dwellings

[2:05:41] zoning.

[2:05:43] Uh, with the changes to item five, the

[2:05:45] accessory dwelling unit shall provide

[2:05:47] adequate off- streetet parking space and

[2:05:50] according to line item 8, no part of the

[2:05:53] detached accessory dwelling unit may

[2:05:54] extend beyond the front build line of

[2:05:57] the primary residential structure,

[2:05:58] leaving the rest as proposed.

[2:06:01] >> Okay. So, a motion was made by council

[2:06:03] member. Is there a second?

[2:06:09] » I'll second.

[2:06:10] >> Second is made by council member

[2:06:12] Hancock. Any discussion on this motion?

[2:06:16] >> You know, maybe I do. Uh, back to number

[2:06:20] five, and I asked Councilman,

[2:06:24] uh,

[2:06:25] can we have, would it be any good to put

[2:06:29] a compacted

[2:06:32] surface so we don't end up with a a hole

[2:06:34] or just leave it the way it is.

[2:06:36] >> The thing is, madame mayor said that we

[2:06:38] don't put that type of provision

[2:06:40] restriction on even just regular

[2:06:41] driveways.

[2:06:42] >> So to put it here kind of seems a little

[2:06:44] out of

[2:06:45] >> Okay, we'll just

[2:06:48] >> Okay. Because this is a change in code

[2:06:50] then we're going to do this by roll call

[2:06:53] vote again. This time we will start with

[2:06:55] council member Rapto.

[2:06:57] >> Hi.

[2:06:58] >> Council member Craig.

[2:06:59] >> Hi.

[2:07:00] >> Council member Hancock.

[2:07:02] >> Hi. Council member Hill.

[2:07:03] >> I

[2:07:04] >> Okay, that passes. We really appreciate

[2:07:07] the planning commission for all their

[2:07:08] work on this. I know it's taken more

[2:07:10] months than we would have liked, but it

[2:07:12] always is a slow process. We can't have

[2:07:14] everything we do by legal counsel. So,

[2:07:17] the last thing on our agenda then is a

[2:07:19] motion to adjourn.

[2:07:22] >> So, move.

[2:07:23] >> Okay. The motion was made by council

[2:07:25] member Hill. Is there a second?

[2:07:27] >> So, second.

[2:07:28] >> Second made by council member Craig. All

[2:07:30] in favor?

[2:07:32] Okay, motion stands adjourned. Thank you

[2:07:34] so much for coming.

May 7, 2026 - City Council Meeting

Transcript