[0:00] things to go ahead.
[0:01] >> Okay, we would like to welcome you to
[0:03] our city council work meeting. It is
[0:06] Thursday, May 22nd. We're having some
[0:09] technical difficulties, so hopefully
[0:12] you'll be able to hear us and see us. If
[0:15] not, then this meeting is being recorded
[0:17] and you'll be able to listen to the
[0:18] audio
[0:19] after it is posted to our website.
[0:22] So, we have um some things to discuss
[0:25] tonight on that we put on the agenda and
[0:28] if we have time, we'll maybe um talk
[0:30] about one more thing. So, the first
[0:32] thing was our secondary water
[0:34] requirements
[0:36] and um Cole Allen and I had asked him
[0:38] about coming tonight, but he wasn't able
[0:40] to. So, I hopefully you've had time to
[0:44] look through this ordinance. We've
[0:46] the reason I wanted to talk about this
[0:48] in a work meeting and then, you know,
[0:49] possibly later we'll think about
[0:52] changing our ordinance because we've had
[0:54] some concerns in the past with us having
[0:58] the requirement that they have to be
[0:59] hooked up to pressurized secondary
[1:02] before we even give them a building
[1:04] permit. So, I just wanted to discuss and
[1:08] hopefully you've had a chance to look
[1:10] and then there's also the point that if
[1:12] there's not even water available, that
[1:15] they have to either turn in their water
[1:17] shares or escrow the funds.
[1:20] And even if it's possibly not ever, we
[1:24] don't know, that there will be actually
[1:25] be secondary water even available on
[1:28] that street, which has happened on 6700.
[1:32] And you know, we also at the bottom have
[1:35] if they violate this ordinance, it's a
[1:37] class C misdemeanor, which
[1:39] again, so discussion. Maybe you have a
[1:42] chance to look at it and
[1:43] >> How is this different than what we
[1:45] currently have?
[1:47] >> What did you say, Ryan?
[1:48] >> How is this different than what we
[1:50] currently have?
[1:51] >> This is our
[1:51] >> This is This is This is what we
[1:53] currently have.
[1:54] >> Oh, this is our
[1:55] >> Yeah, this is our current
[1:56] >> Okay, I was going to say, surely we have
[1:57] this already.
[1:58] >> No, we already have this. So that was
[2:00] just a discussion if we if this is
[2:03] anything we ever feel like that should
[2:05] be changed. I know we've had a couple of
[2:08] developers that have
[2:09] approached
[2:11] the culinary water improvement and said,
[2:14] you know, we really don't want to have
[2:16] to do the secondary. We had a developer
[2:19] come and say if we do the zero scaping
[2:22] and they're smaller lots and so anyway,
[2:24] just for really it's been developers
[2:26] that have been concerned about this. Well,
[2:29] but even if it's a single
[2:32] lot but I'm I'm just wondering who's
[2:34] actually approached
[2:36] you or or whoever brought this up. Who
[2:39] actually approached us about I've
[2:41] actually had a conversation brought to
[2:43] me from
[2:45] upper culinary district stating that
[2:48] they probably had more water than they
[2:50] needed and they would be able to supply
[2:55] some of the smaller lots with culinary
[2:57] water
[2:59] and they would not be above looking into
[3:01] doing that. And I also believe they have
[3:04] in their bylaws written right now that
[3:09] they wouldn't provide culinary
[3:13] unless there was a secondary
[3:17] pressure available but I believe they're
[3:19] going to remove that clause from their
[3:22] bylaws that that will no longer be
[3:24] hasn't been done yet but they are
[3:26] looking into doing that
[3:28] because they figure there are instances
[3:29] where
[3:31] they would be able they're in business
[3:33] of selling water and they have more
[3:35] culinary water right now than they need
[3:37] basically.
[3:40] Well, I think so what
[3:42] you want just a simple rule of thumb
[3:45] that I learned a long time ago.
[3:47] What gives us water? What there's three
[3:50] simple things that you have to have to
[3:52] have water.
[3:55] » Which are?
[3:56] >> So, number one is you have to have a
[3:58] water right. You have to have the right
[4:00] either drill a well or you have a right to
[4:04] You know, the railroad had water rights
[4:05] all along the railroad.
[4:07] >> Mhm.
[4:08] >> But, the thing about that was they
[4:09] bought all these water rights up, but
[4:11] there was no water.
[4:13] So, you have to have a water right.
[4:15] There has to be water
[4:17] where you have the water right.
[4:19] >> Mhm.
[4:20] >> Third,
[4:21] you have to have a way to get that water
[4:23] to where you can use it.
[4:24] >> Mhm.
[4:25] >> If you don't have any one of those three
[4:27] things is missing, you do not have
[4:30] water.
[4:32] So, for example, with Hooper uh
[4:35] Water District,
[4:37] so they drilled that well in West Point,
[4:39] for example. I think most of us know
[4:41] where that is. Just off 1800.
[4:43] Do we have water from that well?
[4:45] >> They're not using it right now cuz they
[4:46] don't need it.
[4:47] >> Well, but is there water there? Can they even pump it and get all the
[4:51] water they want?
[4:52] >> Well, we were told it's got too much
[4:53] sulfur in it. They can They could filter
[4:56] it and use it.
[4:56] >> anyway, when they drilled it, it ended
[4:58] up not going They had a problem with the
[5:00] drill line and
[5:03] So, they really I think it was a real
[5:06] They thought it was a real good thing
[5:07] that it happened to be in the way of the
[5:09] West Davis Corridor or you know, that
[5:12] eventually
[5:14] they'll buy up that property as it moves
[5:16] into Weber County.
[5:17] >> Is it in Is it in line with the
[5:19] corridors coming through?
[5:20] >> Real close to that. At least that's what
[5:22] uh
[5:22] >> I'm not Yeah, cuz I'm not exactly sure
[5:24] what the parameters are.
[5:25] >> anyway, um
[5:27] and then they just uh they just drilled
[5:29] these two last wells and again, I don't
[5:31] know that they're
[5:35] You know, I don't know if they really
[5:36] found the quality of water
[5:37] >> I just know I just know what was relayed
[5:39] to me that they were looking into being
[5:42] able to provide water. Just obviously an
[5:44] acre lot, they're not going to want to
[5:46] do that cuz that wouldn't be cost
[5:47] effective for the land owners. I'm not
[5:49] even sure, as you mentioned, a half acre
[5:51] lot's not a small lot.
[5:53] That I'm not sure that would be, but
[5:55] patio homes, things like that that have
[5:58] a lawn about the size of this table,
[6:01] they I think could probably supply water
[6:04] for that, and they're actually
[6:05] looking into potentially doing that and
[6:08] revising their bylaws to where it will
[6:10] not be mandatory anymore for somebody to
[6:13] have pressurized secondary for them to
[6:16] provide culinary. It's not done yet, but
[6:19] they are looking into it to see if that
[6:20] makes sense.
[6:22] >> And and lastly, was
[6:24] and this is just what I heard the
[6:25] meeting that was held at West Point, you
[6:28] know, for that new development that
[6:29] wants to go in there.
[6:31] And so, who's on the board? Isn't it
[6:34] Cole Allen?
[6:35] >> Mhm.
[6:36] Cole Allen.
[6:38] >> Wayne Allen.
[6:39] >> Yeah. So, so anyway, he said
[6:42] >> There's the uh
[6:43] there's been
[6:44] >> What I I was told is that he actually
[6:47] told them that there's a lot higher
[6:49] density
[6:50] housing going in there than what was
[6:52] originally planned, and that
[6:54] >> Going in where?
[6:55] >> Over in West Point.
[6:56] >> Okay.
[6:56] >> Almost to
[6:57] Well, there's actually two of them going
[6:58] in there. There's one in West Point
[6:59] >> Where where Cole Allen lives.
[7:01] >> Okay.
[7:02] >> His east part of that.
[7:03] >> Okay. And that that that was really
[7:05] going to stress their system. So, that's
[7:08] not coming from It's coming from a
[7:10] different Cole, but
[7:12] there was concern he had
[7:14] about that. So,
[7:16] to me, it just seems like there's mixed
[7:19] feelings about this or mixed mixed
[7:21] information. And
[7:24] my concern is is if it's a developer
[7:26] It's if it if it's a developer that's
[7:28] coming
[7:29] and requesting this, then yeah, I can
[7:31] see why they wouldn't want to
[7:35] >> Yeah.
[7:35] >> Well, I understand that. We
[7:37] You know, there has to be water
[7:38] available. I I don't know what the
[7:39] availability of everything is and stuff,
[7:41] but I will tell you straight up that I
[7:44] think
[7:45] Hooper Irrigation
[7:48] being able to stop somebody from getting
[7:50] onto our agenda as a private company
[7:53] makes no sense to me. I don't
[7:54] understand.
[7:56] Um I know they need to have a right uh
[7:58] an availability to provide water and the
[8:00] developer has to have water shares
[8:03] available. I totally understand that.
[8:05] needs to be available if it's
[8:06] needed. But I don't know why to get onto
[8:09] the Hooper City agenda, you would need
[8:12] to
[8:14] get permission basically from Hooper
[8:16] Irrigation to get on our agenda. That
[8:18] makes no sense to me.
[8:19] >> well, it it makes sense if Hooper Water
[8:22] District wasn't willing to provide them
[8:24] secondary water.
[8:24] >> Yeah, but they are probably going to
[8:26] provide it.
[8:26] >> they're saying that now, but I don't
[8:29] I mean, it's not
[8:30] >> But see, if it's provided it's like Utah
[8:32] Power, okay? You have to go get a letter
[8:34] from them stating they can provide
[8:36] electricity. They can service you. The
[8:38] gas company has to provide that they can
[8:40] service you. Every entity has to provide
[8:43] they can service you. I don't know why
[8:45] with Hooper Irrigation that it's not
[8:48] just the same thing and and they are not
[8:50] even
[8:51] uh they're a privately held corporation
[8:54] basically
[8:55] operating within the city.
[8:57] To me, it's never made any sense that they could
[9:02] demand somebody
[9:04] turning water shares before they even go
[9:05] on our agenda. I know they need to make
[9:07] sure they have water shares available
[9:09] for whatever they're doing. That needs
[9:11] to be available. But it makes no sense
[9:13] to me for it to be turned in
[9:15] prior to getting on Hooper City's agenda
[9:19] for a subdivision.
[9:20] I I totally think it should be.
[9:22] >> to being approved.
[9:23] >> Yeah.
[9:24] >> No, there's been some that have been on
[9:26] agendas for a long time, but they were
[9:27] never approved because they had they
[9:29] didn't have secondary water.
[9:31] They didn't have any water shares.
[9:33] >> Okay. Well, and that So, that's why they
[9:35] wouldn't get approved in that situation
[9:36] if they don't water shares.
[9:38] You know, that
[9:39] >> Well, that's one thing too that was said
[9:41] to me today with the shortage of water
[9:44] shares, what happens when the time comes
[9:46] when a developer doesn't have water
[9:49] shares?
[9:50] What What if they can't get water
[9:52] shares? Then how can they provide
[9:54] secondary water if there are no water
[9:56] shares available? Because sometimes
[9:59] there aren't.
[10:00] >> That will actually, at some point in
[10:01] time, unless there is another source,
[10:03] which there isn't,
[10:05] >> Yeah.
[10:05] >> of water other than the culinary. And
[10:07] obviously, the culinary can't be
[10:09] irrigating fields, okay? That's not
[10:11] going to work.
[10:12] >> Yeah.
[10:12] >> And the water from Weber Basin, I
[10:15] already talked to the engineer up there,
[10:16] is pretty much dispersed in shares right
[10:19] now,
[10:20] which belongs to whoever it belongs to,
[10:24] cuz they either
[10:25] dug a ditch and got the shares or bought
[10:28] them at some point in time. But, there
[10:30] is not going to be enough water shares
[10:32] down the road, I'm sure, to build
[10:35] the whole western part of Weber County
[10:37] out
[10:38] with secondary water available, cuz
[10:39] there ain't that much water available.
[10:41] We're still a desert.
[10:42] >> Yeah.
[10:42] >> And that's if Mother Nature cooperates,
[10:44] and she has been kind of stingy the last
[10:46] couple years or so.
[10:47] >> Well, and one thing, if you go to our
[10:50] chapter, it's chapter five, so it's um
[10:54] So, if you go to
[10:56] chapter five and it's 6-5-4,
[11:00] where it talks about developers are
[11:01] required to escrow funds. So, this is
[11:04] one that was a concern that came up
[11:06] first to planning commission and then,
[11:09] you know, even up to city council, was
[11:11] because there was an an it's called a
[11:13] subdivision, because even if it's one
[11:14] lot, but it was a home, and so it says
[11:17] on here that they have to escrow funds
[11:20] to cover if there's not actual water
[11:22] shares. So, we had this home that was
[11:25] built on 6,700.
[11:27] Secondary water is not available. So,
[11:30] then the person that was it was his
[11:32] daughter that was building a home then
[11:34] was required to either give a share or
[11:37] escrow funds. And so, that's what they
[11:40] thought, well, is that really even
[11:42] right? Should Should we as a city be
[11:44] requiring someone to escrow funds for
[11:47] something that's not even available?
[11:49] >> That we know that we don't know if that
[11:51] ever become available.
[11:51] >> We don't know if it'll ever be. And how
[11:53] long are they keeping that for? How long
[11:55] cuz it we don't have anywhere in here
[11:57] that says we will hold that cuz it's
[12:00] just said, these funds will be held in
[12:01] escrow until such time as a secondary
[12:04] pressure system is available in the
[12:05] area. Well, what if that's never?
[12:08] >> Never.
[12:09] >> So, what if they have escrowed $35,000?
[12:13] You know, at least with our
[12:14] >> what it is? Is that what it is, $35,000?
[12:16] Or is that just a number we have to
[12:17] >> Oh, well, that's that's what a water
[12:19] share value is roughly at.
[12:21] So,
[12:23] we don't we don't say that. We I mean,
[12:25] nowhere in here does it say
[12:26] >> So, if they don't provide a service
[12:29] to 6,700
[12:32] why should we have somebody put up
[12:34] money? And if Hooper Irrigation or
[12:37] whoever wants to run
[12:39] that by there, then they go talk to them
[12:41] down the road and say, "Hey, we're going
[12:43] to run" just like the cable companies.
[12:46] You know, they'll come by and you know,
[12:48] I live on a dead end road. Well, it was
[12:49] years before they would even come down
[12:52] our way because they didn't have enough
[12:53] people.
[12:54] >> I don't even like going down a dead end.
[12:56] So, did it?
[12:56] >> I know it.
[12:58] And so, I don't know why we should
[13:00] require somebody to put money in escrow
[13:03] the services and provide it at the time
[13:05] they build their house.
[13:06] >> And it it also kind of is applicable
[13:08] >> I just wanted to clarify a few parts.
[13:10] >> Go ahead.
[13:11] >> So
[13:14] escrowing funds for water shares would
[13:15] be difficult and I understand the
[13:17] ordinance that they can do that or the
[13:18] actual water shares. In my limited
[13:20] experience, we require them to submit a
[13:22] water share
[13:24] so that we know one's there. Cuz you
[13:26] know, to your point, if they escrow
[13:28] a certain amount of money and then in 10
[13:30] years it
[13:31] was available, we don't know that money
[13:33] would cover a share they
[13:34] >> No, it it won't in 10 years, guaranteed.
[13:36] >> do, and Sherry's point, we do
[13:39] it says in here they'll install a dry
[13:41] system, right? That's a a requirement if
[13:44] it's not there, so that it's in and
[13:45] ready to go.
[13:46] On small ones where there's not really
[13:48] much of a system, but maybe we're
[13:51] contemplating deferral for a park strip
[13:54] if sidewalk forgot put in,
[13:57] they'll design that
[13:58] infrastructure and then they'll escrow
[14:00] the funds for the infrastructure for our
[14:03] 10-year
[14:05] deferral process.
[14:06] So, that's where I think we
[14:08] do have them escrow funds is for the
[14:11] contemplated infrastructure if it ever
[14:12] goes in.
[14:14] And that's what we hold for 10 years.
[14:15] And that's something that we've talked
[14:17] about, but it relates to this
[14:20] How long is it that it's in there?
[14:21] >> And in line with what you're saying, if
[14:23] we're going to do it, then we be should
[14:25] be putting a term limit on it, like we
[14:26] do for curb, gutter, or sidewalk now.
[14:29] You know, if we're going to make you
[14:30] escrow money, we shouldn't be holding it
[14:32] for 50 years on the chance that you may
[14:35] go in to do it. And I actually know one
[14:38] developer who
[14:40] turned in his water shares
[14:42] and then the rules changed and part of
[14:45] the subdivision he can no longer build,
[14:48] but he's having some difficulty getting
[14:50] his water shares back that he can't
[14:52] actually use because he can't build the
[14:54] rest of the subdivision.
[14:57] So, that's another issue if it's turned
[15:00] in, it's sometimes difficult, it
[15:02] appears. I've never dealt with it, but
[15:04] I've had a couple guys tell me they had
[15:06] trouble getting it back
[15:08] after
[15:09] uh was sold, so they couldn't.
[15:11] >> sure I understand that right. So, you're
[15:13] saying someone turned in water to Hooper
[15:15] Irrigation
[15:16] >> Mhm.
[15:16] >> and then they found out they couldn't
[15:18] build because they can't
[15:19] >> Hooper changed the rules in the middle
[15:22] of it. was it dealt with the elevation
[15:24] of
[15:25] uh
[15:26] buildable elevation 4,210 whatever it
[15:29] was cuz the city came in after that
[15:31] subdivision was approved and raised that
[15:34] elevation.
[15:35] So now there are lots and it's down
[15:37] behind it's actually Josh Lynch's
[15:39] subdivision down there.
[15:41] So when when the city raised the
[15:44] elevation requirements then it made some
[15:46] of the land that he was planning on
[15:48] building on
[15:50] unbuildable.
[15:51] And he turned in water shares for that
[15:53] property but he has not been able to get
[15:56] them back from the irrigation company.
[15:58] Which makes no sense to me because if
[16:00] it's now where he cannot build on that
[16:03] I would think
[16:04] that he should get his water shares
[16:06] back.
[16:06] >> Yeah, that makes sense. That's right.
[16:08] That's how it is. They you should get
[16:09] his water shares.
[16:10] >> Well, Coal today said he they would be
[16:12] interested in having a sit-down
[16:14] conversation with us about this because
[16:16] not all cities are requiring it, you
[16:19] know. Um maybe this should be something
[16:21] that the developer works out with the
[16:23] culinary. Maybe the city shouldn't be
[16:25] the middle man
[16:27] in our ordinances requiring this with a
[16:31] penalty stated.
[16:33] And then maybe that's something we, you
[16:35] know
[16:36] because because he had mentioned before
[16:37] maybe that should just be something they
[16:39] work out with them, not us.
[16:41] >> Well, 653 allows an exemption for a
[16:44] minor subdivision.
[16:46] So unless exempted by the city
[16:47] administrators for a minor subdivision.
[16:51] So
[16:52] for one or two lots it can be exempted.
[16:55] But for a major subdivision it cannot.
[16:57] >> But the one that they did down in 6,700
[17:00] they gave a water share.
[17:02] And it was a minor.
[17:03] >> And it's it's just a one lot.
[17:06] >> One lot.
[17:07] >> And I don't even know exactly what the
[17:08] rules are as far as how much water per
[17:10] household.
[17:12] >> Yeah, and on the other side of that I
[17:14] will say
[17:16] my last son that built a house down by
[17:18] us
[17:19] because of the water shares and all that
[17:21] and he was thinking about doing zero
[17:23] landscape. They were actually hope
[17:25] irrigation was good and I don't remember
[17:27] the deal they made with him.
[17:29] But he went in and talked to him and I
[17:32] thought they treated him very fair. So I
[17:34] think that probably fell under that
[17:36] exemption that uh
[17:38] >> Yeah.
[17:38] >> And that makes sense.
[17:39] >> Yeah.
[17:39] >> And I I thought they were fair with him.
[17:43] So
[17:44] >> Yeah. I just think I think what you said
[17:46] maybe we ought to get
[17:47] >> Yeah, we just Yeah, need to sit down
[17:48] with Harper Culinary and see
[17:50] >> And well and the other end of the coin
[17:51] is what I'm hearing isn't done yet. Like
[17:54] they haven't they haven't changed their
[17:55] bylaws at this point in time. So you
[17:58] know, we need to before we deal with
[17:59] this much probably need to find out if
[18:01] they actually are going to do that or
[18:03] just looking into doing that.
[18:05] >> Yeah.
[18:06] >> Cuz if they don't do it then obviously
[18:07] you're going to have to have some
[18:08] secondary available
[18:10] um for people to do it. But the other
[18:13] thing that I really think as a city we
[18:15] need to encourage zero scaping every
[18:18] stinking place we can. I
[18:20] >> Yeah.
[18:21] >> I deal with Ogden City a lot on park
[18:23] strips
[18:24] and this drives me up the wall because
[18:27] they uh don't want gravel in the park
[18:30] strips but they want us to plant trees
[18:33] in for the people that we help with
[18:35] their yards
[18:36] and so we take out the weeds and then we
[18:39] plant trees and then they still have to
[18:41] water the trees in the park strip and
[18:43] park strips are impossible to water
[18:45] and keep the water where it's supposed
[18:46] to be. That's just That makes no sense.
[18:49] So
[18:50] >> Yeah.
[18:50] >> There's some houses over just west of
[18:53] uh
[18:53] Dallas Greens that are zero scaped or
[18:56] whatever. There's two words. What are
[18:58] they, Travis? There's one's
[19:00] >> Zero scaped and zero scaping.
[19:01] >> Zero scaped. And which one is no grass,
[19:04] no plants, no nothing?
[19:05] >> Zero scaped.
[19:05] >> Okay, zero scaped. And they they have
[19:08] cool looking yards.
[19:10] >> So Darren stopped me. I don't know if I
[19:12] can ask this question cuz it's not on
[19:13] the agenda, but it's been brought up.
[19:16] Why did Hooper City, can somebody
[19:18] explain to me, why did we change and go
[19:21] higher from what
[19:23] uh
[19:23] the Army Corps of Engineers said?
[19:26] >> On the elevation of the
[19:27] >> Yeah, why why was that done uh
[19:30] >> And that's related to
[19:32] irrigation, is that right?
[19:33] >> Yeah, I think so.
[19:35] >> So, uh I Yeah, I'm just curious cuz I've
[19:38] dealt with the Army Corps of Engineers
[19:40] and they they are sticklers and these
[19:43] guys are the professionals
[19:45] and so why did we as a small city change
[19:48] what their recommendations were?
[19:52] >> I don't know. That'd be That'd be for
[19:54] me.
[19:54] >> Does anybody have an answer?
[19:56] >> What's that?
[19:57] >> It was a recommendation from our
[19:58] engineer
[19:59] at the time.
[20:00] >> And so, he still doesn't know as much as
[20:03] what the Army Corps of Engineers uh
[20:06] >> I I think we'll be seeing
[20:08] >> There was a 4215
[20:10] line, which is depicted on our map, and
[20:12] then there's a now 4220 line. Those are
[20:15] our lines for Those are elevation lines
[20:17] for undeveloped property. 4215
[20:21] was from the county. That's what we
[20:23] brought in. I don't know how the county
[20:25] determined that, but Jerry had a copy of
[20:27] the ordinance from the county
[20:29] of 4215 and then how that relates and
[20:32] how, you know, what what restrictions
[20:34] there are with building to 4215.
[20:37] And then uh
[20:40] way before my time,
[20:42] they took 4215 along with the
[20:43] restrictions and
[20:45] changed it to 4220
[20:47] and got rid of some of the other
[20:49] restrictions in our uh 4220. And so,
[20:52] that's what they did.
[20:53] >> Just don't make uh sense to me because
[20:56] uh
[20:58] you know, we know where the water line
[21:00] was uh back in the early '80s
[21:04] and that and it's not even close uh
[21:07] you know, and it's never going to get
[21:09] that high cuz the Salt Lake Airport's
[21:11] going to be under and so, you know, the
[21:13] Army Corps of Engineers, I believe, was
[21:15] right on. You know, and I'm just
[21:18] wondering why
[21:20] uh
[21:20] you know, and you ask, "Well, it's
[21:22] affected a lot of farmers out here." You
[21:24] know, we're playing with our 401K. It's
[21:26] just
[21:27] >> Playing with our retirement.
[21:28] >> Uh when the Army Corps of Engineers, I
[21:31] mean, this is a
[21:32] you know, these people have done all the
[21:34] research research and that and so
[21:37] >> Well, and I would call
[21:38] Yeah,
[21:39] you know, I know
[21:41] JUB
[21:42] did just draw a line and it was so
[21:45] consistent with the
[21:47] 4220 as far as
[21:49] water has been above 4215 before.
[21:52] And so so if water's been above that,
[21:55] then how do you drain
[21:57] if you're at 4215, how do you drain
[21:59] water away from 4215? How do you
[22:02] >> We fired up Bangor pumps.
[22:04] >> You what?
[22:04] >> We fired up Bangor pumps.
[22:08] » But you know, there's there's places
[22:09] that's even further
[22:11] >> So, the I'm going to go out on a limb
[22:13] here and I'll bet the 4215
[22:16] is still in place in Davis County and
[22:18] Box Elder County.
[22:20] I'll bet that we in Hooper, I don't know
[22:24] of any other cities that have changed
[22:26] that elevation line. I
[22:28] >> It seems like they took us on a field
[22:30] trip, JUB. Didn't we go out?
[22:32] >> Yeah, what is what's the elevation of
[22:34] the sewer plant?
[22:36] And the North Davis sewer plant?
[22:38] >> No idea.
[22:38] >> I don't know.
[22:39] >> That's that's what we want to check
[22:41] because it was threatened. I mean, there was
[22:44] places like that that
[22:47] Obviously, there are places threatened or that
[22:50] >> Yeah, I just I just don't know why just
[22:52] Hooper City. I If everybody around said,
[22:55] "No, we need to raise it to 4220." That
[22:58] then there's probably a really good
[22:59] reason. I just
[23:00] >> Jared has some background on it cuz he
[23:01] took us out.
[23:03] The next show is water.
[23:06] >> There'll be a staff memo for planning
[23:08] commission and there's been a request to
[23:09] amend that ordinance.
[23:11] >> Okay. So, let's do that. Let's look into
[23:13] that. We don't need to spin our wheels
[23:15] on that right now. We're not going
[23:16] anywhere.
[23:17] >> Well, so back to this then. Let maybe we
[23:19] can just work with
[23:20] culinary because again you know one
[23:22] thing we find with our ordinances a lot
[23:24] of things aren't probably as precise as
[23:27] they need to be or concise, whichever
[23:30] word would better fit how ours. So, I
[23:32] think there's some things we might want
[23:33] to look at and see if there are some
[23:36] changes that do need to be made
[23:38] because times times are changing and
[23:41] maybe this what which was good last
[23:43] maybe isn't
[23:45] >> So, I just add some just experience. So,
[23:47] we had
[23:49] allowed some culinary in some areas
[23:52] and then they took it away.
[23:54] And while I was there there was a lot of
[23:57] people that would come forward and
[23:58] complain because they wanted their
[23:59] secondary so bad because they're paying
[24:01] so
[24:01] much money for culinary.
[24:03] So, it became it was kind of a headache
[24:05] for the city. So, I just wanted to
[24:06] explain that that there would could be
[24:09] some foreseeable problems but the world
[24:11] is changing and the need for water is
[24:13] changing and that's different than what
[24:15] it was but that was something that was
[24:17] common with commonly show up
[24:20] with these developments that didn't have
[24:22] access to secondary. So, then they
[24:23] changed and required secondary after
[24:25] that.
[24:27] >> Do you Do you have any recollection of
[24:28] how big of lots there were in those
[24:30] subdivisions?
[24:31] >> I I know that they were some of them
[24:33] were relatively big cuz they would
[24:34] complain. They would There were some
[24:36] numbers that they were talking about
[24:38] >> Because it would be it would be
[24:39] incredible how much water acre of ground
[24:42] with culinary that
[24:43] >> Yeah, it was I mean acre I don't think
[24:45] an acre but still the money was
[24:47] >> So,
[24:47] >> a lot.
[24:49] >> Are we going to redo or
[24:51] look at the general plan again at
[24:53] Clipper in the near future?
[24:55] >> Is it the whole the whole general plan
[24:57] or just commercial?
[24:59] >> It It is making updates because when you
[25:02] do those Well, if you go to This is too,
[25:05] but when you go to When you go to the
[25:07] general plan, there's with things in the
[25:09] general plan, there's a lot of the
[25:11] strategies that we were supposed to be
[25:12] reviewing every year that have not been
[25:14] reviewed at all. And so, some of those
[25:17] are going to be reviewed because they
[25:19] should have been. And you're supposed to
[25:21] really be reviewing them and ours has
[25:23] been Well, it's been 5 years since they
[25:25] started.
[25:25] >> Yeah, so my question with that is are we
[25:28] getting ahead of if we start changing
[25:31] for secondary water if we happen to
[25:33] maybe change something in our overall
[25:36] general plan or does it go together or
[25:39] >> Yeah, maybe go together.
[25:41] >> like that and then amend it later or
[25:43] >> I think that's
[25:44] >> Yeah, I think some of these things we
[25:45] just start looking at and
[25:47] >> See.
[25:48] >> Yeah,
[25:49] I mean, all this was is just a
[25:50] preliminary discussion.
[25:51] >> to make a decision, but we're just
[25:53] exploring options.
[25:55] >> Look at it and see because there have
[25:57] been people that have came, you know,
[25:59] and
[25:59] >> It's a little bit of perspective as
[26:01] well. I found this common throughout
[26:03] other cities.
[26:04] Although
[26:05] where they have that commercial, I've
[26:07] had experience in
[26:08] some uh
[26:11] instances where I've seen them use
[26:13] culinary.
[26:14] Um I know for instance, like West Haven
[26:16] has some code that supports culinary
[26:18] usage because Bonavista, their culinary
[26:22] provider
[26:24] Well, they'll they'll they haven't They
[26:25] have code that will support
[26:27] zero steepings. So, no no water usage at
[26:30] all because their water provider uh
[26:32] Bonavista has a resolution like 2023
[26:35] that
[26:36] allows for zero irrigation at all,
[26:39] never. So, anyone on Bonavista, you
[26:41] can't irrigate. You can't have a drip
[26:43] line, nothing. So.
[26:45] >> I'm sure legislation's going
[26:47] >> Yeah, they really have requirements. So,
[26:49] I that resolution was sent to me and so
[26:50] then they have they've So, there are
[26:52] different ways to do it, I guess, is
[26:53] what I'm saying. Even if there's no
[26:54] irrigation, what they did in that case
[26:55] is if you provide that resolution to
[26:57] them, and then if you're 1,120 ft away
[27:00] from the nearest irrigation line
[27:02] for secondary, then you can get an
[27:04] exemption, and you can do a zero scaping
[27:06] in a commercial scenario. Um so, there
[27:09] are different ways to do it. Um that's
[27:11] what they've done. Um so, just some
[27:13] thoughts. I do think we have a The broad
[27:15] policy makes a lot of sense, in my
[27:16] opinion, but I do think maybe, and
[27:19] Darren could advise on this, there could
[27:20] be instances for sure commercial
[27:22] application, PUD application where it
[27:24] has We've got a lot of developers when
[27:26] they come in, they have this water-wise
[27:27] they like to promote, they're very
[27:28] excited about these very minimal systems
[27:31] that, you know, have these grand master
[27:34] landscape plans, and then they have
[27:35] really, really low irrigation use. And
[27:38] for that use, they're typically wanting
[27:39] to use culinary. Um I think that's
[27:41] something we'd be interesting to
[27:42] entertain. I just don't know if any of
[27:44] this would prohibit us from entertaining
[27:45] that, or if we could still, via
[27:47] development agreement, you know, write a
[27:50] you know, a usage agreement for
[27:51] culinary, and permit it along with Weber
[27:54] water support, right?
[27:56] >> That could be allowed in a development
[27:57] agreement, or we can make exemptions for
[27:59] specific for commercial in our code. So,
[28:02] either way.
[28:03] >> You got a thought, go for it.
[28:04] >> Well, if we've got all this water,
[28:07] and we've done dug two more wells, they
[28:10] just bonded $12 million
[28:12] for something. Are they planning on
[28:14] building those wells with this $12
[28:15] million, or
[28:16] >> I'm not
[28:17] >> What's their plan, right?
[28:18] I don't know. We've never heard of a
[28:19] plan for Weber water, culinary.
[28:21] >> So, that's maybe a meeting is a great
[28:23] idea before we start changing stuff.
[28:26] Yeah, I think it's a great idea.
[28:27] Let's find out what what they think they
[28:29] have available before we
[28:30] >> It doesn't seem like one well provides a
[28:32] lot of excess.
[28:33] >> Well, and I do know they actually have
[28:35] an attachment to Weber Basin already
[28:37] that if you get a 911, they got to just
[28:39] flip a valve.
[28:40] >> Which is just
[28:41] >> Which is going to cost a fortune, no
[28:43] doubt about it.
[28:44] Yeah, no doubt about it. But, there is
[28:47] you know, basically unlimited access to
[28:49] them and
[28:50] you know, that well over there, I know
[28:52] it didn't convince really great water.
[28:54] That's a for sure and for certain, but
[28:57] >> Anyway, it'd just be nice to know what
[28:58] they're
[28:58] >> Yeah, let's absolutely
[29:00] Let's table it until we Yeah,
[29:03] let's sit down with them and see what
[29:04] their plans are.
[29:06] >> So, the next thing is Tomato Days with
[29:08] Jamie.
[29:11] She's excited.
[29:14] » Hey, kudos to her
[29:16] for volunteering to do it. Anyway, why
[29:18] don't you take my seat here?
[29:21] >> Did she really volunteer to do it?
[29:24] Or was this an army volunteer
[29:26] stepping up?
[29:27] >> It was volunteer. No, I'm kidding.
[29:30] I took it on when Aaron was
[29:33] exiting
[29:34] and it's been fun. Yesterday or last
[29:37] night
[29:38] we did the flags in the ceremony or
[29:41] cemetery
[29:42] for the veterans for Memorial Day. So,
[29:45] that was fun.
[29:46] Um
[29:48] No, but for Tomato Days, I just kind of
[29:50] wanted to give you guys I know it's kind
[29:51] of far out, but I wanted to change it up
[29:55] and hopefully all of you don't get too
[29:59] upset,
[30:00] but council has in the past came and
[30:04] >> Oh, no, I'm not Hey, I'm excited to
[30:06] hear.
[30:07] >> Council in the past have done
[30:10] um the community dinner um resident
[30:12] dinner,
[30:13] right? You guys come
[30:15] >> and serve.
[30:16] >> Serve, right?
[30:17] We're going to change that up just a
[30:18] little bit and you guys are going to
[30:20] plan it. You guys are going to get the
[30:23] food,
[30:24] pick it up
[30:26] under my supervision.
[30:29] I will help you guys get your food
[30:30] handlers permit. I will still have all
[30:34] the tables. I will still have the tables
[30:35] and tablecloth, but you guys are going
[30:37] to plan it. You guys are going to be
[30:39] preparing it and you guys are going to
[30:41] be serving it completely for the people
[30:44] that voted you guys in.
[30:45] >> Well, we've kind of done that now.
[30:46] >> That's not too different. It's not
[30:47] different.
[30:47] >> We've done the tomatoes, we've done the
[30:49] corn, we've done the
[30:50] everything but the meat, basically.
[30:52] >> Okay. And you can
[30:54] still do
[30:55] the
[30:56] meat from Ken's or the meat from
[30:59] Chattanooga
[31:00] >> Godsey's.
[31:01] >> And you can still do that. You're just picking the menu. Basically,
[31:04] you guys are coming together and
[31:06] >> That's a good idea. Pick the menu.
[31:08] >> You guys get to
[31:10] choose it.
[31:11] What are you going to cook? What are you
[31:13] going to serve? You guys are going to do
[31:15] that. It's
[31:16] not only takes a little bit of a load
[31:18] off of me, but it also helps you guys
[31:20] work together as well.
[31:22] >> Sweet.
[31:24] >> If you have any questions, so kind of
[31:25] start planning the menu.
[31:27] >> And you are
[31:28] >> What do you want to serve?
[31:28] >> You are addressing the guy who ran
[31:30] Hooper Tomato Days for 7 years.
[31:32] Completely got all the food, got all the
[31:34] stuff, got the volunteers to do it.
[31:38] >> I second that Ray does it.
[31:40] >> I said did it for 7 years, okay?
[31:43] Don't want to do it anymore. We actually
[31:46] >> That's one of your assignments, isn't
[31:48] it? City Council assignments. I think we
[31:49] put
[31:50] tomato day
[31:51] >> I'll be in the vicinity.
[31:52] >> Yeah, yeah, yeah.
[31:54] We're in this year.
[31:55] >> And everybody loves it.
[31:57] >> Your family Your family's going to want
[31:59] to jump in
[32:00] >> It's great.
[32:00] >> and help.
[32:01] >> No, my family wants to get out of town
[32:03] so they don't have to.
[32:04] >> No, they're in. So, give me some support
[32:06] to Jamie, you know, just to reiterate
[32:08] this a little more. So,
[32:10] what we're saying is we want us to be in
[32:13] charge of it, that she's not having to
[32:15] worry.
[32:15] >> About procurement and stuff.
[32:17] >> About about any of it, because what has
[32:19] happened, and yes, it used to be I think
[32:21] a little more City Council, and I've
[32:22] also been one that's done tomato days
[32:24] for a number of years.
[32:26] >> about the rest of the meat. The motion
[32:27] for which meat is chosen That'll be a good meeting.
[32:32] >> But but anyway, just because usually
[32:35] what has happened is we give
[32:37] assignments. I mean I even know as me as
[32:39] to me that you know when I was doing it
[32:40] I would come and pass the assignment
[32:42] sheet along and some people would sign
[32:44] up, some people wouldn't sign up and
[32:46] then it was a huge job. So it really
[32:50] should be we're in charge of it, we're
[32:52] responsible for every bit of it. But
[32:54] Jamie's not there worried because that
[32:55] has not happened.
[32:57] >> And so what's our budget for the food?
[33:00] Do we have one?
[33:01] >> Oh that's a good question. I'll get back
[33:02] to you on that.
[33:04] So I'll give you a little feedback on
[33:05] that. We usually charge like $3 a
[33:07] restaurant to come. The Coalition
[33:10] Western Weaver CTC has given us money
[33:12] because that's like a family dinner
[33:15] night. So usually it's pretty much paid
[33:18] for with what we collect. I mean it's
[33:20] donation so if someone comes and they
[33:22] don't have money we still let them come
[33:24] and eat but we have gotten some
[33:27] donations.
[33:28] And so Chad Funk has done the food. We
[33:30] did pulled pork last year. We did the
[33:33] smoked hamburgers and hot dogs and
[33:35] people got a little panic because smoked
[33:37] hamburgers are pink on the inside and
[33:39] they said oh no these aren't cooked.
[33:40] Well they were. So then we went back to
[33:43] the pulled pork. You did corn again last
[33:45] year.
[33:46] Um you know they sliced the tomatoes but
[33:48] really if you just whoever we just are
[33:51] in charge of it with that.
[33:54] >> And getting volunteers to help take care
[33:56] of them and stuff too. That's going to
[33:57] >> I mean whether it's family or volunteers
[33:59] that you find like
[34:01] Uh I think last year we had us office
[34:05] staff went over and was slicing
[34:06] watermelons and stuff there.
[34:08] Office staff but here your families are
[34:10] working together.
[34:12] And you guys
[34:14] working. Yeah we spent a lot of time
[34:15] down there shucking corn and stuff like
[34:17] >> Yeah you guys were there.
[34:19] Yeah.
[34:19] >> That was cool.
[34:20] >> So it's not much different at all.
[34:22] >> No it doesn't sound like a lot of change
[34:24] to me though.
[34:25] >> And then another thing to keep in mind
[34:27] is the 5K. I don't have
[34:31] um
[34:32] volunteer. You might have saw that on
[34:34] the door. The
[34:36] >> Someone
[34:37] run that?
[34:38] >> to not run.
[34:39] Well, you say run, but it's a 5K. Um
[34:42] >> Okay, drive.
[34:43] >> Organize.
[34:43] it. Yeah.
[34:45] Be the director of the 5K.
[34:47] >> Craig could run it anyway.
[34:48] >> I'd drive it. I got a car. I can run it
[34:50] 5 miles for nothing.
[34:52] >> So, if you know somebody that would love
[34:54] to organize something and
[34:57] be in charge of the 5K.
[34:59] >> I think we have enough
[35:00] >> I know.
[35:00] >> running enthusiasts around. We ought to
[35:01] be able to find somebody to put that
[35:02] together.
[35:03] >> I know. I've put it on social media.
[35:05] I've put it on the door.
[35:07] We haven't got anybody yet. So, if you
[35:08] have somebody in mind, let me know.
[35:10] >> I know a guy that runs them 100-mile
[35:12] marathons.
[35:12] >> Yeah.
[35:13] >> 5K to him would be warm-ups.
[35:16] >> Yeah. Well, they wouldn't get to run it.
[35:18] >> No.
[35:18] >> They would They would have to sit.
[35:19] >> I know, but they would
[35:20] >> It's organizing. It really is a lot
[35:23] >> There's There's got to be people out
[35:24] there that are involved in people that
[35:26] run
[35:27] >> Mhm.
[35:27] >> a lot.
[35:29] >> Yeah.
[35:30] But, I'll come and speak again as it
[35:33] gets closer, but I just didn't want it
[35:34] to be
[35:36] you know, a surprise.
[35:38] >> It's a good time.
[35:41] We got time to work on this stuff.
[35:42] >> That's it?
[35:43] >> Yeah, that's it.
[35:44] >> That wasn't much of a change.
[35:46] >> Oh, wait.
[35:48] >> Dinner and a 5K?
[35:49] >> Well, and then just helping with the
[35:51] rodeo ticket. I mean, there's always
[35:52] things other things we need to do to
[35:54] Yeah, but as it gets closer, I'll give
[35:56] you guys some areas that we need
[35:59] coverage in. Do you guys want to be
[36:00] there all week?
[36:02] Is that mandatory? All week?
[36:05] >> No.
[36:06] >> Yeah, it's it's mandatory when you got
[36:08] voted in.
[36:09] >> No.
[36:10] >> When you swore in. I think there was
[36:12] like a sentence
[36:12] >> There was no clause in there that said
[36:14] mandatory.
[36:15] >> days a week
[36:16] cuz I'm only two days.
[36:20] » Okay.
[36:21] Thank you.
[36:22] >> Sweet.
[36:22] >> Okay. Thank you.
[36:24] >> It's okay.
[36:24] >> Whatever you need, David Craig will be
[36:26] happy to do
[36:27] >> Thank you.
[36:28] >> We really like
[36:29] >> His wife might be 5K.
[36:32] >> Did you say she would?
[36:33] >> She might. She might.
[36:33] >> She might.
[36:34] >> She's pretty.
[36:35] >> She's that type of person.
[36:36] >> Yeah.
[36:38] >> I'm sure we can find somebody,
[36:39] especially with some notice. Thank you.
[36:43] » Okay, we have a few minutes. I thought
[36:44] if we did then we'll go through this.
[36:46] I actually serve on the advisory council
[36:48] for the healthy Utah community.
[36:51] And Helper City 3 years ago applied and
[36:54] was designated as a healthy Utah
[36:57] community. So, I'm just going to, you
[36:59] know,
[37:01] take one of these because you're
[37:02] probably aware, if you're not aware, but
[37:04] let me tell you a little bit about what
[37:08] So, the the
[37:10] health department and with the state of
[37:12] Utah, they developed this program.
[37:15] And there's three parts that actually
[37:16] come to this program. It's active
[37:18] living, access to healthy food, and
[37:20] mental health.
[37:22] So, when you get your designation, you
[37:24] are you set goals, and then you are
[37:27] supposed to be working on these goals
[37:29] over the past 3 years. And because I have a degree in health, I
[37:34] probably have a little more passion
[37:36] about this than some people do. But, you
[37:39] know, one comment I made at the advisory
[37:41] board that I sit on,
[37:43] there's no reason for us to do this if
[37:45] we're really not going to do it. Having
[37:47] a designation, you know, you'll see on
[37:49] the back when our name is on the back
[37:51] that says we are one of the cities,
[37:53] but what good does it do for us to say
[37:55] we're a city if then we don't do
[37:57] anything about it? You know, that
[37:59] completely defeats the whole purpose of
[38:02] doing this. Well, this is the year that
[38:04] we then can redesignate
[38:07] as being a healthy Utah community.
[38:09] >> Are these those that have
[38:11] been awarded?
[38:12] >> These are the those that have been
[38:13] awarded.
[38:13] >> Yeah, cuz I have I can show you a
[38:15] picture when Helper City got awarded
[38:17] this 2 years ago.
[38:18] >> And you'll see it says in green, those
[38:20] are the redesignate communities. Not all
[38:23] communities
[38:24] >> We're not re-designated.
[38:25] >> No, because we've only ever done it
[38:26] once, just for the 3 years. But again,
[38:29] we need to decide as a council you know,
[38:32] if we're really going to do this, then
[38:34] we need to be committed to doing it. And
[38:36] it means more than we just you know, I
[38:38] write a letter and say yes, we're going
[38:40] to, and then nothing's been done because
[38:42] I know the last couple of years I've
[38:44] asked multiple times, okay, what are we
[38:46] doing? Um and we and we haven't done we
[38:49] haven't done it.
[38:50] >> What are the options? Like what
[38:52] >> Well, so so I I'll tell you some things.
[38:55] You know, one thing they said we had a
[38:56] pickleball court. Well, well, we do. So,
[38:59] and we do have a pickleball tournament
[39:01] with Hooper Tomato Days, so that can
[39:03] count as far as the active living. Um
[39:07] you know, so I'll just tell you cuz I
[39:09] went through and make kind of make some
[39:10] notes cuz like I said, I like all this
[39:12] kind of stuff. Um years ago, when we
[39:15] very first started and there was a
[39:17] Healthy Utah designation, and we're
[39:18] talking probably 18 years ago. There
[39:21] were some things and I at that time was
[39:23] a
[39:24] volunteer. And we had students that came
[39:26] and helped us from Weber State, and we
[39:29] ended up um we had
[39:31] like we did a walk with the mayor, we
[39:34] did some other historical walks, we
[39:36] would give pedometers, there were some
[39:37] other things that we did along with
[39:39] that. Then and they used to give us
[39:41] money. Well, then they quit
[39:43] giving us they did away with the
[39:44] program, and then they came back with
[39:46] this one, which they don't give us
[39:47] money, but we need to start. That was
[39:49] one of the everyone one suggestion, you
[39:50] know, they would give us some money. So,
[39:53] some active living things we could do.
[39:55] We already do the pickleball tournament,
[39:57] we kind of talked about maybe having a
[39:58] three-on-three basketball tournament
[40:01] would be healthy living. One thing that
[40:03] the with the um America 250 that they
[40:07] have suggested is having like people
[40:09] walk 250 miles. So, we could start like
[40:13] June and keep track to the end of the
[40:15] year, you know, and people no longer
[40:18] do like keep track on paper. They all
[40:21] would would have to do some kind of
[40:22] Google Doc that people could keep track.
[40:25] We do the 5K race for Hooper Tomato
[40:28] Days. We did used to have a family bike
[40:30] ride with Tomato Days, but then they it
[40:32] that went away. But we could have a
[40:34] family bike ride, anything that as far
[40:37] as active living that is encouraging for
[40:39] people to be healthy and walking.
[40:42] >> Didn't we have a volleyball tournament?
[40:44] >> We have a volleyball tournament. Mhm.
[40:45] >> That counts.
[40:46] >> Yeah, that would Yeah. I mean, we are
[40:48] doing but those are specific we do those
[40:51] once a year, but is there anything we're
[40:52] doing to actually encourage people to
[40:54] >> what keeps it going. It's something
[40:56] that's just part of our community that
[40:58] the community does all of the It's just
[41:00] part of our lifestyle.
[41:02] >> Yeah. So, we need to have something that we do. I mean, are we So,
[41:07] I did a wellness program for the Forest
[41:09] Service for a number of years and we did
[41:10] all these active campaigns all the time.
[41:13] So, stuff like this like I said, well,
[41:15] then then we'll go on. But we need to
[41:17] come up with something if we are going
[41:18] to do it, if not, I'm not going to say
[41:21] we're going to redesignate and then we
[41:22] don't do one thing with it because
[41:24] that's what's happened. We have We
[41:26] haven't done anything. You know, it says
[41:28] here we're supposed to have this
[41:29] community coalition. Well, we're already
[41:31] part of
[41:32] the Western Weber CTC that we could
[41:35] help, you know, we're already part of a
[41:37] coalition. So, that would count. So, it
[41:39] says, you know, um you have to have your
[41:42] own coalition, which I don't believe we
[41:44] have one or had one, or identify one
[41:47] that already exists. Well, there is
[41:49] already one that already exists that we
[41:51] could be part of that coalition. Okay,
[41:54] so those are things with active um
[41:56] access to healthy food. One thing that
[41:57] Hooper said before is that we were going
[41:59] to have
[42:00] um healthy things on our website. Well,
[42:03] I and on Facebook and I and I don't know
[42:05] that we did that. I never ever saw that.
[42:08] So, again, we can't just say we're going
[42:10] to do it if we don't ever do it. So,
[42:13] that, you know, unless with the forest
[42:14] service.
[42:15] I mean, there's simple campaigns you can
[42:17] do as far as healthy food. Like, we had
[42:19] a water card where people had to keep
[42:21] track of if they drank so much water
[42:23] every day. You think that seems so
[42:25] simple, but it's really not because not
[42:27] a lot of people drink enough water. But
[42:31] again, you know, we had a little card,
[42:32] but they wouldn't do that because but
[42:33] people could keep track. Um we had like
[42:36] a eating vegetables campaign. You're
[42:39] supposed to be eating three to five
[42:40] vegetables a day, which most Americans
[42:42] don't. But again, or you know, um you're
[42:46] supposed to be eating two to four fruits
[42:47] a day, which we don't. We've kind of
[42:49] talked about we could maybe do a as with
[42:52] staff cuz I was telling them all, you
[42:53] know, my ideas. Um we could do maybe a
[42:56] farm to table share because when it
[42:58] comes time with gardens, people have
[42:59] leftover stuff that we could maybe make
[43:02] it something outside, use one of our
[43:03] little
[43:05] We have those little portable houses,
[43:07] and then people could bring their
[43:08] leftover zucchini, and people would
[43:10] always know they could come and check,
[43:12] and you could share that. Um someone at
[43:15] this meeting I was to city I can't
[43:17] remember now what city they lived in. It
[43:18] was a small one.
[43:20] I don't remember now, but they said it
[43:22] was not uncommon to go into the post
[43:24] office and see zucchini there on the
[43:26] calendar.
[43:26] >> a that's a great idea.
[43:29] >> But we're not going to do that, Ryan,
[43:31] but we could do it up front. We could
[43:33] have something cuz sometimes there is
[43:35] leftover.
[43:35] >> Postal carriers can drop your mail, grab
[43:37] your zucchini, and take it back.
[43:39] >> But they could bring them. And then, you
[43:41] know, we have our health fair that could
[43:42] go along, you know, with this, too. Um
[43:45] as far as mental health, again, we have
[43:47] the health fair.
[43:49] You know, someone suggested about
[43:51] offering first aid classes that we could
[43:54] teach people CPR, you know, first aid.
[43:58] Again, we have the Western Weber CTC
[44:00] that offers classes all the time. They
[44:02] call it um mental health first aid,
[44:05] where you come and learn about helping
[44:07] to identify people that could have
[44:09] stress issues or suicidal thoughts or,
[44:13] you know,
[44:14] Anyway, so my question is, and we don't
[44:17] have to decide this tonight cuz this is
[44:18] just a discussion item, but is this
[44:20] something we want to keep doing because for me if I'm going to write a
[44:25] letter and say we're going to do it,
[44:26] then we better be committed to doing it.
[44:29] If we're not, then we can be one of
[44:31] those cities that doesn't re-designate.
[44:34] So,
[44:36] thoughts.
[44:37] >> So, putting a big movie screen out here
[44:39] and serving hot dogs and potato chips
[44:42] >> Probably not going to qualify.
[44:44] >> Okay, that could count though under
[44:46] health, you know,
[44:47] >> Mental health for me, huh?
[44:49] >> Yeah, any of the community events can
[44:51] count towards mental health, but like I
[44:53] say, the coalition specifically does do
[44:56] mental health. I mean, you could always
[44:58] do We used to call them lunch and learns
[45:00] at the Forest Service, but we would
[45:02] actually have a speaker that would come,
[45:05] you know,
[45:06] >> So,
[45:08] you know, I don't know if you're
[45:09] thinking
[45:11] just go go big or go home or do we just
[45:14] start something small this year and add
[45:17] to it each year until we get our feet
[45:20] under it and find out what's
[45:23] how it's working.
[45:25] You know, I I don't know. I'm just
[45:26] throwing
[45:26] >> So, so you have to when you apply
[45:29] because
[45:31] So, so we should have been working on
[45:33] this all along and because what they'll
[45:34] do is they'll come back to your our city
[45:36] and they do a little video and they
[45:37] present it at this you'll see it in
[45:39] October. And they'll say, "Hooper City
[45:41] was doing this and this and they've
[45:43] expanded to this."
[45:46] We can't say Hooper City was going to do
[45:48] it and and then we have a blank a blank
[45:51] screen. So, we do have to kind of we we
[45:53] would need to come up with some goals of
[45:55] some things we're going to work on.
[45:57] I am more than happy to do this because
[46:01] I love all this kind of stuff anyway.
[46:03] Like I said, my degree is in health. I
[46:05] have experience doing this, but it still
[46:07] has to be something as a city if we
[46:09] think there is value in this. Um, when
[46:13] we used to do it before, and back then
[46:15] we'd get get pedometers. That was one of
[46:17] the things, but now everyone keeps track
[46:18] on their, you know, watches or whatever.
[46:20] No one carries pedometers anymore.
[46:23] We could try some things. So, that's one
[46:25] thing you try. If it works, great. If
[46:27] people don't like it, great, then you
[46:29] come up with something else. But, I
[46:32] think
[46:34] I don't think they I think they mean if
[46:35] we're going to sign up that we're
[46:36] committed to doing something. South Salt
[46:40] Lake does it. Have you heard about this?
[46:41] >> Mhm.
[46:42] >> Do they do?
[46:42] >> They do. I I'm trying to Are you lumping
[46:44] this under the tomato day
[46:46] discussion?
[46:48] This uh
[46:49] discussion, yeah.
[46:50] >> Yeah. Kind of lumping. Yeah.
[46:52] >> I Yeah. I think it's great. And we have
[46:54] something similar, but I think we should
[46:55] put it on another agenda.
[46:57] >> And
[46:57] we And we need to vote on it too if if
[47:00] we even want to. But, anyway, most of
[47:03] the stuff went along with tomato days.
[47:05] If we wanted to do a three-on-three, you
[47:07] know, with the volleyball, and but
[47:10] anyway, take these, look at them, and
[47:12] we'll put it on a discussion because it
[47:14] will have to be something we vote on.
[47:16] Whether we really want to do it or we
[47:19] don't want to do it.
[47:21] You know.
[47:21] >> And the idea is to do it year after year.
[47:24] >> year.
[47:25] Mhm.
[47:26] >> Something the city keeps
[47:28] >> So, this is like a three-year plan.
[47:30] >> At least.
[47:30] >> So, this is not like our deputy city
[47:33] recorder could just be over and do the
[47:34] whole thing.
[47:35] >> Uh, no. We're not putting that on a
[47:37] >> Well, she could.
[47:39] do that, but
[47:41] >> Yeah. No, but but
[47:44] we don't want that to be one I And I
[47:47] already said that. I'm not going to get
[47:48] this thing. But, but it This really is
[47:50] under us, you know. So, we will put it
[47:52] on a and we will vote and see if it's
[47:55] something we really want to do or we
[47:56] don't. So. one of the things I talked
[47:59] about was a farmer's market at Tomato
[48:01] Days, but that
[48:02] never really
[48:04] came to fruition.
[48:05] >> That shouldn't be that hard to put
[48:06] together.
[48:07] >> Yeah, the people they don't really have
[48:08] the crops anymore to do it. We have a
[48:10] hard time getting proper tomatoes at
[48:12] Tomato Days.
[48:14] >> Yeah, but I think you get people to come
[48:16] from out of town and you can bring stuff
[48:17] to the farmer's market.
[48:20] Yeah, people all over the Salt Lake do
[48:22] the farmer's market.
[48:23] >> Not not by September.
[48:25] We get peaches and
[48:27] honey.
[48:28] >> I don't know if there'll be any peaches
[48:29] this year. There ain't going to be
[48:29] >> No, this year we won't even have
[48:30] peaches. And if there's no peaches,
[48:32] maybe we have no bees. So, that could be
[48:35] a problem, too.
[48:36] So, okay.
[48:38] everything then discussion on
[48:40] agenda items. Was there anything we
[48:42] still have a few minutes? Did anybody
[48:44] want to do before most of our stuff
[48:46] tonight is just discussion things that
[48:49] we're going to be talking about, so
[48:52] >> One thing that I
[48:54] do have
[48:54] You know, that's on the trail properties
[48:57] lease. So, that one thing needs to be
[48:58] corrected right there in the middle cuz
[49:00] that makes no sense.
[49:01] And there's another thing here on the
[49:03] trail properties lease that says family
[49:06] designated as a family, that's a person
[49:08] living alone to a more persons related
[49:10] by blood or marriage or a group of not
[49:13] more than 10 persons who need not be
[49:15] related by blood or marriage.
[49:17] >> And you're talking about a care
[49:17] facility?
[49:18] >> care facility.
[49:19] >> facility code.
[49:20] >> Yeah.
[49:20] >> Okay, is that what that is?
[49:22] >> Yes.
[49:22] >> Yeah, so we'll talk about that, too.
[49:23] >> Okay, when you're talking about that
[49:25] >> What about the
[49:25] >> And then the section code changes there.
[49:27] >> Yeah.
[49:28] >> Related to trails, it wouldn't make any
[49:29] sense.
[49:30] >> No.
[49:30] >> What item on the trail lease did you
[49:32] mention?
[49:33] >> Just in the middle of the thing that
[49:34] says whereas the city would like to have
[49:37] this access one there's a like a a one
[49:41] not an isolated
[49:41] >> Oh, you're in the actual agreement.
[49:43] Okay.
[49:44] >> The trail lease.
[49:45] >> Yeah, there's just a line right there in
[49:46] the middle.
[49:47] >> Whereas the city
[49:47] >> Maybe punctuation is bad, but the way
[49:50] >> one not an isolated ability
[49:52] >> Yeah, that
[49:53] >> if at one point there was a two, there
[49:54] was a list here and I don't know.
[49:56] >> Yeah, I don't know. It just that didn't
[49:57] make any sense when we read it. It's
[49:59] like, yeah, that don't make any sense.
[50:03] That's an easy fix. I'm not saying it's
[50:05] a hard fix, it just needs to be fixed.
[50:10] » Hey,
[50:11] well, if nothing else then
[50:13] >> Have we ever given any thought to
[50:15] implementing a restriction of data
[50:17] centers?
[50:19] >> Have
[50:20] >> Is there such a thing
[50:21] in the city in the state of New York?
[50:23] >> Well, I mean, we're I think that's a
[50:25] great thing to put on an agenda.
[50:27] >> I think you finished.
[50:28] >> Yeah, we should probably put it on the
[50:29] >> Are people exploring that at all?
[50:31] >> Is that that that you've heard?
[50:33] >> Um, I think it's being explored. Yeah,
[50:35] everywhere.
[50:37] That's something that
[50:37] >> of Florida was exploring it for the
[50:39] entire state.
[50:39] >> Yeah, I think it's everywhere in the
[50:41] nation, so.
[50:42] >> Um, I think it's said DJ, oh, go ahead.
[50:44] >> Yeah, something that we should
[50:46] probably not discuss today, I think.
[50:48] >> Put it on the agenda down the
[50:49] >> agenda. I think that's something we
[50:51] could
[50:52] And we have a lot of land here, right? A
[50:54] lot of land, so it's
[50:57] something good to discuss.
[50:58] >> One thing that Sherry mentioned to me
[51:00] and as you guys have a discussion on
[51:01] this, my only ask from a staff
[51:03] standpoint would just be these are broad
[51:05] in and of themselves. Some of them may
[51:06] be simple, we'll see how the character
[51:08] facility is. You actually briefly go
[51:09] over them, it might be a simple
[51:10] numerical change, but
[51:13] as we identify topics,
[51:16] if you can help prioritize them in my
[51:18] mind, cuz we have two right now that'll
[51:20] go to planning commission, right? That
[51:22] we're going to work on and this is four
[51:24] more items and I realize they're small,
[51:27] but they can be robust, especially if
[51:30] the determination is is we don't have an
[51:31] ordinance, we should create an ordinance
[51:33] or we should, you know, modify an
[51:34] ordinance extensively. So, and then if
[51:36] you can help prioritize the ones that
[51:38] feel really significant and ones that
[51:39] don't, so that we can make sure we're
[51:41] getting them and making it actionable
[51:42] and really moving on them. And then
[51:43] also,
[51:44] it might be interesting if one of you
[51:45] have a particular interest in one of
[51:47] them. I'm not trying to, you know, push
[51:49] my job off, but uh that's what I'm going
[51:51] to start doing with the planning
[51:51] commission to an extent because I don't
[51:53] have I mean I have a lot of land use
[51:55] experience here and some expertise on
[51:57] zoning, etc., but motor vehicles, I
[52:00] guess you suppose you can stretch it to
[52:01] land use, but I'm not so sure that I
[52:03] have any more
[52:04] expertise than anybody. So, one of you
[52:06] feels like, "Yeah, I'm going to look
[52:07] into this a little or let's give it to
[52:09] planning commission." And I can help
[52:10] kind of see if there's someone wants to
[52:11] champion that, and then obviously staff
[52:13] will advise and give as much comments
[52:15] possible, but I think the more we can
[52:17] prioritize and then kind of have someone
[52:19] own it and so it's not just a fleeting
[52:21] thing. I'd like to just see these things
[52:23] move and actually get some transition to
[52:25] them or some traction to them so that we
[52:28] get some things, you know, approved and changed. So.
[52:32] yeah, just let me just let me know
[52:34] as you guys see today this one feels
[52:35] really important to me to get on it, and
[52:37] I think that I have some expertise here,
[52:38] etc. And I'll I'll leverage your guys'
[52:41] abilities.
[52:41] >> And while we're here with the care
[52:43] facility, um
[52:44] just while we're at this work meeting,
[52:46] this is obviously going to flow up to
[52:47] the next meeting. But, the state code,
[52:50] there's a specific state code that
[52:51] requires that requires cities to not
[52:54] regulate residential facilities. Um this
[52:57] has been passed down from the feds, so
[52:59] we cannot regulate to the extent allowed
[53:02] by law. So, there's only certain reasons
[53:04] why we'd be able to regulate it, and
[53:06] it's because the state has said that we
[53:09] can't say that a single family unit is
[53:12] less than four.
[53:14] So, our code is wrong.
[53:16] Um we need to fix that. So, it's been
[53:18] updated in the state code, so we can't
[53:19] say that a a single family is less than
[53:21] four.
[53:22] So, because of that number,
[53:25] we could reply require conditional use
[53:28] for these types of facilities for
[53:32] more than four.
[53:33] So, sorry for Yeah. So, for more than
[53:36] four.
[53:36] >> What does your code say?
[53:37] >> Say that last statement.
[53:38] >> Our code doesn't have any kind of it
[53:41] doesn't make it a conditional use unless
[53:42] it's eight or more.
[53:44] >> Say that last statement again. The state
[53:45] code if it's less than four, we can't
[53:48] make it No, we Can you clarify that?
[53:50] >> Yeah, so a single-family limit So, a
[53:52] single-family dwelling
[53:54] the smallest that we could have it be is
[53:56] four unless we are a certain type of
[53:59] like a a college town.
[54:01] So, four.
[54:05] That's why
[54:06] we can
[54:07] make it a conditional use
[54:10] to if there's a facility like this
[54:12] of more than four
[54:15] So, we can we can still regulate it even
[54:17] though there's a state code that says
[54:18] you cannot regulate those facilities.
[54:21] If it's more than four, we can.
[54:23] >> That's a good example. You said it was a
[54:25] residential, right?
[54:26] >> In a residential zone.
[54:27] >> What about commercial zone?
[54:29] >> In commercial
[54:30] Well, it depends. That That would be up
[54:32] to you guys. It It would be allowed.
[54:34] It That'd be up to the code.
[54:37] So, but I'm The problem is in
[54:39] residential.
[54:40] I I guess the issue, sorry, not problem.
[54:43] The issue and that's what it
[54:44] specifically says is in residential, you
[54:47] can't regulate it.
[54:48] >> Okay.
[54:49] >> Yeah. So,
[54:50] >> We have a minute. What are our
[54:51] definitions for family? All right, so
[54:53] you go to
[54:53] >> I think it's two,
[54:55] isn't it?
[54:56] No, no, sorry. It's two and then
[54:58] 10.
[54:59] So, it's two if you're if you're a
[55:01] family. If you're married
[55:03] >> or more persons related by blood or
[55:04] marriage, okay.
[55:04] >> A group of not more than 10 persons
[55:06] related by blood, okay. Related by blood
[55:08] and then there is what The next number
[55:10] >> Eight or fewer unrelated mentally and or
[55:12] >> Yeah, yeah.
[55:15] » So, how would that apply to our
[55:17] situation before?
[55:18] >> Oh, I was just explaining the
[55:21] reasoning when we can make the
[55:22] conditional use. This state code
[55:25] says basically you can't regulate these.
[55:27] >> Sure.
[55:28] >> But we can as a family conditional code
[55:30] of the family.
[55:32] >> Understood.
[55:33] >> Does that make sense?
[55:33] >> Yeah, it does.
[55:34] >> So, we probably need to make dual
[55:36] changes.
[55:39] » So, when we go out there, you want to do
[55:40] this paragraph by paragraph and we'll
[55:43] get it. So,
[55:44] Okay. Thank you very much. Very good
[55:46] meeting.
[55:57] » So, Larry, did you leave a pen there or
[55:59] not?
[56:20] Did you leave a pen there?
[56:21] >> Yeah.
[56:34] Hey, Bruce.
[56:35] >> He did it on time, didn't he?
[56:36] >> The third time's the charm, right?
[56:39] >> Hello. We'll see.
[56:42] >> You wish I would like to see it.
[56:52] I got three. Which one do you
[57:02] Probably no more than I would expect.
[57:33] » Two things that I got
[57:36] Okay.
[58:12] » Uh yeah, I don't know what to tell him
[58:13] if he's not waiting here.
[58:42] Uh
[58:43] to be determined. We're seeing him at
[58:44] the gym.
[58:47] Yeah, that would be great.
[58:49] We can find him at the court.
[59:01] We can connect him at the court.
[59:16] Yeah.
[1:00:13] » We would like to welcome you to the City
[1:00:16] Council meeting for Hurricane City. It
[1:00:18] is May 21st, 2026.
[1:00:21] We apologize we're having some technical
[1:00:23] difficulties tonight, so you probably
[1:00:25] won't be able to see the meeting, but
[1:00:27] you should still be able to hear it.
[1:00:30] And if that doesn't work, it will be
[1:00:31] recorded and will be posted to our
[1:00:33] website later on. We love technology
[1:00:36] until it doesn't work.
[1:00:39] We want to excuse Council member Craig.
[1:00:41] He is at his daughter's graduation
[1:00:44] tonight and he may be joining us on Zoom
[1:00:47] depending on how long that graduation
[1:00:49] goes.
[1:00:51] I'm sure being among the mayor and I
[1:00:52] will be conducting this meeting.
[1:00:55] We are going to have our opening
[1:00:56] ceremony, a pledge of allegiance by
[1:00:59] Council member Fawers, and then a
[1:01:00] reverence by Council member La Plata.
[1:01:03] >> Everybody, please stand.
[1:01:06] And repeat after me.
[1:01:08] I pledge allegiance to the flag
[1:01:11] of the United States of America,
[1:01:14] and to the republic for which it stands,
[1:01:17] one nation under God, indivisible, with
[1:01:22] liberty and justice for all.
[1:01:30] » Our Father in heaven, we are indeed
[1:01:32] grateful that we can meet here tonight
[1:01:34] with
[1:01:35] our residents and with the city council
[1:01:38] and everyone that's involved.
[1:01:41] We're grateful for this little community
[1:01:44] that we have to live in
[1:01:45] and for those that
[1:01:47] helped us to
[1:01:49] achieve those goals that we're seeking
[1:01:51] for
[1:01:53] a happy place to live and a good place
[1:01:55] to live.
[1:01:56] We're grateful for all all that thou
[1:01:58] blessest us with. We're grateful for the
[1:02:00] moisture that we've received this year
[1:02:02] and we ask that
[1:02:03] continue to bless us with more moisture
[1:02:06] in our
[1:02:07] homes and
[1:02:08] uh help us all without end.
[1:02:11] We ask thee bless uh us during this
[1:02:13] meeting
[1:02:14] that we will be able to discuss uh the
[1:02:17] agenda items that we
[1:02:19] have before us and that we will be able
[1:02:21] to come up with good resolutions and
[1:02:23] discussions and
[1:02:26] we ask thee that
[1:02:28] bless those that will be addressing the
[1:02:30] council today
[1:02:32] that they will share their thoughts and
[1:02:35] be calm and
[1:02:37] uh
[1:02:38] that we can all
[1:02:39] leave this
[1:02:41] meeting this night and still be friends
[1:02:44] and be able to enjoy each other's
[1:02:46] companionship.
[1:02:48] This we pray for in the name of thy son
[1:02:49] Jesus Christ.
[1:02:53] » Thank you.
[1:02:55] Just a couple of announcements I wanted
[1:02:56] to make. Our May newsletter is on our
[1:02:59] website. So, make sure you check that
[1:03:02] out. There's a lot of good important
[1:03:04] information. We want to thank all of
[1:03:06] those that came and helped us put the
[1:03:08] flags on the cemetery yesterday and
[1:03:10] that's honoring the veterans in honor of
[1:03:13] our Memorial Day that's coming up. I
[1:03:16] don't know how many of you noticed, but
[1:03:17] back on the table there is our proposed
[1:03:20] property tax impact schedule. And so, if
[1:03:23] you haven't already picked up a a copy
[1:03:25] of that, make sure you do. That it talks
[1:03:28] about the proposed tax that we are Heber
[1:03:31] is
[1:03:32] contemplating doing a truth in taxation.
[1:03:35] The next on our agenda then is our
[1:03:37] public comments. You will have 3 minutes
[1:03:40] if you'll come up and state your name in
[1:03:43] the microphone. And and we
[1:03:46] we're there to hear those comments now.
[1:03:48] Is there anyone?
[1:03:51] » I just had a quick thought while I was
[1:03:53] sitting there and you guys were talking
[1:03:55] about like the healthy
[1:03:56] >> State your name.
[1:03:57] >> initiative. Oh, my name is Nicole Brown.
[1:03:59] Sorry.
[1:04:00] Um
[1:04:01] I One of the things I love about Tomato
[1:04:04] Days is the farmers' market when you can
[1:04:07] go in and buy like the local farmers
[1:04:09] like all of their
[1:04:12] you know, crops and stuff like that. And
[1:04:14] maybe if we did like a farmers' market
[1:04:16] or something once a month in the parking
[1:04:18] lot. I don't know. It was just an idea
[1:04:19] that I wanted to talk about. And
[1:04:21] healthy.
[1:04:22] >> Okay, thank you.
[1:04:24] Any other comments?
[1:04:30] » I'm a little taller than my sister.
[1:04:33] My name is Michelle Pinkston.
[1:04:35] I work for Heber Irrigation. I'm here
[1:04:38] representing them. And I have a little
[1:04:40] statement that I want to read.
[1:04:42] Heber Irrigation values its
[1:04:43] long-standing relationship with Heber
[1:04:45] City.
[1:04:46] And
[1:04:48] I need my glasses. I'm wondering why I
[1:04:49] can't see. And has consistently treated
[1:04:52] the city in the same manner as all other
[1:04:54] shareholders in accordance with the
[1:04:56] company's articles of incorporation and
[1:04:58] bylaws.
[1:04:59] For more than a century, Heber
[1:05:00] Irrigation has worked to serve this
[1:05:02] community fairly, responsibly, and
[1:05:04] consistently.
[1:05:07] Our goal remains to ensure that all
[1:05:08] shareholders and water users are treated
[1:05:11] equally under the policies and governing
[1:05:13] documents that apply to everyone.
[1:05:15] Upper Irrigation is not seeking
[1:05:17] litigation and remains committed to
[1:05:19] cooperation, transparency, and practical
[1:05:22] solutions. We remain willing
[1:05:25] to meet with city representatives at any
[1:05:27] time to discuss concerns, review
[1:05:29] documentation, and work constructively
[1:05:32] toward resolution as we have throughout
[1:05:34] the long history of both the company and
[1:05:37] the city. We recognize there are
[1:05:39] differing viewpoints regarding these
[1:05:40] matters, and we also recognize the
[1:05:42] public interest surrounding them.
[1:05:45] However, Upper Irrigation believes these
[1:05:47] issues are best addressed through
[1:05:49] accurate information, respectful
[1:05:51] communication, and good-faith discussion
[1:05:54] rather than public conflict or
[1:05:55] speculation. Our focus will remain on
[1:05:58] protecting the integrity of the company,
[1:06:01] serving our shareholders responsibly,
[1:06:03] and maintaining productive relationships
[1:06:05] within the community moving forward.
[1:06:07] Sorry, I thought this was at the end, so
[1:06:09] I have a lot on my mind.
[1:06:11] Hopefully, everyone got that.
[1:06:13] Thank you.
[1:06:16] Are there any other public comments?
[1:06:26] » My name is Bruce Taylor, and uh
[1:06:29] Larry, you you you
[1:06:30] that prayer you really make a wreck of
[1:06:32] me, you know.
[1:06:34] All this kindness and friends and
[1:06:37] I'll tamper it down just a hair, okay?
[1:06:40] >> We'll still be friends.
[1:06:41] >> Yeah, we will, for sure, till we get on
[1:06:43] the basketball court again.
[1:06:46] Uh
[1:06:47] three things I want to talk about
[1:06:48] tonight, if I can. As some of you know,
[1:06:51] uh water Upper Water drilled a $12
[1:06:54] million well in my backyard.
[1:06:56] It will be built over the next 3 years.
[1:06:59] When property is bought for a well, it
[1:07:01] should be put in the middle of a field,
[1:07:04] and not behind a bunch of existing homes
[1:07:06] like it was in my place.
[1:07:10] Nobody cares until it's in your own
[1:07:12] backyard. Now, how do all the people in
[1:07:14] Snowville and Tremonton and all that
[1:07:16] feel right now? It Nobody cares until
[1:07:19] it's in your own backyard.
[1:07:22] Next item.
[1:07:24] Terra Strata, Stuart Adams, 40 acres.
[1:07:27] Not approved last year, but he'll be
[1:07:29] back this year and we all know it will
[1:07:31] all be approved this time. Once again,
[1:07:33] nobody cares
[1:07:35] until it's in your own backyard.
[1:07:38] New item, new subject.
[1:07:40] The house that Upper Water owns and
[1:07:42] rents,
[1:07:43] which
[1:07:44] is right next to me, now has nine large
[1:07:47] dogs that live in this house.
[1:07:49] They share my chain-link fence in my
[1:07:51] backyard.
[1:07:54] Hooper law says you can only have three
[1:07:56] dogs. Four to 10 dogs is a kennel.
[1:08:01] Their dogs bark constantly. This has
[1:08:03] gone on
[1:08:04] >> Recording in progress.
[1:08:05] >> The dogs bark constantly.
[1:08:08] They get out, they can't be caught. They
[1:08:10] run up and down the roads and they're
[1:08:13] wild. Anyway, I've called animal control
[1:08:16] in the our whole neighborhood has three
[1:08:17] times in the last year. They've come
[1:08:20] down and they help them catch them, put
[1:08:22] them away. When animal control ain't
[1:08:24] been available, we've had the county
[1:08:26] sheriff's been called and they've been
[1:08:27] down and they run up and down the
[1:08:28] streets and they help them catch them
[1:08:30] and put them in there. This is the
[1:08:32] rental home that Upper Water owns that's
[1:08:34] right next to me.
[1:08:36] They've talked to them and talked to
[1:08:37] them and warned them and warned them,
[1:08:39] but they have nine dogs now instead of
[1:08:42] three.
[1:08:43] Nothing changes.
[1:08:44] Kathy and I have to go out our front
[1:08:46] door, sneak around our own house to the
[1:08:49] east side to get to our backyard because
[1:08:51] if we go out our back door, we have nine
[1:08:54] dogs barking at us.
[1:08:57] The law Hooper says three dogs.
[1:09:02] This is the house that
[1:09:04] is being rented one by Hooper Water and
[1:09:08] where it's a rental they are not
[1:09:09] eligible for a kennel license.
[1:09:12] Once again, if it's not in your
[1:09:14] backyard, nobody cares.
[1:09:17] I'd like the city to get involved with
[1:09:19] the dogs.
[1:09:22] Uh go to Hooper Water and uh Hooper
[1:09:24] Water tells me to go to Hooper City. Uh
[1:09:27] you all know the Hooper Water people.
[1:09:30] Wayne and Corey and all of them, you
[1:09:32] know them better than I do. I'm not a
[1:09:34] old Hooper guy. I've only lived here 53
[1:09:36] years, but uh
[1:09:37] anyway, they're all good people over
[1:09:39] there. They make some poor decisions,
[1:09:41] but uh you know, it's their home.
[1:09:44] Uh it's being destroyed. They don't seem
[1:09:45] to really care. They say PMI is who
[1:09:47] manages it and they really don't want
[1:09:49] nothing to do with it.
[1:09:51] Everybody says it's all up on the east
[1:09:54] side of Hooper, it really ain't going to
[1:09:55] matter, but
[1:09:57] we really do have people that live up
[1:09:59] there, too.
[1:10:00] Thank you.
[1:10:03] » Thank you.
[1:10:05] Are there any other public comments?
[1:10:09] Okay.
[1:10:10] Um we will move on then. We do not have
[1:10:14] any public hearings tonight, so we're
[1:10:16] going to move on to discussion item. The
[1:10:18] first item we're going to discuss is our
[1:10:21] commercial and hobby kennel license.
[1:10:24] So, this was in the packet for those of
[1:10:27] you in the audience and city council,
[1:10:28] you already have a copy of this in your
[1:10:30] packet.
[1:10:32] This is something that has come up
[1:10:33] recently in planning commission and we
[1:10:36] thought this might be a good time to
[1:10:38] look at this and see if there's any
[1:10:41] changes we would like to make in our
[1:10:43] code.
[1:10:45] Maybe before we
[1:10:47] start that, maybe you could Darren give
[1:10:49] us a little explanation as far as what
[1:10:51] limitations we have as far as state code
[1:10:54] with
[1:10:55] dog breeds and so forth.
[1:10:57] >> Well,
[1:10:58] I think we already we already discussed
[1:10:59] this at planning
[1:11:00] >> commission.
[1:11:01] Cities cannot regulate on what type of
[1:11:04] breeds of a dog are allowed in the city.
[1:11:06] That's just outright in state code can't
[1:11:08] allow it. Um,
[1:11:10] but with hobby kennels, we don't need to
[1:11:14] allow that.
[1:11:15] So, just so I just want to give you the zoning authority that the city has a pretty broad authority.
[1:11:22] We don't need a hobby kennel
[1:11:25] in the AZ zone. We can regulate hobby
[1:11:28] kennels. We can change the number that
[1:11:30] we want to have there. That's something
[1:11:31] that would would be the broad authority that
[1:11:34] the city would have.
[1:11:36] Um, the this there's already a
[1:11:37] requirement that how many dogs can we
[1:11:40] have in the court? Up to four. Up to
[1:11:42] three.
[1:11:43] >> Four you need a kennel.
[1:11:44] >> Up to three and then you need a hobby
[1:11:46] kennel to go forward. And then we have
[1:11:48] commercial kennels and that's a
[1:11:49] completely different code.
[1:11:50] Um, but for hobby kennels, I just wanted
[1:11:52] to to put that out there. The authority
[1:11:54] that the city has for that specifically.
[1:11:55] There's nowhere in the state code that
[1:11:57] requires a city to have it.
[1:12:00] Which means that you have broad
[1:12:01] authority to make changes there. So,
[1:12:02] there's I wanted to just outright put
[1:12:05] the law out there for you um, so that
[1:12:07] you guys can discuss
[1:12:08] um,
[1:12:10] what you want going forward cuz it's
[1:12:11] really broad
[1:12:13] on what you want.
[1:12:15] >> Okay, thank you. And Malcolm, do you
[1:12:18] have something also that you've kind of
[1:12:20] done some
[1:12:22] research on this dealing with planning
[1:12:24] commission?
[1:12:25] >> No. No, we uh,
[1:12:27] this would be similar to how we talked
[1:12:29] about in our meeting. Just give me your
[1:12:31] guys' direction on what priorities you
[1:12:33] want and then we'll get to work on
[1:12:35] things. I would just uh, piggyback on
[1:12:38] what Darren had to say.
[1:12:40] Similar, you guys talked about this and
[1:12:42] maybe it's just a reminder. You guys
[1:12:44] mentioned potentially looking at the
[1:12:46] number of dogs, zones that permitted in
[1:12:49] and maybe even uh, registering
[1:12:51] requirements. There's some things that
[1:12:53] other cities have. Uh,
[1:12:55] I just wanted to bring up a few things
[1:12:57] just to practice your conversation and
[1:12:59] maybe direct it. I think a good way to
[1:13:01] approach it counselor and Opolka
[1:13:03] mentioned we probably have a lot of
[1:13:05] people in Orono who actually have more
[1:13:07] than three dogs and don't want to get a
[1:13:08] license.
[1:13:10] I'm not so sure the number's the
[1:13:12] problem. It's probably exemplified by
[1:13:14] that point, right? We probably all live
[1:13:16] by people who have more dogs than are
[1:13:18] permitted.
[1:13:19] Um what happens is when someone does
[1:13:21] come in and
[1:13:22] it becomes a public outcry and I think
[1:13:24] that we make the number larger, but I
[1:13:26] think we just control the things that we
[1:13:28] can best control, meaning I think our
[1:13:30] ordinance does a good job of
[1:13:31] contemplating usage, right? Personal use
[1:13:35] within a hobby kennel, breeding,
[1:13:36] hunting, training, learning hobby.
[1:13:39] Uh commercial kennels are more for, you
[1:13:42] know,
[1:13:43] uh to to earn money selling of dogs and
[1:13:46] things of that nature. Um so I would
[1:13:48] focus on usage. Some other things that
[1:13:50] got brought up on our last kennel
[1:13:52] license were the kennel, the actual
[1:13:54] enclosure, those are things maybe we
[1:13:56] could talk about. Um the site, fencing,
[1:13:59] there's any type of ordinances related
[1:14:00] to that. Odor, um odor control, that's
[1:14:04] obviously something that got brought up
[1:14:06] and I think something that we could,
[1:14:08] you know, formalize in an ordinance. And
[1:14:10] then noise, I think that's also
[1:14:11] something we could address via ordinance
[1:14:13] that our ordinance doesn't do a great
[1:14:15] job of. So if you guys want to have
[1:14:16] further discussion and want to
[1:14:18] push this forward, those are all things
[1:14:19] I think that are
[1:14:21] legal and other things that are
[1:14:24] controllable and that could be, you
[1:14:26] know, beneficial.
[1:14:27] Um and then I think as we got a better
[1:14:29] policy, maybe even a final discussion
[1:14:31] would be do you want these done
[1:14:32] administratively
[1:14:34] um to a certain extent and do you want
[1:14:36] them done or do you want them done
[1:14:38] conditionally as a conditional use? If
[1:14:40] you had a really great ordinance,
[1:14:42] and I'm I'm not sure which would be the
[1:14:44] best method. You'd have a broad
[1:14:45] ordinance that would cover everybody,
[1:14:47] and then we could administratively apply
[1:14:49] it. We're going to have conditional
[1:14:50] uses. That's obviously some questions
[1:14:52] for Darren, but then I think just the
[1:14:54] final piece of that we think it's
[1:14:55] interesting is I look through ours in a
[1:14:58] commercial kennel, it's permitted in an
[1:15:00] R1 zone, potentially an R75 or 3/4 zone,
[1:15:05] depending on we have a couple
[1:15:06] ordinances, but probably both
[1:15:08] technically.
[1:15:09] And then a hobby kennel is permitted. It
[1:15:11] doesn't exclude any zones, so I think it
[1:15:14] would be principally it would be
[1:15:15] conditionally permitted in any zone. I
[1:15:17] think that may be something you want to
[1:15:19] address. From my standpoint, I'm not so
[1:15:21] sure that an R4 or an R3
[1:15:23] would qualify for a kennel. For
[1:15:25] instance, our animal units you have to
[1:15:26] have 20,000 sq ft minimum or half acre
[1:15:30] to get any animal units. Yet, you could
[1:15:33] technically apply for a conditional use
[1:15:35] for a hobby kennel under
[1:15:38] any zoning.
[1:15:39] >> Just to verify, you are talking only
[1:15:40] about hobby kennels when when you're
[1:15:43] saying that they're allowed in all
[1:15:44] zones.
[1:15:45] >> Commercials are R1. Yeah, but hobbies I
[1:15:49] don't see a limitation on the as it
[1:15:51] relates to zoning. So, that's something
[1:15:53] you might want to address. So, I just
[1:15:54] wanted to preface your conversation, but
[1:15:55] yeah, I haven't done a lot of research
[1:15:56] down at the other
[1:15:58] So, I don't I don't know how to have a
[1:15:59] time to input, but if you want some
[1:16:00] done, we're happy to dive into it, and I
[1:16:02] think we could build a proper good
[1:16:04] ordinance for it.
[1:16:08] » So, one reason this came up because we
[1:16:10] had a hobby kennel license that that
[1:16:13] came before with a conditional use
[1:16:16] before our planning commission. As we
[1:16:18] know, they are the recommending board,
[1:16:21] but they are going on what our zoning
[1:16:24] is, what our codes are, and then as as a
[1:16:26] legislative board, then we can decide if
[1:16:28] there's something we want changed. So,
[1:16:31] even though there were people that
[1:16:32] probably were not happy with the
[1:16:34] recommendation, but again, they are
[1:16:36] governed by what we have already
[1:16:38] designated as our code. So, if there's
[1:16:41] something you would like different with
[1:16:44] this,
[1:16:45] then it's up to us legislatively to
[1:16:47] change this.
[1:16:51] » One thing, um Malcolm, you addressed was
[1:16:55] um
[1:16:58] raising puppies as a money-making
[1:17:02] scenario,
[1:17:03] but I also believe anybody that's
[1:17:05] training dogs is also
[1:17:08] using that as a business type scenario.
[1:17:11] So, I think
[1:17:12] we ought to address that a little bit,
[1:17:14] too, and um
[1:17:17] I am concerned about
[1:17:20] um
[1:17:21] training dogs in areas, especially large
[1:17:24] numbers. I think You know, I think right
[1:17:26] now in the current zoning, they can have
[1:17:28] four, but they could train six more.
[1:17:31] Um I don't know. That's a lot of dogs
[1:17:32] running in and out. I personally
[1:17:34] wouldn't want something like that
[1:17:36] uh around my house, so I'm not sure most
[1:17:39] of our
[1:17:40] residents out there would like that. So,
[1:17:41] I think we ought to look into something
[1:17:43] that
[1:17:44] to maybe restrict that a little bit, as
[1:17:47] apparently we can, uh where they can
[1:17:49] have them.
[1:17:49] >> Are you talking about the number? Is
[1:17:51] that Is that your main concern?
[1:17:52] >> The number and the usage, too.
[1:17:55] >> Yeah, and not to give too much money to
[1:17:56] you. Like I mentioned, I think the lower
[1:17:58] end of the number actually is very in
[1:18:00] line, maybe even be
[1:18:02] uh
[1:18:03] restrictive. Um up to three is all I don't know if that's the issue. I do
[1:18:07] think our hobby kennel, where it allows
[1:18:08] up to 10, could be excessive, but yes, I
[1:18:11] agree with that thought.
[1:18:13] 10 is a lot of Like it could be a lot of
[1:18:15] dogs.
[1:18:15] >> That's a lot of dogs.
[1:18:16] >> And especially depending on the zone.
[1:18:25] » So, um
[1:18:27] I think whatever we decide, this this
[1:18:30] ordinance needs to probably include some
[1:18:33] language about enforcement.
[1:18:35] I mean, I know this is supposed to be
[1:18:36] enforced by our code enforcement
[1:18:38] officer, but
[1:18:39] uh I don't think it's happening. And so,
[1:18:42] it might be helpful to include some
[1:18:44] language in here about
[1:18:47] what procedure we follow to enforce the
[1:18:50] code. And the example we just heard
[1:18:52] tonight occurs at a ball.
[1:18:53] So,
[1:18:54] there's a clear violation, and you call
[1:18:57] animal control, and you call the
[1:18:58] sheriff's department, and nothing
[1:18:59] happens, and nothing happens.
[1:19:02] Where's our code enforcement officer
[1:19:04] issuing the fines that should be given,
[1:19:06] and this etc.
[1:19:08] You know what I mean? So, that's why it
[1:19:10] isn't there. States the procedure would
[1:19:13] be very helpful, I think.
[1:19:15] As far as enforcement goes, why why
[1:19:17] draft an ordinance if you're not going
[1:19:18] to enforce it?
[1:19:19] >> We need to put some teeth in it to make
[1:19:21] it so that we can enforce it without
[1:19:24] question, basically.
[1:19:27] >> So, so maybe we could just start at a
[1:19:30] clear place where we maybe would have
[1:19:32] some agreement on or even some
[1:19:34] discussion.
[1:19:36] How are How are we feeling about
[1:19:37] allowing a ken- kennel hobby? Because
[1:19:40] right now, like Malcolm mentioned, can
[1:19:43] be in any zone. We We have not
[1:19:46] designated that if it's in a third acre,
[1:19:49] quarter acre, even a patio home, for
[1:19:52] example. We We do have those. Is that
[1:19:55] something and maybe we just need to make
[1:19:56] some
[1:19:58] maybe some definite things. So, let
[1:20:01] maybe let's start there. How do we feel
[1:20:03] about having a kennel hobby
[1:20:06] being able to be in any of our zones
[1:20:09] totally independent upon size?
[1:20:11] >> Well, and that's the unfortunate part
[1:20:13] where we can't discriminate on the breed
[1:20:15] of the dog. That becomes very difficult
[1:20:18] to say, "Well, you can have
[1:20:20] 10 uh
[1:20:22] labs in a quarter acre zone." That
[1:20:24] That's difficult. You know, you could
[1:20:25] have 10
[1:20:27] uh Maltese
[1:20:28] 12 of them in a in a quarter acre zone,
[1:20:30] and probably nobody would probably know
[1:20:32] because you can't discriminate on the
[1:20:34] you've got to do all for one and one for
[1:20:36] all.
[1:20:37] So,
[1:20:38] exactly. So, do we even allow it in a
[1:20:40] quarter and a third acre zone or patio
[1:20:43] zone?
[1:20:44] You know, is it even allowed is the
[1:20:45] first question.
[1:20:50] » Well, that's one thing that's been hard
[1:20:51] as far as, you know, you mentioned about
[1:20:53] how do we enforce this, but we don't
[1:20:55] have a really clear-cut code
[1:20:59] that they can actually go to somebody
[1:21:01] and say, "Well, that's that's not
[1:21:03] allowed." Because they'll sit here and
[1:21:05] say, "Oh, yeah, I can have a big I could have up to 10, but we don't
[1:21:09] really give We need to get I think get
[1:21:11] it a little better defined because it
[1:21:13] doesn't list what it's owned. If we just
[1:21:16] have a definition.
[1:21:18] >> They still would have to get a
[1:21:18] conditional use, so we'd be enforcing
[1:21:22] each of those uh mitigating
[1:21:24] circumstances, mitigating
[1:21:26] uh conditions
[1:21:27] that they would that would work toward
[1:21:29] that, so.
[1:21:31] >> And uh just to be to be specific, right
[1:21:34] now uh I might have been browsing, but
[1:21:36] we prohibit them in HDR patio zones,
[1:21:40] PUD zones, but they're conditional in
[1:21:44] R4 and above.
[1:21:46] So, quarter acre and above. Only
[1:21:48] prohibited in
[1:21:49] the the the
[1:21:50] hot zones.
[1:21:52] So, just to kind of talk about
[1:21:53] enforcement for these right now, which
[1:21:56] are different, I think, than
[1:21:58] what was brought forward before and the
[1:22:01] statements from the public.
[1:22:02] But, for this specifically hobby kennel, we can bring it to the planning
[1:22:06] commission and have it revoked and have
[1:22:08] it
[1:22:09] they wouldn't have that use.
[1:22:11] Um they wouldn't have the conditional
[1:22:13] use if they're not following
[1:22:15] what was what was put on it.
[1:22:17] So, for example, the this last one the
[1:22:20] planning commission they required to do
[1:22:22] have barking collars. They were required
[1:22:24] to have six foot fence around their
[1:22:26] entire yard. or they were required to do
[1:22:28] certain things for cleaning and those types of things.
[1:22:31] If they didn't follow those, then they
[1:22:33] would be under review and then they
[1:22:34] could get revoked and they wouldn't be
[1:22:35] able to wouldn't be allowed.
[1:22:40] » Who reviews those, I guess is the
[1:22:42] question. Who is going to go
[1:22:45] and make sure that they're
[1:22:47] uh
[1:22:48] doing those conditions?
[1:22:50] >> So, if there's
[1:22:52] we put a if there's a a complaint a
[1:22:55] valid complaint that is brought forward
[1:22:57] to the city,
[1:22:58] it would have to be verified.
[1:23:00] So, it it has to be verified by staff.
[1:23:03] It has to be verified by the code enforcement or staff, someone
[1:23:08] that works for the city
[1:23:09] to verify that it was valid. And then it
[1:23:12] would get brought forward to the
[1:23:13] planning commission.
[1:23:15] So, just cuz we have a code enforcement
[1:23:17] officer doesn't mean that
[1:23:19] staff can't
[1:23:20] investigate these types of things.
[1:23:23] >> So, any of those could actually go
[1:23:25] investigate first. Yeah.
[1:23:27] Oh, good.
[1:23:29] >> We leave that to staff.
[1:23:39] » You know, this is a tough decision and I heard Bruce and
[1:23:48] I've been around the barking dogs, that
[1:23:50] side of it, but I've also been around
[1:23:54] the other side that
[1:23:58] and I don't understand this, but there
[1:24:00] are people out here with mental health
[1:24:03] issues that they have to have a dog or
[1:24:07] something like that and that is what
[1:24:09] keeps them calm, what keeps them
[1:24:12] their thoughts
[1:24:14] and I've seen that side personally
[1:24:18] with people I know and so it is, it's
[1:24:21] hard to decide
[1:24:23] you know, how do you make it work for
[1:24:25] everything? I think the one we heard
[1:24:27] tonight, yeah, we need to
[1:24:29] use the code enforcement or our animal
[1:24:31] control that we're paying
[1:24:34] a lot of money for
[1:24:36] every year.
[1:24:39] And so, you're saying
[1:24:40] uh
[1:24:41] we have staff or do we call uh our
[1:24:44] animal control?
[1:24:45] >> Animal control can be called.
[1:24:47] So, animal control we're paying animal
[1:24:49] control or does the county to
[1:24:51] investigate those things they should be
[1:24:53] doing that.
[1:24:55] >> But that example is not even a violation
[1:24:57] of a kennel license cuz they don't have
[1:24:58] a kennel on
[1:24:59] >> Yeah, that's different.
[1:24:59] >> That is quite a violation of
[1:25:01] >> Yeah, that'd be they're probably said
[1:25:04] I haven't looked at I wasn't ready for
[1:25:05] that one so
[1:25:06] >> Yeah, the noise. There could be lots of
[1:25:08] things that are
[1:25:09] that's just a violation.
[1:25:11] >> Yeah, it's it's tough.
[1:25:14] >> So, I mean I think it since this is a
[1:25:15] conditional use permit for the hobby
[1:25:18] kennel
[1:25:19] I think
[1:25:21] depending on the zone, depending on
[1:25:24] again and again the strictness of breed,
[1:25:26] but depending on a bunch of different
[1:25:28] factors
[1:25:29] we could just
[1:25:30] set
[1:25:32] um allowances for that conditional use
[1:25:34] permit regardless of where it's at.
[1:25:37] You know, I think the hard fast rule
[1:25:39] applies to the commercial license
[1:25:41] which I do like our animal zone it can
[1:25:44] only be in
[1:25:45] and then
[1:25:46] no more than 10 animals per acre
[1:25:48] property.
[1:25:50] I think that's
[1:25:52] reasonable.
[1:25:54] >> Can you look into ordinances when you
[1:25:56] get time and see what we would need to
[1:25:58] maybe tweak cuz you said you hadn't
[1:26:00] really looked into some of what we
[1:26:01] discussed, so
[1:26:03] >> In referring to
[1:26:05] the other issue?
[1:26:06] >> Yes.
[1:26:07] >> I absolutely will.
[1:26:08] >> Okay, appreciate it then.
[1:26:13] » That's that is different than the
[1:26:15] kennel.
[1:26:16] >> Yes.
[1:26:16] >> Um which kennel are we talking about?
[1:26:21] » So, do we change anything on this kennel
[1:26:24] army definition?
[1:26:27] Or do we just say it's any kind of
[1:26:28] commercial only?
[1:26:30] >> And this says in there just R1.
[1:26:33] >> I lost my power on there. Does it say
[1:26:37] for just R1 zones?
[1:26:39] >> For commercial.
[1:26:40] >> They're all for commercial.
[1:26:43] >> You know, you get some of these small
[1:26:45] lots that we get into patio homes or
[1:26:48] baths,
[1:26:49] you know, they walk out the door and
[1:26:50] somebody's got a big dog and you know, they're not
[1:26:54] going to want to be barked at.
[1:26:56] These small lots, you know, at least an
[1:26:58] acre lot.
[1:26:59] >> It's a waste of weight, but
[1:27:02] >> I don't know. I don't think the issue
[1:27:03] though is like over on one dog so much
[1:27:05] as it is a wolf pack.
[1:27:08] You know, so I I don't think we're going
[1:27:10] to have too many people squawk about
[1:27:12] their neighbor having a dog, but you're
[1:27:15] going to have some people that are going
[1:27:16] to be concerned when their neighbor have
[1:27:19] nine dogs.
[1:27:20] I think they have a valid concern at
[1:27:22] that point.
[1:27:26] » So, so
[1:27:27] what what was what direction was the
[1:27:29] planning commission looking for, do you
[1:27:31] think? Like what were they struggling
[1:27:33] with
[1:27:34] when they were trying to make that
[1:27:35] decision on the last one?
[1:27:37] >> So, I think we had residents that came
[1:27:40] in and they were concerned
[1:27:42] about the number of dogs.
[1:27:45] If everything were going to be
[1:27:47] controlled, the barking
[1:27:50] that the planning commission towns were
[1:27:52] pretty much tied because of what this
[1:27:54] says, that they could have the four to
[1:27:56] 10 dogs. They can't discriminate whether
[1:28:00] like you said it's a toy poodle or it is
[1:28:02] a Alaskan husky. So, so our rules have
[1:28:06] to make sure and fit everything because
[1:28:08] like you said, you know, if it's four
[1:28:10] toy or 10 toy poodles is far different
[1:28:13] than
[1:28:13] 10
[1:28:15] German Shepherds.
[1:28:17] So, we need to have something that's
[1:28:19] going to be that that's going to fit
[1:28:21] all.
[1:28:24] » So, far
[1:28:24] >> And then
[1:28:25] >> 10 to 20 lbs.
[1:28:27] >> Yeah, that's uh probably something they
[1:28:29] stumbled with was uh because of the
[1:28:31] specific type of dog, the amount felt
[1:28:34] like a lot, but
[1:28:36] um also the usage was something they
[1:28:38] struggled with. The
[1:28:40] what the these dogs were used for
[1:28:43] um is something that they had a hard
[1:28:45] time
[1:28:47] that they got some comments that they
[1:28:48] were you know, working through, so.
[1:28:51] >> Can we limit
[1:28:55] Maybe we're
[1:28:56] kind of straw us, but like weight or
[1:28:58] size of a dog? Still can't even do that.
[1:29:01] would come under breed the specific
[1:29:04] basically.
[1:29:04] >> Yeah, that would be doing that.
[1:29:07] >> Okay, so.
[1:29:10] We tried.
[1:29:11] So, Malcolm, other than what's listed
[1:29:13] here, breeding, hunting, field trials,
[1:29:16] or breeding exchange
[1:29:18] competition, security, or personal
[1:29:20] enjoyment.
[1:29:21] What were they struggling with? What
[1:29:23] categories were not included in that?
[1:29:29] Um
[1:29:31] >> Yeah, I can be pretty blunt. I'm sure
[1:29:33] these dogs were specifically trained for
[1:29:36] that's like police type work.
[1:29:39] I don't know if you know, so I don't
[1:29:41] know what bucket that would fall in,
[1:29:43] but it gave the perception, and I'm not
[1:29:45] claiming this is the case, but maybe a
[1:29:46] perception that they could be, you know,
[1:29:49] uh dangerous dogs at times or trained to
[1:29:51] be violent or to tame.
[1:29:53] >> I think just to kind of I think they're
[1:29:55] spec- it was specific for competitive.
[1:29:58] They were doing competitions
[1:30:00] for them.
[1:30:01] Yeah, that's basically Yeah, they did
[1:30:03] competition specifically.
[1:30:05] >> We can't really regulate competitions as
[1:30:07] much because then we couldn't have
[1:30:09] Labrador retrievers going to
[1:30:11] competitions there. That would be
[1:30:13] difficult to
[1:30:15] specify one type of competition would be
[1:30:18] okay but another type
[1:30:20] wouldn't be okay. I think that's
[1:30:23] you know, kind of a generic term,
[1:30:25] competition.
[1:30:27] >> I just think the main concerns that were
[1:30:30] discussed is how loud it was. Um, safety
[1:30:34] was a big discussion like if a child had
[1:30:37] access to a fence that had so many dogs
[1:30:40] putting their hand in.
[1:30:43] Just things that could possibly happen.
[1:30:45] So, those were Those were talked about
[1:30:47] by the citizens.
[1:30:49] I think what else.
[1:30:52] The fence height was talked about. Odor
[1:30:54] a little bit. Odor.
[1:30:57] Noise.
[1:30:58] Yeah, obviously.
[1:30:59] >> Noise, obviously. Odor. Well, that's something, you know, for Germany
[1:31:03] to be addressed is you don't want some
[1:31:04] kid to want to stick his paw through a
[1:31:06] fence that,
[1:31:07] you know, a chain link fence would
[1:31:08] contain a dog well, but it's not going
[1:31:10] to keep a kid from sticking his hand
[1:31:11] through. So, we need to have something
[1:31:13] in there
[1:31:14] that would be a total 100% bullet proof
[1:31:18] separation in my mind so that
[1:31:21] there is no no way for them to get, you
[1:31:24] know, in contact.
[1:31:28] » So, I listened to that meeting and that
[1:31:31] and all the items that got brought up.
[1:31:35] The lady came up and she had an answer
[1:31:38] for every one of them that I thought was
[1:31:39] great. And uh
[1:31:42] I've got personal experience with this.
[1:31:44] We have a dog at our house uh
[1:31:47] that's being trained
[1:31:49] uh for a police dog. And when that dog
[1:31:52] is being trained, you better stay away
[1:31:54] from it.
[1:31:55] But
[1:31:57] uh when he doesn't have his uh uniform
[1:31:59] on, he know he's just a regular dog to
[1:32:02] us and I can Well, I can't throw him
[1:32:05] around anymore, but, you know,
[1:32:08] he'll he'll play with me and that. And
[1:32:10] so, you know, I see both sides of it.
[1:32:14] You know, as far as he's a very
[1:32:16] protective dog. If somebody gets close,
[1:32:18] he's going to start barking. And so, for
[1:32:21] a kid to stick his hand through the
[1:32:22] fence,
[1:32:24] you know, those dogs are being trained.
[1:32:26] I can't imagine a kid even getting close
[1:32:29] to where that dog is, but I appreciated
[1:32:31] how they said they're going to be out
[1:32:33] there with the dogs when they're
[1:32:35] outside. And the same thing at our
[1:32:38] house,
[1:32:40] my daughter-in-law, she is out there
[1:32:41] with that dog if it's ever out.
[1:32:44] You know, could it break open something?
[1:32:46] Yeah, there's always that possibility.
[1:32:48] >> That was a condition with constant
[1:32:50] supervision.
[1:32:51] >> Yeah.
[1:32:53] >> When it's outside.
[1:32:55] >> Yeah. And those dogs are
[1:32:57] that are being trained, they're very
[1:33:00] obedient, more so than my kids.
[1:33:07] » What do other cities do, Gary?
[1:33:10] >> Um some cities don't have hobby kennels.
[1:33:12] Um
[1:33:13] some some cities have
[1:33:15] a lower number.
[1:33:17] Some cities have a little bit more
[1:33:18] specific in their code. They require
[1:33:21] for the still conditionally use, but it
[1:33:23] kind of lists out some of the conditions
[1:33:26] that are common there.
[1:33:29] » So, from what I'm hearing from
[1:33:31] everybody, so if we lowered the number
[1:33:33] from 10 down to six or something, would
[1:33:36] that help or
[1:33:38] >> There'd be no restriction for law to do
[1:33:40] that. So,
[1:33:41] you would have the
[1:33:43] broad ability to do that.
[1:33:47] » I mean, I wouldn't have a problem with
[1:33:49] taking it from 10 down to six for a
[1:33:51] hobby
[1:33:53] kennel.
[1:33:56] » I think this use was only
[1:33:59] Was it five?
[1:34:02] It's conditionally used, yeah.
[1:34:07] » Knowing that we can still restrict it on
[1:34:09] conditions, we could have
[1:34:11] you know, somebody comes in and says oh
[1:34:13] it's six.
[1:34:14] And the planning commission says you
[1:34:16] know what, it's four.
[1:34:18] For whatever reason, they don't like the
[1:34:19] place.
[1:34:20] We can still restrict that number
[1:34:22] on the condition, right?
[1:34:24] >> Yes, actually no.
[1:34:25] >> No.
[1:34:26] >> So they
[1:34:27] Sorry.
[1:34:30] So the zoning, it's the way it's written
[1:34:33] at least
[1:34:34] is it's permitted. So up to 10 is
[1:34:36] permitted.
[1:34:38] But as long as they can
[1:34:41] as long as we can mitigate the detriment
[1:34:44] detrimental effects.
[1:34:46] So.
[1:34:47] Right now it's permitted 10, they can
[1:34:48] have 10.
[1:34:52] » And that's in any zone except for patio,
[1:34:55] correct Malcolm? And that's what you
[1:34:57] said, you can
[1:34:58] >> And PV patio and PV, any zone except for
[1:35:01] those.
[1:35:02] >> So again, even if you had 10 barking
[1:35:05] little tiny dogs in a quarter acre,
[1:35:07] might seem excessive.
[1:35:12] 10 barking is excessive.
[1:35:16] » Yes, it is.
[1:35:17] Especially if it's a big dog.
[1:35:20] Well, I I would propose we move it down
[1:35:22] to six. That'd be my vote.
[1:35:25] >> That's my thought.
[1:35:28] So that's zoning.
[1:35:31] >> The zoning
[1:35:33] So it's only in an R1
[1:35:35] >> or commercial.
[1:35:36] >> Or for commercial, I would say uh
[1:35:41] half acre lots and bigger.
[1:35:43] And all if we get down into third acre
[1:35:45] lots and quarter acre lots, I don't
[1:35:47] think
[1:35:48] hobby kennel
[1:35:50] should be allowed.
[1:35:56] » It's consistent with their
[1:35:57] animal unit ordinance.
[1:36:00] >> How many How many units is a dog on?
[1:36:03] >> We don't just call it out, but by giving
[1:36:05] 10 dogs to the acre in a commercial and
[1:36:09] then you're giving
[1:36:10] >> So, 10
[1:36:10] >> two two and a quarter dog per unit.
[1:36:14] That's what you're giving.
[1:36:18] » The hardest thing about this is dogs are
[1:36:20] a whole lot, I don't know, more
[1:36:23] annoying, generally speaking, than
[1:36:24] somebody's
[1:36:26] goat in their backyard or their horse in
[1:36:28] their backyard.
[1:36:30] You know, I I have had complaints about
[1:36:33] chickens
[1:36:34] um
[1:36:35] that we're looking at right now and it's
[1:36:38] valid.
[1:36:39] Neighbors have a whole bunch of chickens
[1:36:40] and a lot of roosters and they crow a
[1:36:41] lot and
[1:36:43] that's something looking into a little
[1:36:45] bit because there's pretty much no limit
[1:36:47] on how many chickens you can have and not the sex of the chickens, so you
[1:36:51] can't really restrict that they have to
[1:36:52] all be laying hens or
[1:36:54] something like that. So, there are some issues that way, but I
[1:36:58] think you're going to get more
[1:36:59] complaints
[1:37:01] from dogs being a problem than pretty
[1:37:04] much any other animal that people are
[1:37:07] going to have on their property.
[1:37:09] Unless they got some stinky billy goats.
[1:37:11] I had the privilege to smell one today
[1:37:13] that
[1:37:14] was in the vicinity where I was working
[1:37:16] and it smelled terrible.
[1:37:18] >> So, anybody can have up to three dogs,
[1:37:20] regardless of where you live, and then
[1:37:22] from four to six
[1:37:25] um would be a
[1:37:26] hobby kennel, but not allowed on quarter
[1:37:29] or third acre lots. Is everybody okay
[1:37:31] with that?
[1:37:32] >> I am.
[1:37:33] >> Yeah.
[1:37:34] sign me up.
[1:37:36] >> Okay.
[1:37:37] >> So, we can make those changes and and
[1:37:38] they'll have to go through zoning. State
[1:37:40] that last change again. Is everybody
[1:37:41] okay with
[1:37:42] >> Good.
[1:37:43] >> Not allowed on quarter or third acre
[1:37:45] lots. Hobby kennels.
[1:37:49] So, this will still have to go through
[1:37:50] planning commission and go through the
[1:37:51] whole procedure there.
[1:37:53] >> Four to four to six for a hobby kennel.
[1:38:00] » And if they have better thoughts,
[1:38:03] Malcolm, for sure have them
[1:38:05] bring it back to us and let us hear uh
[1:38:13] » We'll do.
[1:38:17] » Okay, any other discussion
[1:38:20] on that topic?
[1:38:23] Okay, let's move on to our next topic
[1:38:25] then, which is trail property leases.
[1:38:28] And as you know, we passed a new
[1:38:30] ordinance where all of the leases are
[1:38:33] coming before city council now. So,
[1:38:35] specifically we wanted to talk tonight
[1:38:37] on the trail property leases. And again,
[1:38:40] in your packet, you have the
[1:38:42] information. This is currently what the
[1:38:45] city does.
[1:38:48] And you also had in your packet, excuse
[1:38:51] me, that was emailed to you, the staff
[1:38:52] report from Jared, our public works
[1:38:55] director, who wasn't able to come
[1:38:57] tonight. So, again, we wanted to discuss
[1:39:00] this. And I'll tell you some a couple of
[1:39:03] things I've noticed is is we don't have
[1:39:05] a
[1:39:07] In order for things to be fair, I think
[1:39:09] everything has to be fair and the even the trail leases are not
[1:39:14] one-size-fits-all.
[1:39:16] Some are larger than others.
[1:39:19] Some do have animals in them. We have
[1:39:21] said they can't have animals. So, I
[1:39:23] thought this would be a good discussion
[1:39:25] as far as if there's any
[1:39:28] changes or additions or anything you'd
[1:39:31] like to just see with this.
[1:39:38] » I just wanted to preface it. I
[1:39:40] pulled some code as it relates to this
[1:39:43] and this loser result of a couple
[1:39:45] ordinances during the planning process.
[1:39:52] » Do we want to add it to the public
[1:39:54] record?
[1:39:57] Sir?
[1:39:58] >> Bruce Bruce
[1:39:59] >> Do you want to add it to the public if
[1:40:01] that's being presented to the council it
[1:40:03] has to be submitted for public record to
[1:40:05] the city.
[1:40:05] >> It's just pictures of
[1:40:07] stuff here.
[1:40:08] >> Okay.
[1:40:08] >> Pictures of the dogs that the nine dogs
[1:40:10] that I'm talking about.
[1:40:11] >> Okay.
[1:40:12] >> I think that they've been given to the
[1:40:14] county sheriff, they've been given to
[1:40:15] the Hoover city people that own the
[1:40:16] house, they've been given to animal
[1:40:19] control head person in Auburn. Everyone
[1:40:21] has a deck of those pictures and nothing
[1:40:23] has happened. Thank you.
[1:40:25] >> Thank you.
[1:40:26] >> See you my friend.
[1:40:29] » So
[1:40:30] do I need do I need to do anything? I
[1:40:31] mean this
[1:40:33] >> Well, it's it's up on the dais so it's
[1:40:35] part of the record.
[1:40:36] >> Okay, cool.
[1:40:37] >> I
[1:40:38] >> legit
[1:40:39] >> I just wanted to make sure
[1:40:40] >> You'll see in there under our
[1:40:40] preliminary plat specifications and
[1:40:43] um
[1:40:44] we have a no build setback
[1:40:49] that we get dedicated as public open
[1:40:50] space and then under the preliminary
[1:40:52] Slue Parkway development plan
[1:40:54] um it permits us on situations like this
[1:40:57] where we will have them dedicate uh
[1:41:00] this
[1:41:02] open space which
[1:41:04] it then becomes uh
[1:41:06] the Slue Parkway that we've talked about
[1:41:09] and then that we use and so that's the
[1:41:10] ordinance that is creating
[1:41:13] the Slue Parkway that they own and then
[1:41:14] obviously you guys are familiar now with
[1:41:16] the lease we've been doing in here it's
[1:41:17] comments on so that's how they resolve
[1:41:19] the negotiating. They just uh we we do
[1:41:22] seek them they're benefiting the city
[1:41:23] and we do it in the development phase so
[1:41:25] that's how it's happening.
[1:41:32] » The one thing we did bring up about
[1:41:34] these
[1:41:35] at one point in time this the city was
[1:41:37] kind of restricting you on
[1:41:39] letting people use this extra property
[1:41:42] on the edge, but
[1:41:44] as it was reviewed
[1:41:47] by public works, they figured it
[1:41:49] actually made more sense to let people
[1:41:51] use these parcels then let the city to
[1:41:54] have to maintain them cuz that's a large
[1:41:57] cost to the city.
[1:41:59] So, I I think uh
[1:42:02] Jared, you know,
[1:42:04] is pretty much behind allowing them to do stuff that
[1:42:10] are within code now with keeping the
[1:42:12] setbacks and and things like that and
[1:42:16] um
[1:42:18] restrictions on animals and stuff that
[1:42:20] we have
[1:42:21] currently in place. I don't know if they
[1:42:23] need to be enforced if we have
[1:42:26] Well, they're not supposed to have
[1:42:27] animals on there cuz you go back down
[1:42:29] when you start going back to animals
[1:42:30] again, that puts us back dogs. Somebody
[1:42:33] walking the trailer doesn't want doesn't
[1:42:35] want somebody's dog
[1:42:37] you know, growling at them through the
[1:42:39] fence. So, if we have a restriction
[1:42:41] already for animals, we probably ought
[1:42:43] to look into enforcing that maybe.
[1:42:45] >> I have a few thoughts on this. Um Cole
[1:42:47] Porter.
[1:42:50] We don't necessarily have to do it as a
[1:42:51] lease. Uh we did this I used to do this.
[1:42:55] You do this as a license.
[1:42:57] So, it doesn't have to be something that
[1:42:58] comes to the council cuz our code
[1:43:00] requires all leases come to the council.
[1:43:03] Um these are essentially licenses. I
[1:43:06] mean, arguably they're leases, but a
[1:43:08] license basically is giving somebody
[1:43:09] permission to use the land. We can take
[1:43:12] it back whenever we want.
[1:43:14] Um and that's how all leases are worded.
[1:43:16] We can take it back whenever we want it
[1:43:18] whenever we need it. There's no
[1:43:19] restriction on us going in and doing it.
[1:43:21] So, we could call this a license and we
[1:43:23] could just do this administratively and
[1:43:25] say, "Hey, if you're willing to take
[1:43:26] care of this property, we don't want to
[1:43:28] take care of it, but we want to still
[1:43:30] maintain ownership of it and you're
[1:43:32] willing to do it, then
[1:43:34] if you fulfill this license agreement,
[1:43:36] if you do this, this, and this, and this, then you have access to
[1:43:39] take care of it.
[1:43:41] And to do what we do what we said we're
[1:43:42] going to do.
[1:43:43] So, that's just an option. I don't know
[1:43:45] how you the council likes that, but
[1:43:46] that's how I've been doing it in every
[1:43:48] other city that I work in.
[1:43:50] >> And then there wouldn't be a fee or
[1:43:52] anything, just a a license.
[1:43:54] >> Correct. There'd just be a license.
[1:43:57] >> That actually Go ahead.
[1:43:59] >> I was just going to say at the point
[1:44:01] uh we received this uh
[1:44:03] email from Jared.
[1:44:05] It seems like it kind of fits what you
[1:44:07] just described.
[1:44:09] >> Mhm.
[1:44:10] Yeah.
[1:44:10] >> his recommendation to his knowledge the
[1:44:12] arrangement we've had has served the
[1:44:15] city well and residents well.
[1:44:17] And whether you want to call it a
[1:44:19] license or a lease,
[1:44:22] uh
[1:44:23] but I think the lease was like a dollar for 50 years
[1:44:27] or something like that unless something
[1:44:29] really changes.
[1:44:30] >> I don't mean to cut you off, uh
[1:44:32] Councilman Flowers,
[1:44:33] but the state code of me and I looked
[1:44:35] into this heavily just for leasing.
[1:44:38] State code requires cities to certain
[1:44:40] departments for leasing property out as
[1:44:43] long as it's the public it has a public
[1:44:45] benefit to the city. So, we can do a
[1:44:47] lease like a dollar
[1:44:49] if there's a big benefit. So, I still
[1:44:51] think it works for a lease. Just other
[1:44:53] cities are doing it as um licenses, and
[1:44:56] that way if it was a license, it
[1:44:57] wouldn't necessarily have to come to the
[1:44:58] council for every single one of these.
[1:45:00] It could be something that's done
[1:45:01] administratively. So, just an idea.
[1:45:05] >> Why licenses came up is because we had
[1:45:07] someone that came in and wants to do a
[1:45:09] lease along the slough, and wants to
[1:45:11] have some animals. And we've said no
[1:45:13] animals aren't allowed, but then you
[1:45:15] walk along the trails in other places,
[1:45:18] and there's animals. And so, I thought,
[1:45:20] how do we tell one person, "Sorry, you
[1:45:22] can't have animals." But then we're
[1:45:24] allowing other people to have animals.
[1:45:27] Some of it's just a real narrow place
[1:45:29] and even where it says about how many
[1:45:32] feet they have to be away from the
[1:45:34] slough, well, we're not enforcing that.
[1:45:36] So, again,
[1:45:38] it can we In order to be fair, it needs
[1:45:41] to be fair. We can't just say, "Well, we
[1:45:43] like you, so we'll allow this." And
[1:45:45] you know, maybe we can
[1:45:46] >> Well, then did we allow it or are they
[1:45:48] just doing it and we haven't enforced
[1:45:50] it?
[1:45:51] That's
[1:45:51] >> Yeah, I don't know cuz it's it's been
[1:45:54] there for quite a few number of years
[1:45:56] and if you walk along, like I say,
[1:45:57] certain trails, you see that. And so, I am fine with the license. I'm fine
[1:46:04] with staff administering this. I still
[1:46:07] think we maybe don't need to look at
[1:46:08] this and
[1:46:10] maybe get a little better clear cut on
[1:46:13] what we're going to do with this. Cuz
[1:46:16] whole point of this really was, you
[1:46:17] know, as Jared mentioned to begin with
[1:46:19] when they they did the walking trails,
[1:46:21] they thought, "Oh, the city won't
[1:46:22] maintain those." You know, they'll be
[1:46:23] this nice grassy area.
[1:46:26] Well, they soon realized, "We don't have
[1:46:28] water to water those nice grassy areas."
[1:46:30] And so, what do we do with them? Well,
[1:46:32] it's much better when the residents have
[1:46:34] moved their fences back and take care of
[1:46:36] it. It it's 100% better. But, then we
[1:46:40] probably still need to come up with a
[1:46:41] little more congruent
[1:46:44] conditions, not just, you know,
[1:46:47] whatever. So.
[1:46:49] >> Well, we're coming back to the
[1:46:50] enforcement issue again here if we're
[1:46:52] going to
[1:46:54] put stuff in place, then we actually
[1:46:56] probably have to work on,
[1:46:58] you know, trying to get it enforced as
[1:47:00] best we can. But, then it's really hard
[1:47:03] with our compliance officer from the
[1:47:06] county because he's not in
[1:47:09] He actually will, if we if we had a
[1:47:12] complaint filed, he would go investigate
[1:47:14] it. But, then there he has no teeth to
[1:47:16] do anything. It's got to come back to us
[1:47:18] if something's got to be done. And I'm
[1:47:20] not exactly sure, you know,
[1:47:23] what our ability is to enforce that. I
[1:47:26] don't know in code if we have,
[1:47:30] you know, if we can slap their hands or
[1:47:32] slap their face or fine them 50 bucks or
[1:47:34] what.
[1:47:35] >> we would be able to take back that this
[1:47:36] slough and
[1:47:37] get all of we can remove all of their
[1:47:39] property and everything off
[1:47:41] our land.
[1:47:43] So, that's that's according to the
[1:47:45] lease. But, that would be consistent
[1:47:47] with what I'm talking about as well.
[1:47:49] >> And the license thing would basically
[1:47:51] just remove some stuff that the mayor
[1:47:53] doesn't have to deal with. Staff could
[1:47:55] just deal with it if you went with the
[1:47:57] license versus the lease.
[1:47:58] >> not the mayor Well, the mayor wouldn't
[1:48:00] necessarily administratively be dealing
[1:48:02] with it instead of the council. But, if
[1:48:04] the council still wants this to be a
[1:48:05] lease, the lease loses.
[1:48:07] It'd just be handled more
[1:48:08] administratively at all.
[1:48:09] >> No, I don't know. I don't know.
[1:48:11] >> I guess my only issue is the number 10
[1:48:13] where it says lease property should not
[1:48:15] be for the keeping of animals unless
[1:48:17] approved
[1:48:18] by the city in advance. So, who's going
[1:48:21] to approve that in advance? Is it
[1:48:25] Malcolm? Is it the council? Is it
[1:48:27] Sherry? You know, where do where do we
[1:48:29] go with who's making that decision? And,
[1:48:34] you know, if you go back to this 35 ft
[1:48:36] from the slough bank, who's going to
[1:48:38] administer where the fence is placed 35
[1:48:41] ft or more so the animals don't go onto
[1:48:43] the slough bank? I mean, there's so many
[1:48:46] things with animals. It's almost like no
[1:48:49] animals, we're done.
[1:48:50] Yeah, it's so much easier
[1:48:52] just to say no animals.
[1:48:54] >> Well, that 35 ft is actually designated
[1:48:57] from the opposite slough bank of the
[1:48:59] trail.
[1:49:00] >> the center of the water.
[1:49:01] >> No, it's That's what I I think it says
[1:49:02] the opposite slough bank from where
[1:49:04] they're going to which is going to be
[1:49:05] really interesting to try and measure.
[1:49:08] And, I'm pretty sure 35 ft would
[1:49:11] like the the the main slough the upper
[1:49:13] slough up here, it's not 35 ft wide or I
[1:49:16] mean, it's way more than 35 ft wide. So,
[1:49:19] the opposite bank on the creek would
[1:49:20] need to be a factor tonight if I can get
[1:49:22] it right.
[1:49:23] If we're going to regulate animals, just
[1:49:26] no animals. They would just They want to
[1:49:28] mow it and put a picnic table out there.
[1:49:30] Just no permanent structures.
[1:49:35] Yes.
[1:49:36] >> I agree with
[1:49:39] that. I mean, when these people bought
[1:49:40] their homes and moved in there,
[1:49:42] they that land wasn't theirs anyway. And
[1:49:45] so,
[1:49:46] you know, they're just Okay, we can
[1:49:48] throw an animal back there. Well,
[1:49:50] they've got to take part of their yard
[1:49:52] that
[1:49:52] put the animal where they want.
[1:49:54] And then that,
[1:49:56] you know, they wanted And if it was me
[1:49:58] living down there, I'd probably go down
[1:50:00] and mow the grass and the weeds just to
[1:50:02] keep it looking nice.
[1:50:05] >> Well, and you know, they call these all
[1:50:06] of these
[1:50:08] They are their trail leases, and they do
[1:50:11] go along the slough, but you have some
[1:50:12] that maybe they get 30 ft, some get 150
[1:50:16] ft, some maybe even bigger than that.
[1:50:20] And in some of the really wide ones, and
[1:50:22] then you have the trail, and then you
[1:50:23] have the slough that's a few feet quite
[1:50:26] a few feet away from that. And some of
[1:50:28] those are the ones that have animals
[1:50:30] because it's a
[1:50:32] So, so they're So, maybe we even need to
[1:50:34] have two different criteria here. Maybe
[1:50:36] even based on footage because those ones
[1:50:39] that have a big wide area, maybe the
[1:50:42] animals aren't necessarily hurting it.
[1:50:44] And maybe as a city council, we need to
[1:50:47] do a little field trip and walk along
[1:50:49] and see these before we make decisions
[1:50:52] because you'll see there's a big
[1:50:54] difference.
[1:50:55] They're not all the same. And there
[1:50:57] might be different rules that exist for
[1:50:59] some versus another because Yeah, I I remember when they first did it, they
[1:51:06] were saying, "Well, now what does the
[1:51:07] city do with this property? We can't
[1:51:09] water it. It's work for the our
[1:51:13] parks and recs have to go and mow it and
[1:51:15] so
[1:51:16] maybe that's what we need to do is
[1:51:18] really take a little field trip and
[1:51:20] on our non-motorized vehicles on the
[1:51:22] trail and so look at them.
[1:51:25] >> Can we temporarily lift the
[1:51:27] non-motorized vehicle clause or we can
[1:51:29] have the sheriff's department
[1:51:32] state it's an emergency cuz I know they
[1:51:33] go flying down those trails and in the
[1:51:35] police cars occasionally chasing people
[1:51:38] so maybe we just bum around.
[1:51:40] >> So for whatever it's worth that today I
[1:51:43] was down on 6300 West looking at the
[1:51:47] slough and just so you know since the
[1:51:51] 60s and 70s it's about as twice as wide
[1:51:54] right now as what it was
[1:51:57] 50 60 years ago. So it's it's getting
[1:52:01] wider. I mean we used to uh
[1:52:04] go down there and play in it. I
[1:52:06] shouldn't have with what was in there
[1:52:08] but we could
[1:52:10] uh we could actually jump from one side
[1:52:13] of the slough to the other
[1:52:15] and I don't even think an Olympic
[1:52:17] athlete could have jumped it
[1:52:20] where we used to go so it is getting
[1:52:22] wider.
[1:52:25] » Well maybe we really could maybe then
[1:52:27] get some golf carts or something and
[1:52:29] take a little trip down and ride along
[1:52:31] and see so you can see the differences
[1:52:34] and maybe all of you have walked along
[1:52:35] there. I have quite often because we
[1:52:37] will walk the sloughs but there really
[1:52:39] is there's a big difference and I don't
[1:52:41] want to be limiting limiting it for
[1:52:44] people that have a big I mean some of
[1:52:46] them it's almost a half acre of land
[1:52:49] they have back there
[1:52:51] that they really then could have two
[1:52:53] animals. It so would that be agreeable
[1:52:56] if we just did a little
[1:52:57] >> The only problem I see with that and I
[1:53:00] think well the idea comes from what
[1:53:02] Jared alluded to here in the city.
[1:53:04] One once they put animals back there and
[1:53:06] they graze this down and then
[1:53:08] if they decide not to have them anymore,
[1:53:10] then you have that erosion problem
[1:53:13] that learner was referring to.
[1:53:15] Councilman Rock Lither was referring to.
[1:53:18] And so
[1:53:21] anyway, that but that's a real issue,
[1:53:22] right? And
[1:53:24] but but nature itself will take care of
[1:53:27] that and it has done for hundreds of
[1:53:29] years if it's we're the ones that start
[1:53:31] messing that up if we either
[1:53:34] you know,
[1:53:35] there's other weeds that would grow if
[1:53:37] it once it's grazed down, there's weeds
[1:53:39] that would start growing that naturally
[1:53:41] wouldn't have been there like puncture
[1:53:43] weeds or some of those things. So I
[1:53:46] think it'd be a good idea to just take a
[1:53:48] tour like you're recommending uh
[1:53:52] mayor and just go take a look at them
[1:53:54] and then
[1:53:55] you kind of see the difference in what
[1:53:57] works and what doesn't work.
[1:53:59] >> Can we point out how you can run the
[1:54:01] trail into the healthy community
[1:54:04] corporation?
[1:54:05] >> Yeah.
[1:54:07] >> Okay, let's go for it.
[1:54:08] >> Yeah, it's probably good. Well, I I I
[1:54:09] like that idea because I like I said, I
[1:54:11] don't
[1:54:12] I would I would hesitate making any
[1:54:14] restrictions yet till we have actually
[1:54:16] had a chance to kind of see. And some of
[1:54:19] it there's a hill, some of it is pretty
[1:54:20] flat, but there's a wide difference
[1:54:23] between what these leases
[1:54:27] >> Can I read two sentences from Jerry?
[1:54:28] >> Yes.
[1:54:29] >> Um in this letter he says, "We quickly
[1:54:32] learned that the natural habitat of
[1:54:34] those grasses and all the smooths was a
[1:54:35] great value than rather than cattle
[1:54:38] and needed to be preserved as much as
[1:54:40] possible.
[1:54:41] These plants have literally been growing
[1:54:43] there for decades and when an area is
[1:54:45] disturbed
[1:54:46] where this vegeta- vegetation is
[1:54:48] removed,
[1:54:49] weeds, thistle, puncture weeds will
[1:54:51] start growing in the disturbed area.
[1:54:53] Re-establishing those original native
[1:54:55] grasses and plants is very difficult
[1:54:59] with no means here to do so."
[1:55:02] >> Well, I think in conjunction with
[1:55:03] Councilman Powers' suggestion, if you've
[1:55:06] got animals back there,
[1:55:08] and you don't want to guarantee you
[1:55:09] don't have weeds, then you'd have to
[1:55:11] certified hay to feed them to make sure
[1:55:13] there wasn't weeds brought in the hay and stuff like that. So,
[1:55:19] you know, that's a whole 'nother ball of
[1:55:21] wax that needs to be probably addressed,
[1:55:24] but I agree with the mayor we ought to
[1:55:26] go take a a tour and see,
[1:55:29] you know, what what we think. It's kind
[1:55:31] of hard to sit here in a chair
[1:55:33] describing
[1:55:34] the differences that we have that we
[1:55:37] need to deal with.
[1:55:41] » Okay, we will we will get that scheduled
[1:55:44] then and let you know, and we'll notice
[1:55:45] it if anybody else wants to come and go
[1:55:48] on this little tour and we will do that.
[1:55:51] Okay, any other discussion on that
[1:55:53] before we move on to motorized vehicles?
[1:55:58] Okay. Well, as you know, we've had some
[1:56:02] issues with the motorized vehicles and
[1:56:06] we've we've addressed this a a couple of
[1:56:08] times. You know, this was back in April
[1:56:10] of last year in our newsletter, where we
[1:56:13] gave a definition about what motorized
[1:56:16] vehicles were, and it said it's
[1:56:18] prohibited to use motorized vehicles on
[1:56:21] any city-owned property, parks, trails,
[1:56:23] detention basins, fields, etc.
[1:56:25] But, we don't really have a code
[1:56:28] defining single encampment. And so, last
[1:56:31] time in our work meeting when we had um
[1:56:34] Officer Arbogast, I'm not saying that
[1:56:37] correctly. Okay.
[1:56:38] >> Close.
[1:56:39] >> Okay. Came and said, you know, it's
[1:56:41] really hard for them to try to enforce
[1:56:43] this on our city-owned properties if we
[1:56:45] don't have anything for them to enforce.
[1:56:48] And you know that there was the new
[1:56:51] the e-bike law that came out, the new
[1:56:53] Utah e-bike law that took effect May 6th
[1:56:56] of 2026.
[1:56:58] So, I think this is also something if
[1:57:00] you're interested we could have work on
[1:57:03] and maybe
[1:57:04] we could give some suggestions or Darren
[1:57:07] maybe already has some ideas, but but we
[1:57:08] don't really have anything in our code
[1:57:11] that's prohibiting it other than we tell
[1:57:13] them it's prohibited. We put a sign up
[1:57:15] that says no motorized vehicles. But
[1:57:17] again, there's no teeth into that if we
[1:57:19] don't have any kind of code or
[1:57:21] ordinance.
[1:57:26] » Well, the state obviously just updated
[1:57:29] their regulations for those and
[1:57:31] other streets, so it it should
[1:57:33] theoretically help, but
[1:57:35] the county is in a very difficult
[1:57:37] situation trying to enforce that with
[1:57:40] the the bikes going up and down the
[1:57:42] road. Even that the new laws that are in
[1:57:44] place are going to be
[1:57:46] a regulatory nightmare for the sheriff's
[1:57:48] department to enforce, but I agree with
[1:57:50] Mayor Bingham that we need something
[1:57:52] that's got a little more bite to it cuz
[1:57:55] this this parcel down here on the 5100
[1:57:57] and we have a very
[1:58:00] easy to read sign no motorized vehicles.
[1:58:02] There was five kids in there the other
[1:58:03] day on
[1:58:04] dirt bikes running around and
[1:58:07] that's I don't know, the noise is
[1:58:09] obviously an issue and the dust they
[1:58:10] kick up is obviously an issue for the
[1:58:12] neighbors, but
[1:58:13] you know, I think yeah, I think we need
[1:58:15] to
[1:58:16] deal with that a little more vigorously
[1:58:18] if we can figure out a way to do that.
[1:58:22] » Yeah, I think the bigger issue is
[1:58:24] motorized
[1:58:25] illegal motorized vehicles on public
[1:58:27] streets.
[1:58:29] You know, period. They're already
[1:58:30] illegal. There's already statutes and ordinances
[1:58:34] galore
[1:58:36] you know,
[1:58:37] regulate that. And so, it just needs to
[1:58:39] be enforced. But I mean, we're talking
[1:58:41] about public owned property. Motorized
[1:58:44] vehicle on public owned property is what
[1:58:45] we're trying to pass around.
[1:58:47] But
[1:58:48] I mean, I think the e-bike thing
[1:58:51] is really a non-issue as with the park.
[1:58:53] You know, I think that was
[1:58:56] updated for season sag logs.
[1:59:02] Where e-bikes
[1:59:05] are an issue or a problem. I haven't yet
[1:59:07] to see any bike be a problem in the
[1:59:09] park.
[1:59:10] So,
[1:59:11] anyway, I I think our focus needs to be
[1:59:14] motorized vehicles on city owned
[1:59:16] properties
[1:59:17] with this ordinance.
[1:59:20] >> Yeah, I agree. That's the same thing I
[1:59:22] thought.
[1:59:24] Well, let's work on that then.
[1:59:26] Darren, if we can have that be something
[1:59:28] we can maybe come up with some kind of
[1:59:30] Well, maybe there's another city that
[1:59:31] already has an ordinance.
[1:59:35] >> And you know, this has kind of evolved
[1:59:37] this motorized vehicles because
[1:59:39] a motorized vehicle to me used to be an
[1:59:42] engine.
[1:59:43] But now we've got electric motorcycles
[1:59:46] that are just as fast and
[1:59:48] so is that something we need to
[1:59:52] Or or
[1:59:52] would they be lumped together? No, it's
[1:59:54] the it's the same. Whether it's electric
[1:59:56] or gas, it's it's the same.
[1:59:58] >> We could I just want to verify just I'm
[2:00:00] sorry. This is one I looked in all the
[2:00:02] other ones, I promise. I didn't look
[2:00:04] into this specific. So, we don't have a
[2:00:05] current code that says that you can't
[2:00:08] ride these on public public property on
[2:00:11] our own property.
[2:00:13] >> Not not that we know of. And when the
[2:00:16] actual resource officer said he looked
[2:00:18] because we had specifically invited him
[2:00:21] to come to our work meeting to talk
[2:00:23] about this and he said he could not find
[2:00:26] anything. And when we put it in our
[2:00:28] newsletter and like I said, this was
[2:00:30] April of last year,
[2:00:33] our legal counsel at that time told us
[2:00:34] we had to be really careful what we put
[2:00:36] in there because we don't have anything
[2:00:39] that states other other than we put up
[2:00:41] signs that say
[2:00:43] >> know that this would be what we were
[2:00:45] looking for, but yeah, this would be an
[2:00:47] easy find.
[2:00:48] >> Okay.
[2:00:49] >> An easy plug-in for code. For what
[2:00:51] you're talking about on sidewalks,
[2:00:53] there's a hard estate code.
[2:00:55] Um there's hard estate code for the
[2:00:56] scooters.
[2:00:58] So, state code already is there for our
[2:01:00] operating.
[2:01:01] Um you can add
[2:01:02] new stuff.
[2:01:03] >> Okay.
[2:01:05] Sounds good. Thank you.
[2:01:07] Okay, um the next thing we saw ended up
[2:01:09] taking a hot bonger, so we'll hurry
[2:01:10] through this one and then else this may
[2:01:12] go in the beer ones. Um this is on care
[2:01:14] facilities and again this came Well, it
[2:01:18] didn't, but it almost came to planning
[2:01:20] commission because we thought it needed
[2:01:22] to be a conditional use permit. We've
[2:01:24] had some concerns with this. This The
[2:01:27] city put a moratorium on this last year
[2:01:29] for 6 months. That came and went. We've
[2:01:31] never done anything differently with it.
[2:01:34] And so, again this is something that
[2:01:38] needs to be a discussion and
[2:01:42] do any of you have a chance to look
[2:01:43] through this and have ideas on on what
[2:01:46] you think because it again state code
[2:01:50] You may need to explain what state code
[2:01:51] we need to have.
[2:01:53] >> So, what for state code it it's just
[2:01:55] it's federally mandated and that's why
[2:01:57] the state code has adopted it.
[2:01:59] That we can a city cannot may only
[2:02:02] regulate a residential facility for
[2:02:04] persons with disabilities to the extent
[2:02:06] allowed by the Utah Fair Housing Act and
[2:02:09] Title 57. So, there's only certain types
[2:02:12] of restrictions um
[2:02:14] that cities can put on it.
[2:02:16] If we want it to be a conditional use,
[2:02:19] it should only apply to a single to two
[2:02:22] something that's over a single family.
[2:02:24] So, if it's over a single family, then
[2:02:26] that would be according to state code
[2:02:28] more than four.
[2:02:31] So, sorry, is it more than five
[2:02:32] individuals or something like that?
[2:02:34] It's not specific in the number of
[2:02:36] individuals allowed.
[2:02:38] Yeah. So, if it's
[2:02:39] more than four.
[2:02:42] So, more than four. So, we have we want
[2:02:44] to change our code because we have to
[2:02:46] because state code lands here anyways.
[2:02:48] Our code is wrong according to the
[2:02:50] definition of a single family.
[2:02:52] Um
[2:02:53] we want this is the code that
[2:02:55] applies to us. So it already is.
[2:02:58] We're okay there.
[2:02:59] Um but if we want to
[2:03:02] have these uses have conditions, we need
[2:03:04] to change our code and say that
[2:03:07] Well, actually sorry. I have a good code
[2:03:09] right here. Guess what city I have taken
[2:03:10] this code from.
[2:03:12] So you want to guess what city?
[2:03:14] Clearfield.
[2:03:17] Um Clearfield has really good code
[2:03:19] um for this, but it talks about them
[2:03:22] being able to put conditions if it's
[2:03:24] over four.
[2:03:26] family care facility. If it's under,
[2:03:27] it's just straight permitted.
[2:03:29] >> Can you look at our definition of family
[2:03:31] here and tell us and just make sure
[2:03:33] we're all on the same page where our
[2:03:35] code
[2:03:43] » Cool.
[2:03:44] What I'm saying here is
[2:03:46] like if you I don't know, I guess that's
[2:03:48] okay.
[2:03:49] That's fine.
[2:03:50] The state code is still the standard
[2:03:52] one.
[2:03:53] >> I wanted to just clarify. I took a broad
[2:03:56] swath or uh you know, approach I just
[2:03:58] grabbed everything that
[2:04:00] resembled it. So some of these don't
[2:04:02] apply, but maybe just to direct your
[2:04:04] perspective on
[2:04:06] family. So if you go to the family
[2:04:08] definition there, do you see that?
[2:04:10] >> Yeah.
[2:04:11] >> You can see where we have a weird not
[2:04:12] weird, it's just interesting. Right? We
[2:04:14] have family and the first two probably
[2:04:16] make sense. A person living alone or two
[2:04:18] or more persons related by blood or
[2:04:19] marriage. Number two, a group of not
[2:04:20] more than 10 persons who need to be
[2:04:21] related by blood. So you can see that. C
[2:04:23] is interesting and where I have gotten
[2:04:25] I've gotten hung up and just wanted to
[2:04:26] make sure we're all on the same page.
[2:04:28] Just because they are not eight or fewer
[2:04:29] unrelated mentally and or physically
[2:04:30] handicapped or elderly persons, right?
[2:04:32] And they will be under staff
[2:04:33] supervision. Anyway, because that's been
[2:04:35] defined as family, right? You can see
[2:04:37] that
[2:04:38] we're not
[2:04:42] Yeah, we're allowing people
[2:04:44] So, for instance, we had an applicator
[2:04:46] We have a We have a care facility that's
[2:04:49] four residents. Well, that is not a care
[2:04:52] facility per our definition. It's how I
[2:04:54] understand it. It's a family. So, I just
[2:04:56] wanted to clarify that. And then that
[2:04:58] does tell us into I'll highlight just a
[2:05:01] few of them. You can see where eight is
[2:05:02] kind of our magic number. If you go to
[2:05:03] children's treatment center, it's
[2:05:06] eight
[2:05:08] for more than eight juveniles, right?
[2:05:10] So, once you get above eight, then we're
[2:05:11] calling it a treatment center. If you go
[2:05:12] to foster home, that one kind of dances
[2:05:15] around it. I'm not sure that it's it's
[2:05:16] explicit, but seven to 13 children.
[2:05:20] Um if you go to nursing
[2:05:21] uh facility skilled, more than eight
[2:05:23] individuals. If you go to residential
[2:05:25] care facility, more than eight
[2:05:27] individuals. So, we kind of have this
[2:05:29] threshold that we're dancing around of
[2:05:31] the family is eight. Beyond that becomes
[2:05:35] care facility-esque type stuff. I just
[2:05:38] wanted to get that, you know, in front
[2:05:39] of the council and make sure that eight
[2:05:42] Again, it it just seems like we could I
[2:05:44] mean, it's it's a number.
[2:05:46] >> And that's Yeah, the reason why it's a
[2:05:47] number is eight. If you're over eight,
[2:05:50] um
[2:05:51] it's more commercial.
[2:05:54] Like a commercial care facility, which
[2:05:56] would have a different kind of
[2:05:56] restrictions.
[2:05:59] So, these are the type of
[2:06:01] they can't be restricted from our
[2:06:03] residential zones.
[2:06:05] These houses.
[2:06:09] » Could they Could the number Could our
[2:06:10] family definition go to
[2:06:13] five? State code says you can't have
[2:06:15] less than
[2:06:16] >> Yeah, I think
[2:06:17] >> less than three. So, if it was five,
[2:06:19] then could we have
[2:06:20] >> I'm getting tired, but I had thought
[2:06:22] through this earlier today, but that's
[2:06:24] the reason why um
[2:06:26] I think state code has a four definition
[2:06:29] of a four
[2:06:30] is because
[2:06:32] if you have that in our definition of
[2:06:34] family,
[2:06:35] then it's more of a permitted use.
[2:06:39] It's more of a permitted. But here, if
[2:06:41] we say family is this definition,
[2:06:45] then we could put condition on it.
[2:06:47] >> Yeah. I think so. Yeah, so if we were to
[2:06:49] for instance the council were to say our
[2:06:51] definition for family is going to be
[2:06:52] more comfortable with the state code.
[2:06:54] >> Right.
[2:06:55] >> Four or fewer and really anything then
[2:06:57] anything above four we would have the
[2:06:59] ability to have conditions and
[2:07:01] discussion.
[2:07:02] >> Right. And we don't want to put the city
[2:07:03] at
[2:07:05] the requirement of, you know, so right
[2:07:07] now I have one to five and we're
[2:07:08] >> Right.
[2:07:09] >> So or if someone had seven, they'd be a
[2:07:11] family still.
[2:07:13] Everyone good?
[2:07:14] >> So so where did
[2:07:15] >> Everyone's there?
[2:07:16] >> Where where did our definition even come
[2:07:18] from under family? Where
[2:07:20] >> I don't know.
[2:07:22] It's been in the in the code.
[2:07:24] >> I just made family in my head.
[2:07:26] >> Yeah, me either. That's what I was going
[2:07:27] to say. But you can see how it dumbed
[2:07:28] down the whole our definition, right?
[2:07:30] It's It's a It's a trigger number. Like
[2:07:32] we're calling that anything beyond that
[2:07:34] it gets
[2:07:34] almost treatment like
[2:07:36] definitions in it, right? Like nursing
[2:07:38] and etc. care facilities. So if you say
[2:07:41] eight and not a why not, I don't know
[2:07:42] what determined that early in our
[2:07:45] adoption of that code, I don't know.
[2:07:47] >> Family related, mentally or physically
[2:07:49] handicapped or elderly persons as a
[2:07:51] family?
[2:07:54] » By our definition, yeah. Like that's why
[2:07:56] we're sitting in front of you because
[2:07:57] right now we have some of those going on
[2:07:59] and per our definition
[2:08:00] >> According to who?
[2:08:01] >> According to our definition and code. So
[2:08:04] >> Where did that code come from?
[2:08:06] >> That's That's number HTC. I just pulled
[2:08:08] it from our drive. I don't know where we
[2:08:09] got it.
[2:08:09] >> That's been established since 2020.
[2:08:11] >> Yes.
[2:08:11] >> Since 2000. 2000, yeah.
[2:08:13] >> Yeah, that's where we got it from
[2:08:14] county. I have no idea. We got to We got
[2:08:16] to maybe get ready on it.
[2:08:18] >> Can we change that? Can we change that?
[2:08:20] >> Yes.
[2:08:20] >> Okay, let's change that.
[2:08:21] >> So these Yeah, these are things that
[2:08:23] It's going to be complex because there's
[2:08:24] been a a of legal scrutiny here. We need
[2:08:26] to be careful. These because of what I
[2:08:28] just explained to you, these are
[2:08:30] permitted in residential. They're
[2:08:32] permitted. And even if they're
[2:08:34] conditional, they're permitted. But if
[2:08:36] they're over a certain amount,
[2:08:39] I
[2:08:40] we have an ability to put conditions on
[2:08:42] it.
[2:08:43] >> I I thought your comment was interesting
[2:08:45] that above eight is commercial, but
[2:08:47] under eight
[2:08:48] doesn't doesn't isn't registered as
[2:08:51] wouldn't be registered as a commercial
[2:08:52] facility.
[2:08:53] >> That's why I think they're getting the number eight wrong.
[2:08:56] >> Yeah, that just eight seems like that
[2:08:58] would probably be a commercial facility
[2:09:00] maybe, but
[2:09:01] >> Well, in this instance specifically, and
[2:09:02] I don't want to
[2:09:04] specifically in this instance the state
[2:09:06] requirement is this
[2:09:10] care facility can have more than five.
[2:09:12] So, to your point if the state had a
[2:09:15] greater limit
[2:09:16] a greater restriction than we did, which
[2:09:19] I found somewhat interesting cuz
[2:09:22] >> like they dropped off like the state is restricting the the state
[2:09:27] is the one that's enforcing these, is
[2:09:29] making sure that they're up to code.
[2:09:30] >> I believe it was four.
[2:09:31] >> But anyway, it was a it was more
[2:09:33] stringent than our own code. We would
[2:09:36] have allowed for a few more if by our
[2:09:38] definition.
[2:09:41] Just
[2:09:42] >> Just yeah, that goes along with Brent's
[2:09:44] question is where did we get this from?
[2:09:46] If the state's more restrictive than we
[2:09:48] are.
[2:09:48] >> Our I think I've said this a lot. Our code is old.
[2:09:54] >> So, really? So, you're saying you have a
[2:09:57] good one there for Clearfield access, so
[2:10:00] you're going to
[2:10:01] >> Clearfield has a great code.
[2:10:04] It puts a
[2:10:06] it
[2:10:07] puts it to four and we can do
[2:10:09] conditions.
[2:10:10] Um it it just has a better defines terms
[2:10:12] a little a little better.
[2:10:18] » Well, how hard would that be for Cheney
[2:10:20] need
[2:10:20] that code over to fit Hooper's city.
[2:10:24] >> To to have it fit within our code it
[2:10:27] means a lot of work, but it's I think it
[2:10:29] has to I think we have to. So, I don't
[2:10:31] think there's a
[2:10:33] I agree we need to jump on it.
[2:10:36] >> So, does that take care of our goal to
[2:10:41] conditional use drug and alcohol
[2:10:43] facilities?
[2:10:44] >> To do that.
[2:10:45] I I yeah, I think that's we need the in
[2:10:49] order to have conditional we have to
[2:10:50] change our code cuz I think
[2:10:52] they're going to meet the definition of
[2:10:53] that.
[2:10:54] >> Yeah, right now our drug and alcohol
[2:10:56] will not be able to pull it in there. I
[2:10:57] don't think you can call it any resident
[2:10:59] limitation. So,
[2:11:01] it would be strictly following the state
[2:11:04] requirement that they came up with I
[2:11:06] think. So.
[2:11:09] » Okay, let's work on that too then
[2:11:11] because like you said I I and that leads
[2:11:12] to some things that have been recently I
[2:11:14] know this seems like a lot, but all of
[2:11:16] these have came up recently to planning
[2:11:18] commission or to staff with applications
[2:11:22] and again we can't expect our planning
[2:11:24] commission to do
[2:11:26] they they they they have to just vote
[2:11:27] and make recommendations based on what
[2:11:29] our code is. So, if our code is flawed
[2:11:34] that makes it very difficult.
[2:11:36] >> Or if it's just permitted it doesn't
[2:11:38] need a planning commission.
[2:11:39] It's permitted as of right.
[2:11:41] >> So, no commission.
[2:11:42] >> No commission.
[2:11:43] Right.
[2:11:45] >> So, Malcolm.
[2:11:49] You Malcolm.
[2:11:50] >> Yeah.
[2:11:53] >> So, in our work meeting you wanted us to
[2:11:55] prioritize
[2:11:56] these four items.
[2:11:59] Is that
[2:11:59] >> Would be helpful.
[2:12:00] >> Is is that what
[2:12:01] we need to do right here?
[2:12:02] >> Prioritize prioritize or delegate.
[2:12:05] I don't know. You're right. I mean just
[2:12:07] to be really frank I don't it didn't
[2:12:08] seem like anyone had a lot of motorized
[2:12:10] vehicle opinion or expertise, but legal
[2:12:13] advice is I think this last one should
[2:12:15] not have been on anyway.
[2:12:17] This last one.
[2:12:18] >> Well,
[2:12:19] I was just going to go go in the reverse
[2:12:21] order for my priorities,
[2:12:24] D C B A.
[2:12:28] » Okay. Thank you.
[2:12:29] Helpful.
[2:12:31] >> Okay. Thank you. Okay, we're going to
[2:12:33] move on to our action item then. We have
[2:12:36] a motion approval of a commercial
[2:12:37] business license, Wasatch Fuel
[2:12:40] Enterprises. And we have someone here
[2:12:43] tonight. Malcolm, do you have anything
[2:12:44] you'd like to say about this before he
[2:12:46] comes up to address the council?
[2:12:48] >> No.
[2:12:50] >> Okay. Well, we'll welcome you to come up
[2:12:52] then and
[2:12:54] >> You're still away.
[2:12:56] >> Yeah.
[2:12:57] Hi. How are you?
[2:12:59] I am Mr. Hakim Sugar. I just applied for
[2:13:01] the Wasatch distribution license
[2:13:04] for the business. I am very excited
[2:13:07] to come to the Hooper.
[2:13:09] That's it.
[2:13:11] Thank you.
[2:13:16] » So, this is the Sinclair station that is
[2:13:18] located at 5500 South, 5500 West.
[2:13:23] >> Yes.
[2:13:25] Okay. Does anybody have any questions?
[2:13:27] >> Yeah, I just some quick questions. What
[2:13:30] are or maybe just one question. Are you
[2:13:32] planning on just leaving it the same way
[2:13:34] it is or do you have plans of
[2:13:38] you know, adding something to it or
[2:13:40] changing
[2:13:41] >> Right now, the kind of same things.
[2:13:43] Maybe in the near future I want to add
[2:13:45] something else.
[2:13:46] Right now, the same it is.
[2:13:49] >> Okay. So, is it something you don't want
[2:13:52] to divulge
[2:13:54] in the future or share or you don't have to. I was
[2:13:58] just
[2:13:58] >> Not yet.
[2:13:59] >> Okay.
[2:14:00] >> Yeah.
[2:14:00] >> All right.
[2:14:02] Fair enough.
[2:14:03] >> Any question?
[2:14:08] » Any other questions? Um
[2:14:09] >> Well, I had a question cuz I wondered if
[2:14:11] it was Sinclair. So, why are we having to issue a new
[2:14:15] business license at this very same
[2:14:17] thing?
[2:14:19] >> A new owner.
[2:14:21] It's a new owner.
[2:14:22] >> Yes.
[2:14:26] » Any other questions?
[2:14:31] We can
[2:14:32] >> We can't require them to but we like the
[2:14:35] saddle, right? Do you like the saddle?
[2:14:37] That That's one of the saddles.
[2:14:39] >> Yeah.
[2:14:40] >> So, that works.
[2:14:41] >> Yeah.
[2:14:41] >> They actually It's cute.
[2:14:43] They actually have to change to the
[2:14:45] other day going inside the store.
[2:14:47] It has
[2:14:48] to be able to go ride the dinosaur. They
[2:14:50] actually four or five kids went and
[2:14:52] requested dinosaur riding.
[2:15:00] » Okay, thank you.
[2:15:03] Bring it back to council then for
[2:15:04] discussion. Does anybody have any
[2:15:07] questions, discussion on this? I can
[2:15:10] just say on public record, we've really
[2:15:13] appreciated our association with Nick
[2:15:16] Manning. He's been very supportive and
[2:15:18] I'm sure you will be as well, but we've
[2:15:21] appreciated all that Nick has done for
[2:15:23] Herriman City as far as his involvement
[2:15:25] with all of our community events and so
[2:15:28] personally, I really want to make that
[2:15:30] acknowledgement of how much we
[2:15:31] appreciate him. And we we will
[2:15:34] appreciate you as well. Be nice to get
[2:15:36] to know you.
[2:15:37] Okay, so if there's no other questions
[2:15:39] then, we need to
[2:15:40] have a motion then on this approval of
[2:15:42] this commercial business license,
[2:15:45] Wasatch Fuel Enterprise Incorporated
[2:15:46] located at 5500 South, 5500 West.
[2:15:51] >> So moved.
[2:15:52] >> Okay, the motion
[2:15:54] Okay, was made by council member
[2:15:56] Fawners, seconded by council member
[2:15:58] Heale. Any discussion on the motion?
[2:16:01] Okay, all in favor, say aye.
[2:16:03] >> Aye.
[2:16:04] >> Any opposed?
[2:16:05] Okay.
[2:16:07] Carries, thank you.
[2:16:09] Okay.
[2:16:10] >> so the the next thing we have on our
[2:16:11] agenda then is approval of the amendment
[2:16:14] to our legal counsel contract.
[2:16:18] So, I don't know if Darren you just want
[2:16:19] to start with that and then I have some
[2:16:21] things to we can talk
[2:16:22] >> approach that.
[2:16:23] I'm switching here. I can't
[2:16:26] I cannot give any kind of legal counsel
[2:16:28] here.
[2:16:29] Um first
[2:16:31] this isn't an ultimatum
[2:16:33] that I've brought forward to the city.
[2:16:36] Uh
[2:16:37] obviously this is coming because there's
[2:16:38] been some changes. So, Matt has left. Um
[2:16:42] it's just me.
[2:16:43] Uh
[2:16:44] he's I don't need to put any word words
[2:16:46] in his mouth. Um
[2:16:49] but I'm there's a change and probably
[2:16:51] the the reason why there's a change is
[2:16:53] for some of the reasons I'm going to
[2:16:54] talk about tonight.
[2:16:56] Um
[2:16:57] but that being said, it's been a great
[2:16:58] experience.
[2:17:00] Uh we both have loved working here. It's
[2:17:02] been challenging. And and challenging is
[2:17:05] good and it's been interesting for the
[2:17:07] legal issues that were we've been
[2:17:09] dealing with.
[2:17:10] Uh I
[2:17:12] with I have some really good connections
[2:17:14] in this um
[2:17:16] in this field. I work with people that
[2:17:18] have been doing this for 40 years,
[2:17:20] municipal law.
[2:17:21] And I've come to them with some of the
[2:17:23] issues we're dealing with and it's funny
[2:17:25] to get the
[2:17:27] huh?
[2:17:29] Or I've never dealt with that before
[2:17:32] kind of situation. And with people that
[2:17:34] have been doing this for 40 years. So,
[2:17:35] it's complex, which is interesting.
[2:17:37] That's that's something that keeps it
[2:17:39] interesting. Um sometimes it's been
[2:17:41] tumultuous and it has taken a lot of
[2:17:44] time. It's something that we didn't
[2:17:46] anticipate. We didn't anticipate that it
[2:17:48] would take as much time um from us
[2:17:50] initially. Uh
[2:17:53] so
[2:17:54] when we started we didn't anticipate
[2:17:56] that.
[2:17:57] Um to kind of explain a little bit, I
[2:17:59] want to add another attorney, Nick
[2:18:01] Mills. To just talk about him. I
[2:18:04] he is worth his weight in gold. He's
[2:18:06] been doing municipal law for almost 20
[2:18:08] years. He's one of the senior city
[2:18:09] attorneys.
[2:18:11] Um he works for Kaysville. His resume
[2:18:13] speaks for himself. He's very very
[2:18:15] smart, well-educated,
[2:18:17] um and he's one of the best people I
[2:18:19] know. Uh he's the most pet um optimistic person
[2:18:23] I've ever met.
[2:18:24] And uh
[2:18:26] he is my mentor.
[2:18:28] He's the reason why I chose this career.
[2:18:29] And law school, I was
[2:18:32] I did a internship at Layton, and that's
[2:18:34] what got me connected with Layton, and
[2:18:36] he worked there.
[2:18:37] I was planning on doing big firm, and I
[2:18:40] don't mean to talk bad about big firm,
[2:18:42] but talking to Nick Mills
[2:18:44] and his reason for working in this field
[2:18:47] was what pushed me, and that's why I'm
[2:18:49] here. He He said that his job is all
[2:18:52] about making the right decision for
[2:18:54] doing the right thing. Which sometimes
[2:18:56] in big firm,
[2:18:58] that's different. Um so, doing the right
[2:19:00] thing.
[2:19:01] Um that's why I'm here, but that's
[2:19:03] certainly why he does it. So, he is a
[2:19:05] great person, amazing. Having him work
[2:19:08] for the city
[2:19:09] takes care of what I'm asking for. I
[2:19:11] promise. He is ready to go. He's going
[2:19:14] to be my partner. We are a good team. We
[2:19:16] used to call each other the Splash
[2:19:17] Brothers. Um this is when Steph Curry
[2:19:20] and Thompson were um
[2:19:22] were dominating on their team. But
[2:19:24] anyways, that's what we actually still
[2:19:25] call each other now. So, we'd be a great
[2:19:27] team. Um
[2:19:31] uh
[2:19:34] What was I going to say? So,
[2:19:36] what we're asking for it we're asking
[2:19:38] for 4,000.
[2:19:40] Now, obviously everything ebbs and
[2:19:42] flows, and
[2:19:44] the months were different. Um we kept
[2:19:46] saying, me and Matt kept saying, "Well,
[2:19:48] this is pretty bad. I can't This is This
[2:19:51] is um interesting how much we're working
[2:19:55] from the very get-go." And we kept
[2:19:56] saying, "Well, let's hold off. We'll
[2:19:58] just let We'll just push it. Let's just
[2:19:59] hold off till the end of the year. Let's
[2:20:01] hold off till after." And I mean,
[2:20:03] especially January I mean, sorry,
[2:20:05] December and November with the issues
[2:20:07] that we're dealing with, that was a lot
[2:20:08] of time. But then January happened, and
[2:20:10] it was the same issue. I'm I'm still
[2:20:12] working, I would say about 10 hours a
[2:20:14] week. So, 10 hours a week um with Hooper
[2:20:17] stuff. So, 10 hours a week. That was
[2:20:20] just me.
[2:20:21] Uh that's not counting Matt.
[2:20:23] Um so, that's about what it was at. If
[2:20:26] we just even just do my increase to
[2:20:29] 4,000, just for those 10 hours every
[2:20:32] week, that's $100 an hour.
[2:20:34] And according to other contracts all
[2:20:36] over the state, that is a great deal.
[2:20:39] So, again, this is my
[2:20:41] I'm just I'm sell obviously selling this
[2:20:46] on you.
[2:20:47] Right now, as I'm doing this, I'm not
[2:20:49] going to give you any legal advice. This
[2:20:50] is up to you.
[2:20:52] Um but I can tell you that if
[2:20:53] you're going to have great support.
[2:20:55] Um
[2:20:56] especially adding Nick, that's going to
[2:20:58] be great. The city of Hooper has
[2:21:01] interesting legal issues for a reason,
[2:21:03] and it's because where it's at, and
[2:21:06] where it's going, and where it wants to
[2:21:08] go.
[2:21:09] And there are there are more legal
[2:21:11] issues coming. Um with the development
[2:21:14] that's happening, there's a lot that's
[2:21:15] going to demand a lot of time.
[2:21:17] So, that being That being said, that's my pitch. Um I'll take questions
[2:21:21] if they if you have questions.
[2:21:25] » What What role are you and Nick going to
[2:21:27] take?
[2:21:28] Similar to you and Matt. What are you going to do?
[2:21:31] >> So,
[2:21:31] >> Council versus commission.
[2:21:32] >> He Nick would do the tiny commission.
[2:21:34] So, Nick's council is the same on
[2:21:37] Kaysville.
[2:21:38] And he's in he's in his council right
[2:21:40] now.
[2:21:41] It'd be the same.
[2:21:47] » I I've never actually seen your original
[2:21:51] um contract agreement.
[2:21:54] Um I have to assume in that at some
[2:21:56] point time
[2:21:57] you had
[2:21:59] um
[2:22:00] let's say estimated roughly how many
[2:22:03] hours you thought that was going to take
[2:22:05] to
[2:22:07] mitigate what we needed for the city.
[2:22:10] Um
[2:22:11] have we
[2:22:13] I'm guessing we have
[2:22:15] somewhat exceeded the amount of time
[2:22:17] that you thought it was going to take?
[2:22:19] >> Well, it's it's
[2:22:21] I mean, it's estimated. So, we we
[2:22:23] figured it'd be about 5 hours a week. Um
[2:22:26] but that's estimation.
[2:22:28] So, all cities are different. I mean, my
[2:22:31] partner So, Nick, he he covered a long
[2:22:33] time the city of Felding.
[2:22:35] That's different. That's just way
[2:22:37] different. Or Hanover, one of my good
[2:22:39] friends covers Hanover.
[2:22:41] And they meet in the city council a
[2:22:43] garage.
[2:22:44] And it's just it's just a different
[2:22:45] ballgame.
[2:22:47] The city's getting
[2:22:49] the city's just getting bigger. So, we
[2:22:51] just didn't anticipate it.
[2:22:53] >> Are you anticipating
[2:22:55] as
[2:22:56] we grow that we are going to have
[2:23:01] more issues?
[2:23:03] >> Absolutely.
[2:23:03] >> Okay.
[2:23:04] Which I kind of think is totally
[2:23:06] reasonable. I'm assuming we definitely
[2:23:08] have some issues that are
[2:23:10] on our doorstep that we haven't dealt
[2:23:12] with yet. Um
[2:23:16] you know, so I I
[2:23:18] think
[2:23:19] moving forward with something like this
[2:23:22] is probably not a bad idea for
[2:23:25] the city. I I personally have
[2:23:28] um
[2:23:29] never had you I haven't contacted you
[2:23:32] very much because I just haven't had a
[2:23:34] lot of legal questions, but I have known
[2:23:37] that you were very available when we had
[2:23:40] somebody that had legal questions to
[2:23:42] contact you. So, um kudos to you for
[2:23:44] doing that for us. I appreciate it.
[2:23:50] I just want to say thank you. Uh
[2:23:53] you know,
[2:23:54] uh very appreciative of what you've done
[2:23:56] and
[2:23:57] uh I would not want to go out and search
[2:24:00] for another attorney right now. So, uh I
[2:24:04] think your rate is very fair, more than
[2:24:07] fair, and so
[2:24:09] I'm I'm on board. I
[2:24:12] Everything I have to say is good.
[2:24:15] >> So, this isn't a question either. But,
[2:24:17] just a little um commentary just a
[2:24:20] refresher for our council. So, on April
[2:24:22] 30th at our budget meeting, and if
[2:24:24] anybody wants to go back and listen to
[2:24:26] it, it's at minute 44 15 seconds. But,
[2:24:29] so for about 11 and 1/2 minutes, we
[2:24:30] discussed this, and I was the one that
[2:24:33] brought this up to city council that I
[2:24:36] felt like we needed to raise the
[2:24:37] contract to 4,000. This was not
[2:24:40] something that Darren had ever
[2:24:42] approached me on. This was me as the
[2:24:45] mayor, as I had noticed the workload
[2:24:48] that we were expecting him to do, and I
[2:24:50] went back, and I do have a copy of the
[2:24:53] RFP, and you know, to be quite honest,
[2:24:55] the 2,500 was considerably reasonable, and I in my
[2:25:01] mind, even I felt like a low amount for
[2:25:04] the work that then when once you became
[2:25:06] our attorney, we expected you to do. And
[2:25:08] I know at that time, before we I even
[2:25:10] brought this up to budget meeting, I had
[2:25:12] talked to Cammie, our treasurer, to make
[2:25:14] sure the money was already available in
[2:25:16] our budget, which it was.
[2:25:18] And so, you know, I was the one that
[2:25:20] brought this up, and we had quite a good
[2:25:21] discussion of it at that night. So,
[2:25:25] again, I say thank you. We really
[2:25:27] appreciate the services that you've done
[2:25:29] for Herriman City, and I feel like this
[2:25:32] amount is is really still a reasonable,
[2:25:36] good amount, and I feel like like you
[2:25:39] mentioned, it It be good to have Nick's
[2:25:40] experience as well. I think that could
[2:25:43] be a benefit because,
[2:25:44] you know, we've said for a long time
[2:25:46] we're a new city, well we're not. We're
[2:25:47] 25 years old. We keep saying we're a
[2:25:49] small city, well we're not. We're almost
[2:25:51] 10,000. So, it's time that we start
[2:25:53] moving into the next phase of the city
[2:25:56] and we do need good legal counsel to
[2:25:58] help us with that.
[2:26:03] » Just a question on that line item you
[2:26:05] just mentioned, 1041-4500,
[2:26:08] attorney. Do you have budget
[2:26:10] >> 45,000.
[2:26:11] Was there a reason for the extra 5,000
[2:26:13] in
[2:26:14] >> So, we had So, if you go back to that
[2:26:16] budget, we have 45,000 under general
[2:26:19] funds. If you go to Seward, there's an
[2:26:21] additional 20,000. And if you go back
[2:26:24] and listen to the meeting, we discussed
[2:26:25] that quite a bit in that meeting as
[2:26:27] well. That county said they split that
[2:26:30] up because there could be legal So, we
[2:26:32] have a total of $65,000
[2:26:35] which we had last year in our budget as
[2:26:37] well as in our fiscal year 2027 budget,
[2:26:40] which will account for
[2:26:43] what we are paying this So, if you do
[2:26:45] the 4,000, we also paid Brandon Miles
[2:26:49] for our prosecution. And then we did
[2:26:51] also put on retainer
[2:26:53] water attorney. And all of this will be
[2:26:55] covered under these legal
[2:26:57] County also had mentioned that we do
[2:26:59] have a quite a substantial amount of
[2:27:01] contracting services which legal can
[2:27:03] also go with our contracting.
[2:27:08] » Well, another item
[2:27:10] and I wasn't This is This was before my
[2:27:12] time, but
[2:27:15] when we
[2:27:17] hired Darren as the attorney, did we
[2:27:19] have a plethora of other attorneys that
[2:27:23] put in applications for our city to
[2:27:26] do that? So, I'm assuming that that
[2:27:28] meant we were getting a screaming deal
[2:27:30] because if we had some ridiculous amount
[2:27:34] that he was requesting at that time
[2:27:37] or that we contracted with, I'm pretty
[2:27:40] sure there would have been a whole lot
[2:27:41] more interest in it. So, I'm thinking
[2:27:43] he'd probably been giving us a pretty reasonable deal, or there would
[2:27:48] have been a whole lot more competition
[2:27:50] for his service for this particular city
[2:27:53] using that service.
[2:27:55] >> Well, that's one thing you have to be
[2:27:56] aware of is we are a small town, even
[2:27:59] though we are growing, we do not have
[2:28:00] the finances, we don't have the revenue
[2:28:02] to hire a full-time attorney. We don't.
[2:28:05] And so, we are going to be contracting
[2:28:07] our services. And so, again, I feel like
[2:28:10] we are have a very qualified attorney. I
[2:28:12] haven't met Nick yet, but from reading
[2:28:14] his resume, I feel like then we would
[2:28:16] have two very qualified attorneys, which
[2:28:18] we did with yourself and and with Matt.
[2:28:25] » Curious, how old is Nick Ripley?
[2:28:27] >> Um
[2:28:29] He doesn't look it,
[2:28:31] but no, he's about 40 I don't want to
[2:28:33] say 46.
[2:28:35] >> That's
[2:28:36] >> Yeah.
[2:28:36] >> That's a pretty damn young. That's
[2:28:37] pretty young, so.
[2:28:39] >> And his resume doesn't even show
[2:28:41] So, he's he he he does cover as well
[2:28:43] small cities, so he has that and he's
[2:28:44] had that for a long time as well. He
[2:28:46] does Mona.
[2:28:48] Um so, he kind of has those issues under
[2:28:50] his belt with the small cities and then
[2:28:52] as well Case Bill. And he's gone up to
[2:28:54] the governor through I I think three
[2:28:55] times for a judgeship. I'm been on the
[2:28:58] short list. There's three attorneys that
[2:29:00] are on that short list. So, he's a he's
[2:29:02] just a very smart person.
[2:29:05] >> Well, I I'm just reading his agenda took
[2:29:07] me about 10 minutes. So, reading his
[2:29:09] qualifications, basically, that it's
[2:29:12] totally impressive.
[2:29:13] And I'm not any kind of a legal mind,
[2:29:15] but
[2:29:16] there's a there's a lot of stuff that
[2:29:18] he's involved in that and a lot of these
[2:29:20] things actually
[2:29:21] probably would be very applicable to our
[2:29:24] city, too. So, I you know, I think him
[2:29:27] on board could do nothing but help us
[2:29:30] out.
[2:29:31] >> And so, I'll make a
[2:29:33] Yes, we do need a motion. Just one quick
[2:29:35] clarification for all of us, you're
[2:29:37] probably aware, we call this the third
[2:29:39] amendment and the reason is the first
[2:29:41] amendment to the contract was when Matt
[2:29:43] Wilson's father passed away and he
[2:29:45] changed the name of the law firm. The
[2:29:47] second amendment then was when Matt was
[2:29:49] no longer our attorney and then it went
[2:29:51] just to Daren. So, this actually is the
[2:29:53] third amendment to our contract in order
[2:29:56] to have it now be um Daren and Nick.
[2:29:59] >> So, yes.
[2:30:01] >> Council member here, you're right. So,
[2:30:02] if there's someone that would like to
[2:30:03] make the motion of the approval of the
[2:30:05] amendment to our legal counsel contract.
[2:30:09] >> So be it.
[2:30:11] >> Okay, the motion is made by Council
[2:30:12] member Roccaforte. Is there a second?
[2:30:15] >> I'll second it.
[2:30:16] >> Second is made by Council member um
[2:30:19] Hancock.
[2:30:21] Is this something we need to do a roll
[2:30:22] call vote?
[2:30:24] >> Um can you run that over there?
[2:30:25] >> Yes, for finance for finance. Yes.
[2:30:27] >> We need to make it do a roll call vote.
[2:30:29] Okay, so we are going to do that then.
[2:30:32] So, we will start with Council member
[2:30:33] Hill.
[2:30:35] >> Yes.
[2:30:35] >> Council mem- Council member Roccaforte.
[2:30:38] >> Yes.
[2:30:38] >> Council member Hancock.
[2:30:39] >> Yes.
[2:30:40] >> Council member Flowers.
[2:30:41] >> Yes.
[2:30:42] >> Okay, that covers. Thank you. We
[2:30:44] appreciate all you do.
[2:30:45] >> Now, I'm going back to be
[2:30:47] >> Okay.
[2:30:48] the next thing we have then is um
[2:30:52] to move into a closed session. We need a
[2:30:54] motion to move. There are some things we
[2:30:56] need to to discuss.
[2:30:57] >> Actually, Council, can we have a pause?
[2:31:00] >> Oh, sure.
[2:31:01] >> And could I Flowers, can I talk to you
[2:31:03] outside?
[2:31:04] Just a few minutes.
[2:31:14] Is Is the popcorn popping?
[2:31:16] Pop. It's like the popcorn music.
[2:31:18] >> All the inter-cultural
[2:31:21] >> Did you get your stuff here? Okay.
[2:31:24] So, do
[2:31:26] That's to do on Thursday nights, we come
[2:31:27] here with my friends to ramble.
[2:31:30] Look at that.
[2:31:31] And that's one of the That's one of the
[2:31:33] yes, right?
[2:31:45] I don't know about that.
[2:31:47] That's in charge of chemistry class.
[2:31:50] He asked you to go out there.
[2:31:56] Hey Chris.
[2:31:57] Take it back.
[2:31:58] She told me how tough you are, too.
[2:32:05] Chris, I'm sorry. Good try.
[2:32:07] Oh, thank you.
[2:32:08] Yes, sir.
[2:32:11] It's all right.
[2:32:12] church
[2:32:15] Oh, I actually read it today. I read
[2:32:17] some little post on the
[2:32:19] Catholic Church.
[2:32:22] She drinks out of the bottle.
[2:32:24] She ordered several bottles.
[2:32:26] Well, like 30 years ago they told him
[2:32:28] she had 3 months. Jesus. Well, I think
[2:32:30] she beat that.
[2:32:32] How old is she also now?
[2:32:34] 77.
[2:32:39] That's even older than me.
[2:32:40] Yeah, yeah, you're back here cuz you're
[2:32:42] in the slow, too, huh?
[2:32:44] Yeah, it's been some tough road.
[2:32:46] Put it in there. In the RV group. Yes,
[2:32:48] sir.
[2:32:51] I wish she hadn't gone there.
[2:32:53] They had a horse trailer. What was the
[2:32:55] final blow about her?
[2:32:57] Oh my gosh.
[2:32:59] We built it. A monkey would have climbed
[2:33:01] up the scaffolding and swing on that
[2:33:03] thing.
[2:33:06] We used to go catch carp all there. for
[2:33:09] the
[2:33:11] What's wrong with you? We all have
[2:33:14] Yeah, but how many Your immune system's
[2:33:16] going to mute system. How many of your
[2:33:17] friends have direct sewage? That's true.
[2:33:20] I didn't see the puppy there.
[2:33:23] Shady, I'm probably just going to kill
[2:33:24] the recording.
[2:33:26] Yeah, I can say
[2:33:27] you want to tell them we're going to
[2:33:29] have a closed and then a closed door and
[2:33:31] then we'll
[2:33:32] you know close
[2:33:39] I'm going to kill I'm going to kill your
[2:33:41] video.
[2:33:44] » I didn't think the video was even
[2:33:45] working.
[2:33:46] >> Yeah, we got it. I got it going.
[2:34:30] » Councilor you're right to to move on
[2:34:31] now, then.
[2:34:32] >> Yes, yes, please.
[2:34:33] >> Okay. Um, so we need to have someone
[2:34:35] make a motion to move into a closed
[2:34:38] session and you need to read the
[2:34:40] discussion of the strategy and number
[2:34:42] three needs to be in your motion of why
[2:34:45] we would be moving into a closed
[2:34:47] session.
[2:34:51] » I make a motion to move into a closed
[2:34:55] meeting
[2:34:57] with a discussion of strategy sessions
[2:35:00] to discuss pending or reasonably
[2:35:02] imminent litigation pursuant to UCA
[2:35:07] 52-4-205
[2:35:12] number one in parentheses and number C
[2:35:16] or letter C in parentheses.
[2:35:20] >> Okay, the motion was made by council
[2:35:21] member
[2:35:23] >> Rappalletto.
[2:35:25] to move into closed our
[2:35:27] meeting.
[2:35:28] Is there a second?
[2:35:29] >> I'll second that motion.
[2:35:31] >> Second is made by council member
[2:35:32] Hancock. All in favor?
[2:35:34] >> I.
[2:35:35] >> Okay, any opposed?
[2:35:37] Okay, we're going to move into closed
[2:35:38] our meeting. There will not be any
[2:35:40] voting done after this. So, after our
[2:35:42] closed
[2:35:43] session, we will just have
[2:35:45] >> an adjournment.
[2:35:46] >> Thank you. Thank you for coming.
[2:35:47] >> Recording stopped.
[2:36:04] » So moved.
[2:36:05] >> Okay, motion was
[2:36:06] >> I second.
[2:36:07] >> Motion is made by council member Hill,
[2:36:09] seconded by council member Rappalletto.
[2:36:11] All in favor?
[2:36:12] >> I.
[2:36:12] >> Okay, meeting is adjourned.