[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.

May 21, 2026 - City Council Meeting

Transcript