[0:00] meeting.

[0:01] >> Okay.

[0:02] Welcome to the regular meeting of

[0:05] the Springdale Town Council. Today is

[0:07] Wednesday, May 13, 2026.

[0:10] The time is 5:15 p.m. We are in

[0:13] Springdale at the Canyon Community

[0:15] Center. With us from the town, we have

[0:17] Garen Breck, Don Breck, Rob Totten,

[0:20] Nyall Connelly, Tom Danzy, Kendall

[0:23] Sagers, and April Ritz. And we have our

[0:26] general counsel Greg Hardman. On the dis

[0:29] from council we have Pat Campbell, Randy

[0:32] Eton, myself Barbara Bruno, Jack Burns,

[0:35] and Kyla Topam. And I would like to

[0:40] start with the pledge of allegiance. If

[0:42] you'll join me

[0:48] » to the flag of the United States of

[0:51] America and to the republic for it

[0:54] stands one nation under God indivisible

[0:59] andice for all.

[1:04] » The next item on the agenda is an oath

[1:06] of office for our new town clerk Kendall

[1:08] Sagers.

[1:11] And Kendall, do you want to stay where

[1:12] you are and do that or do you want to go

[1:14] up to the dis?

[1:16] >> I I think I see the answer to that.

[1:32] » Okay. Um, if you'll repeat after me,

[1:35] raise your right hand. I Kindle Sers.

[1:40] I, Kendall Sagers,

[1:41] >> having been appointed to the office of

[1:43] town clerk,

[1:44] >> having been appointed to the office of

[1:46] town clerk,

[1:47] >> do solemnly swear that I will support,

[1:49] obey, and defend the Constitution of the

[1:52] United States.

[1:54] >> do solemnly swear that I will support,

[1:56] obey, and defend the Constitution of the

[1:58] United States

[1:59] >> and the Constitution of the State of

[2:01] Utah

[2:02] >> and the Constitution of the State of

[2:04] Utah.

[2:04] >> and that I will discharge the duties of

[2:06] my office with fidelity. and that I will

[2:09] discharge the duties of my office with

[2:11] fidelity.

[2:12] >> Congratulations.

[2:13] >> Thank you.

[2:22] » I would entertain a motion to approve

[2:24] the regular meeting agenda.

[2:27] >> Um, and we've had a request. So, we

[2:30] would like to have the agenda approved

[2:32] with item D2

[2:34] moved to after item C2.

[2:37] Is

[2:39] >> that good?

[2:52] She's not coming. She's going to zoom

[2:54] in.

[2:55] >> So, um,

[2:57] >> does someone want to make that motion?

[2:58] >> Agenda with the revision of moving item

[3:02] D2 to be heard right after item C2.

[3:07] >> There a second.

[3:09] >> A second.

[3:10] >> Got a motion by Randy and a second by

[3:11] Kyla.

[3:12] >> And I, Randy,

[3:13] >> Barbara, I.

[3:14] >> Jack, I k I.

[3:16] >> Okay. Are there any general

[3:18] announcements from the town?

[3:20] >> Yes.

[3:23] >> Uh Ryan is usually here to fill us in on

[3:26] all the exciting things that are

[3:27] happening in Springdale, but he is um in

[3:30] training today and so he's asked me to do that for him. So he has uh two

[3:35] exciting things. Um one is uh this month

[3:39] is National Physical Fitness and Sports

[3:42] Month. And so for the entire month of

[3:45] May, all town fitness and sports classes

[3:47] are completely free to attend. So

[3:50] everyone is encouraged to come and

[3:52] attend a class and look for ways to get

[3:54] active and stay healthy.

[3:56] Um and second announcement is that we

[3:59] will be partnering with Dark Skies

[4:01] Astronomy Tours for a Community

[4:03] Stargazing event that will be held on

[4:06] the town field Friday, May 29th at 9:30.

[4:12] Um, and again, that is completely free

[4:14] and is always a big hit with people of

[4:16] all ages. So, please come out and

[4:18] support that event as well.

[4:21] >> Friday, May 29th at 9:30 p.m.

[4:30] That's after Springdale midnight.

[4:32] >> It's after some of our bad times.

[4:36] >> Are there any other general

[4:38] announcements?

[4:40] Okay. Um, we'll start with an update on

[4:44] Z National Park from Superintendent

[4:45] Brady But

[4:51] » Good afternoon.

[4:53] Um, I'll start with some of our

[4:55] visitation data as I usually do, but uh,

[4:58] the mayor has granted me a few extra

[5:00] minutes to talk about a few other

[5:02] things. Um for the month of April, um

[5:08] visitation at the park compared to April

[5:11] last year was down 2.1%.

[5:15] Although it sure didn't feel that way.

[5:18] Um

[5:20] but year to date um through April, we're up uh 5.4%

[5:28] um compared to last year. So still still

[5:32] trending um up. Um visitation was super

[5:37] strong in March and uh very strong in

[5:40] February if you remember. So

[5:43] um any general questions before I start

[5:46] in on some other things? Be happy to

[5:49] answer.

[5:51] >> Campground.

[5:52] >> South Campground. Still finishing up the

[5:55] punch list. Um,

[5:58] we've uh a few things have been

[6:00] backordered. Uh, supply chain issues,

[6:02] but we're we're looking at probably

[6:06] before the end of the month. We'd like

[6:08] to get it open for Memorial Day, but I'm

[6:10] not sure we're going to make that.

[6:17] » No changes with the tunnel closure.

[6:19] That's still scheduled to happen.

[6:21] >> Still scheduled uh June 7th. And again,

[6:24] it's not a tunnel closure. It's the Zion

[6:27] Mount Carmel Highway.

[6:28] >> Yes.

[6:29] >> And um um we're

[6:34] utilizing the term large vehicles as

[6:36] opposed to oversized vehicles because if

[6:39] you worked for U DOT or A DOT, oversized

[6:43] vehicles mean something much different.

[6:45] So um these are uh vehicles that either

[6:49] don't meet the tunnel size requirements

[6:53] or are too long for the the turning uh

[6:56] the turn radi on the road itself. So uh

[7:01] those two things plus um there is a

[7:04] 50,000 lb weight limit for the bridges

[7:08] and um u that applies to these larger

[7:12] vehicles as well.

[7:15] So June 7th, um we'll continue our um

[7:21] public information campaign. As you

[7:23] know, we've been getting things out

[7:25] periodically and we'll be ramping that

[7:28] up again here over this next month. So,

[7:31] we'll kind of redeploy some staff uh for

[7:34] the first week or so. Um I'm sure

[7:36] there'll be folks that aren't aware of

[7:38] what's going on, but Yeah.

[7:43] Okay.

[7:44] >> Thank you.

[7:46] >> Tom, are you running the

[7:49] >> I am. Which uh which

[7:52] >> which would you like first?

[7:54] >> Just the general visitation graph

[8:00] that one.

[8:02] So um I wanted to kind of give you a

[8:04] state of things as as are happening now

[8:07] in the park. Um just as a bit of

[8:11] reference uh here this is our visitation

[8:15] um over the the period 1919 when the uh

[8:20] park sign national park was established

[8:24] um up through 2025.

[8:27] Of note, it took until 1975 to get to 1

[8:31] million visitors and then you'll see in

[8:33] 15 years. Um, it jumped up to 2 million,

[8:38] which corresponds with I-15 being uh

[8:41] completed uh through the gorge uh the

[8:45] Virgin River Gorge and uh visitation

[8:49] ramped up during that period pretty

[8:51] quick. So you can see as you go to the

[8:53] right um we hit some of these um

[8:57] additional million marks in very uh

[9:00] compressed time frame. So that's uh

[9:03] where we are right now and um

[9:08] as you know that has ramifications for

[9:10] park operations. So Tom maybe the next

[9:13] one from there which uh shows

[9:17] uh yeah this is a relative change um

[9:22] since 2010 in terms of visitation

[9:28] and um ours budget. Now what means is

[9:33] operation of the national park service

[9:36] and that is congressionally appropriated

[9:38] funding. Every park unit is a line item

[9:42] uh in the federal budget. So uh we show

[9:46] up as a line item. Bryce Canyon shows up

[9:50] as a line item. So again, this is

[9:53] percent change and we selected 2010 as

[9:58] kind of our base year um back when we

[10:03] were starting to really track these

[10:05] statistics even more carefully.

[10:08] Um some things happened in in uh fiscal

[10:12] year uh 2012 and 2013.

[10:16] Uh you can see a significant drop in the

[10:18] budget between 12 and 13

[10:22] and that's kind of when visitation

[10:25] started to rise as well. Uh 2013 was um

[10:30] the start of the the mighty five

[10:33] campaign and advertise intensive

[10:36] advertising of our national parks here

[10:39] in Utah and we started seeing the

[10:41] visitation really begin to rise at that

[10:44] point. Now the budget figures are um are

[10:50] adjusted for inflation

[10:53] and um as you can see in that time

[10:55] period um

[10:58] our our budget has has declined

[11:02] uh 23%.

[11:04] If you run a business or run a town um

[11:08] you know the impact of inflation

[11:12] how that affects us. It could be

[11:14] supplies, materials. It affects us in

[11:16] terms of staffing

[11:19] um and um all of our operations.

[11:24] Now, on the top graph for visitation,

[11:28] uh we did a projection for this year

[11:32] um that shows we'd be at 5.16

[11:36] two u million. Now, we'll have to see

[11:40] how that that actually shakes out.

[11:42] That's our projection.

[11:44] Um,

[11:47] one thing of course that we're always

[11:48] curious about is what what's the effect

[11:51] of the economy on visitation.

[11:54] In the past, Zion has been very much um

[12:00] gas price immune. When I worked at Bryce

[12:04] Canyon, however, we were not. And so

[12:08] we'll see kind of how things work um

[12:10] with the economy this year, but we are

[12:13] projecting an increase uh this year um

[12:18] given our our our statistical analysis.

[12:23] Any questions on that graph?

[12:27] >> It's ugly.

[12:27] >> What What can we do to help? I mean, we

[12:29] obviously

[12:30] >> Well, can't open our budget to you, but

[12:32] >> No.

[12:34] >> If that's what you're asking for, I'm

[12:36] sorry.

[12:36] >> No, no. Um,

[12:39] the point that I'll draw here shortly is

[12:42] how important partnerships are. And

[12:45] certainly our partnership with the town

[12:48] of Springdale

[12:50] is just absolutely critical. And it runs

[12:53] from everything from just general

[12:56] support to u planning support to uh

[13:03] Garen's staff helping us when when we're

[13:06] tied up with an event and hopefully vice

[13:08] versa. We help uh he and his staff. All

[13:12] those kinds of support are very

[13:14] meaningful because we are compressing a

[13:16] lot of of visitors into a small space in

[13:20] Zion Canyon. Whether you're talking

[13:22] about the town or in the park, that's a

[13:25] lot of people. Just uh you know,

[13:27] yesterday we had 17,000 people in the

[13:30] park.

[13:32] Now, that's actually uh not our highest.

[13:36] Spring break this year. We're running

[13:37] Garrett and I were just talking. we're

[13:39] running 24 to 25,000.

[13:42] So again, we have a compressed area.

[13:44] There's a lot happening. Um and so these

[13:48] partnerships are absolutely critical.

[13:50] Thanks for answer asking that question,

[13:52] Randy. Um Tom, could we go to the next

[13:56] one, please?

[13:58] So folks often ask us, well, what

[14:01] happens to um to all those fees that you

[14:04] all collect at the front gate? And uh

[14:09] this is I could spend three hours trying

[14:13] to explain to you how this actually

[14:15] works. Let me just say it's the federal

[14:18] government. Um things are very u uh

[14:23] there's a lot of minutia. But what we're

[14:26] seeing is actually

[14:29] in our fee collection in in some aspects

[14:32] of it we're seeing a decline in revenue

[14:35] and in other places we have potential

[14:38] for increase in revenue. And where

[14:40] that's important is helping make up that

[14:43] 23% deficit.

[14:46] The problem is we can't take fee revenue

[14:50] money and and put it into park

[14:53] operations that are covered under the

[14:57] congressional appropriation.

[15:00] That's what makes it difficult. So if

[15:04] you look at the very top box on the

[15:06] right hand side where it says inter

[15:08] agency passes

[15:11] um about eight years ago uh we went from

[15:16] having a national park pass to an inter

[15:20] agency pass which applies to all federal

[15:23] recreation areas.

[15:25] When that happened, our revenue went

[15:27] down because folks weren't buying the

[15:30] national park pass here at Zion. Does

[15:34] that make sense?

[15:36] So, we've been trying to make up that

[15:39] difference.

[15:41] The top box on the left hand side is

[15:44] where we are collecting fees right here

[15:47] at Zion and that goes toward our op our

[15:51] Florida Federal Land Recreation

[15:53] Enhancement Act uh funds.

[15:57] Now, this chart is a little bit old

[16:01] because we've been seeing this decline

[16:03] in revenue.

[16:05] We're actually running a deficit

[16:08] operating our shuttle system this year.

[16:12] We project that deficit to be $1.5

[16:14] million.

[16:16] So instead of taking 65%

[16:20] out of that Zion specific entrance pass

[16:24] box, this year we're taking 86% out to

[16:29] try to make up part of that deficit. Now

[16:32] the deficit just didn't happen this

[16:34] year. it it's happened since this inter

[16:36] agency pass thing uh came on. So each

[16:40] year we've been trying to make up that

[16:42] difference and of course the contract to

[16:45] operate the shuttle system increases

[16:48] every year and so we're always trying to

[16:51] catch up and and we're hoping to do

[16:53] that. I'll talk a little bit more about

[16:56] that as we go along. But the remainder

[16:59] of that doesn't go to transportation

[17:02] um is going into this big pot there, the

[17:05] big box that says Floria funds.

[17:10] We keep 80% of that.

[17:14] 20% goes to a national pot of money for

[17:19] smaller parks or parks that because of

[17:21] their enabling legislation don't collect

[17:24] fees. So there are a number of those.

[17:27] Think about Lincoln Memorial or, you

[17:31] know, uh, Independence Hall or something

[17:34] like that. U, they don't collect fees.

[17:37] So, we're we're keeping 80% of of that

[17:42] big box.

[17:44] We're required to take 55% of that 80%.

[17:50] And put that toward deferred facility

[17:53] maintenance projects.

[17:57] We're doing that and have been doing

[17:59] that. But again, if we're taking 86% off

[18:04] the top for transportation, there's not

[18:06] a whole lot left. So, um, we're we're

[18:11] trying to keep as much moving toward

[18:13] deferred maintenance as we possibly can

[18:16] because we have a $79 million

[18:20] maintenance backlog in Zion.

[18:23] Um, and that's the tricky part. And

[18:25] again, that just didn't happen over the

[18:28] last couple of years. That's happened

[18:29] over decades. As our OMs budget has

[18:33] declined,

[18:35] uh, so too does the money available for

[18:37] maintenance. Our annual maintenance need

[18:41] is about five to 5.1 million

[18:45] annually, but again, we're not getting

[18:48] that necessarily. And so eventually

[18:51] those projects or those needs become

[18:54] part of the deferred maintenance

[18:56] backlog.

[18:58] So then

[19:00] after we deal with deferred maintenance

[19:03] um then we have some funds that are

[19:06] available for other projects. The Floria

[19:09] requirements, Federal Land Recreation

[19:12] Enhancement Act,

[19:14] those funds can only be used for visitor

[19:18] uh related projects. So, um you know, we

[19:22] may pay for park brochures out of that

[19:26] uh uh handouts, uh interpretive guides,

[19:31] uh those kinds of things. how many of

[19:34] those used to come out of our MPS base

[19:36] money, but it's just not there anymore.

[19:40] So, that's

[19:43] very simple, the fee program. Now, some

[19:47] things have changed with a most recent

[19:51] congressional law called the Explore

[19:53] Act, which was passed last year, and

[19:57] it's allowing now for people to buy

[20:00] these inter agency passes online, these

[20:03] digital passes.

[20:05] But again, if we're not selling them

[20:07] here, we don't see the revenue. So we

[20:11] don't know yet because we're in our

[20:12] first year of operation of that what

[20:15] sort of impact that may have on the

[20:17] whole program.

[20:19] The other thing is the nonresident

[20:23] uh fee program which you're all I think

[20:25] aware of

[20:28] that has some potential to make up a bit

[20:31] of this deficit.

[20:33] Um, that program allows a non-resident

[20:37] to buy a $250

[20:40] annual pass

[20:43] or

[20:45] they can pay $100 per individual

[20:50] when they come to the entrance station.

[20:56] That's um

[20:59] been a tough thing to roll out

[21:02] as you might imagine. Um, and we've been

[21:06] in communication with, you know, tour

[21:08] bus companies and others to make sure

[21:11] that this word um gets out there and and

[21:15] they've been helping quite a bit by kind

[21:18] of um dealing with this question about

[21:23] um the $250 non-resident annual pass

[21:26] versus, you know, paying $100 per

[21:29] individual.

[21:31] And so, um, what we're seeing is that these larger tours, even smaller

[21:37] tours, they're they're getting up to

[21:39] speed with this and they're getting

[21:41] prepared before they come to to the

[21:44] park, which has been very helpful. But

[21:47] we don't know yet how that revenue is

[21:49] going to be split out. And so, um, this

[21:53] is, and the reason I bring this up is

[21:55] that this year is is going to be rather

[21:59] interesting to find out what happens by

[22:01] the end of the year with these various

[22:03] changes. And, uh, we'll be monitoring

[22:06] that quite closely.

[22:10] Anybody have a question?

[22:13] >> Are you still in this, John?

[22:14] >> I don't know.

[22:17] >> Did you say $79 million deficit in the

[22:19] maintenance fund?

[22:20] >> Yes. of a maintenance project.

[22:22] >> Okay.

[22:24] >> Part of the roll out of the non-resident

[22:27] um collection was that 100% of that

[22:31] would stay in the park.

[22:33] >> We've heard that.

[22:38] Yeah. We don't know what the split is

[22:40] whether it's going to be 8020 or not. um

[22:44] we've collected about $1.5 million,

[22:49] but but with any of our fee collection

[22:51] that goes into a central um repository

[22:55] before it comes back out to the parks

[22:58] and and if it's um the normal fee

[23:01] revenue that split 8020, then we'll see

[23:04] that 80, but it's usually several months

[23:06] behind. So, um, these are all questions

[23:10] that have been asked, but we don't

[23:12] exactly know how they're going to do it

[23:14] yet.

[23:15] >> So, Jeeoff, I've mentioned this to you

[23:16] before, but I get a lot of questions

[23:18] about why you're not collecting fees

[23:20] earlier in the day and later in the day.

[23:21] Can you address that?

[23:23] >> Yeah, it's um it's staffing issue. We're

[23:26] still not able to hire staff um other

[23:30] than emergency services folks. So, what

[23:33] we've been trying to do is focus on on time periods when we know

[23:41] we're going to have the most visitation.

[23:44] And that can vary by days. And so, we we

[23:47] have a fairly complex shift schedule. I

[23:51] mean, it burns me every day when I come

[23:52] in at 7:30 and this people are coming on

[23:56] in. We're going to catch some of those

[24:00] later. I mean, they're going to leave

[24:01] the park and probably come back in. Um,

[24:05] but that that's a real difficulty. And

[24:08] uh uh we've certainly have uh requests

[24:12] for for staffing um not just in fee

[24:16] collection, but in other realms as well

[24:18] that uh so far we haven't been given

[24:20] approval for.

[24:23] >> So, have you thought about catching

[24:24] people as they leave and charging them

[24:26] then?

[24:28] Yeah, it's it's kind of a traffic

[24:30] nightmare is is the problem with that.

[24:33] Um we are using a QR code um at times

[24:38] when we don't staff the um the

[24:40] pedestrian entrance. Um that's helpful,

[24:44] but we lose about 10% of that revenue to

[24:48] recreation.gov.

[24:50] Um but when we don't have staffing,

[24:53] we're definitely going to do that. We

[24:55] have volunteers that will direct people

[24:57] to utilize the QR code. So, that's

[25:00] helping some, but again, um you know,

[25:04] we're losing that that early morning

[25:06] revenue.

[25:08] >> Yep.

[25:09] >> And your volunteers cannot collect those

[25:12] fees.

[25:13] >> That's correct.

[25:15] >> Not a job they could do.

[25:16] >> Yep.

[25:17] >> Um to the $79

[25:20] deficit um or backlog, do

[25:25] Does that get

[25:27] uh how do I want to ask this question?

[25:28] Um do those projects ever get

[25:31] re-evaluated to see if they're actually

[25:34] still relevant

[25:36] >> or are we talking about things like from

[25:38] 30 years ago that

[25:40] kind of keeps

[25:41] >> the fix themselves. Kyla what?

[25:45] >> Well I just wondered like if things

[25:47] aren't re I just Yeah. Like

[25:50] >> Oh, it's a good question. And so what we

[25:52] do is is we update that every year and

[25:56] uh we do a process of uh condition

[26:00] assessments on the facilities. So every

[26:03] facility every 3 to five years gets

[26:07] reassessed for what its needs are and

[26:10] then a project is is if it's already in

[26:14] the in the project list, it'll be

[26:16] updated or it could be dropped if it's

[26:19] no longer needed. I mean we've de

[26:21] decommissioned some facilities for

[26:23] example um and uh so yes it's constantly

[26:29] evaluated

[26:31] um when I um first came back to Zion in

[26:35] 2014 we did the collab terrace road

[26:38] project you may recall

[26:41] um that knocked our

[26:44] at the time we had about a $69 million

[26:47] backlog that took that back to 59 9

[26:50] million, but then it's grown again. So

[26:53] when we do these big projects, it helps

[26:56] drop that back. South Campground when

[26:58] it's completed will take that project

[27:01] off the list, for example. In fact,

[27:04] that's been on the list forever. Jack

[27:06] will remember, we've been talking about

[27:08] that in the park forever. But

[27:12] that's the thing. We do re-evaluate and

[27:15] update those projects every year and

[27:18] then do the condition assessment every

[27:20] three to five years. Yeah, great

[27:22] question.

[27:24] >> And I'm not sure are um do you have more

[27:28] I'm I'm not sure where Natalie comes in

[27:30] whether you want

[27:31] >> Natalie's gonna come on in right now.

[27:33] >> Okay. Um

[27:34] >> and I'm not sure are um do you have

[27:37] more?

[27:39] >> No, those are all slides. Um

[27:44] the importance

[27:46] now Natalie come on up. Um is how

[27:50] important partnerships are. As I

[27:52] mentioned the partnership with with the town is just u cannot be

[27:59] overemphasized or overvalued. It's just

[28:02] incredibly important

[28:04] and and every dollar that that we um

[28:08] receive in the park and uh through Zion

[28:12] Forever's efforts, we try to leverage

[28:15] and match grant sources and those kinds

[28:18] of things. So Natalie is going to talk a

[28:20] little bit about how we do that in some

[28:23] of the projects that we've done.

[28:25] >> Thank you.

[28:26] >> Hi Natalie, can you just introduce

[28:27] yourself so everyone knows who you are?

[28:29] I I can. Well, nice to see you all. I'm

[28:31] Natalie Britt. I'm the president and CEO

[28:33] of Zion National Park Forever Project.

[28:35] Thank you, Mayor Bruno, and to the

[28:37] council members and for everyone being

[28:39] here. We are exceedingly grateful for

[28:41] the partnership. I want to tell you a

[28:42] little bit about what we're doing and

[28:44] how we're supporting the park, but I

[28:45] wanted to piggyback off a few things

[28:47] that Jeff was saying about fees that I

[28:49] think are important. The fee rangers

[28:51] that you see every day collecting those

[28:53] fees are actually paid their salaries

[28:55] through those fees being collected. And

[28:57] if you think about that, these folks are

[28:59] being paid between4 and $50,000 a year

[29:02] in very difficult conditions, managing

[29:04] millions of visitors coming in. Um, and

[29:06] for every dollar of their salary,

[29:08] they're putting 12 back. So, it's a

[29:10] great investment. Um, another thing too

[29:13] with the U non-resident fee, that's only

[29:15] being collected in 11 parks right now.

[29:17] Um, as Jeff mentioned, there are parks

[29:20] that don't collect fees. And I think

[29:21] it's surprising when folks find out that

[29:23] the busiest park in the country, Great

[29:25] Smoky Mountains National Park, has 16

[29:27] plus million visitors per year, um, and

[29:29] does not collect fees in that park. So,

[29:31] when you think of that national pool,

[29:33] it's having to go to so many different

[29:35] park units, battlefields, and beyond.

[29:38] So, it's has to stretch far. Um, as Jeff

[29:41] said, I think what's really important

[29:42] for Zion forever, we've been standing

[29:44] with the park for close to a century.

[29:46] Um, we serve two main purposes. We're

[29:47] the cooperating association. That means

[29:49] when you go into the main canyon at the

[29:51] visitors center. Um, our staff manages

[29:54] the interpretive retail. We're also the

[29:56] friends group, which means we're the

[29:57] philanthropic arm of the organization.

[29:59] Many national parks have two nonprofits.

[30:02] Um, because of Jeff's leadership, he

[30:04] knew having one nonprofit to serve in

[30:06] both purposes would be really

[30:07] advantageous to the park. So for

[30:09] example, if you think about our retail

[30:11] division, all the revenues that come

[30:13] from that pay for our staff and also pay

[30:16] for all of the parks, vast majority of

[30:18] the parks education program, junior

[30:20] ranger staffing, concrete to canyons, K&

[30:23] camps, all come from the purchases that

[30:26] you make in that store. If you give to

[30:28] us philanthropically, we don't take

[30:30] anything from that. A 100% of that goes

[30:33] right back to the park. We also do a lot

[30:35] of investing. So this year we'll have

[30:36] over a million dollars from our

[30:38] investments and all of that will go back

[30:40] to the park for things that are critical

[30:42] issues. Meaning if something happens in

[30:44] the park that we don't anticipate, which

[30:45] is pretty much every day, we can move

[30:48] that funding pretty quickly to support

[30:49] the park. I think this year um we

[30:52] actually will, we're not proud of this,

[30:53] but I think it's important to note we

[30:55] will give more back to the park than

[30:56] Congress. We will contribute close to a

[30:59] 11 million in aid back to Gian National

[31:01] Park. Last year we contributed over five

[31:04] million. As you guys know, during the

[31:06] shutdown that went six weeks, the

[31:07] longest in history. Um fees weren't

[31:10] being collected. That's something that

[31:12] we're actually advocating for right now

[31:13] with our delegation that should we see

[31:16] another shutdown, we're hoping we can um

[31:18] move Congress in a way to allow us to

[31:20] collect those fees. Close to 2 million

[31:22] was lost during that time. Zion Forever

[31:25] in the state was certainly supporting

[31:26] the park and the rangers to the best of

[31:28] our ability, but as you know, that is

[31:30] not not our role. Um, other projects

[31:32] that Jeff mentioned, you guys know and

[31:34] may have heard that we're we need to get

[31:36] a sewer. Sewer lines are not particular

[31:38] particularly sexy, but right now we're

[31:40] looking at the extension of the sewer

[31:42] line all the way from Canyon Junction to

[31:44] the Temple of Sinava. You know, when you

[31:46] go down to the temple now, you'll see

[31:47] those beautiful restrooms that are

[31:48] fairly new that are closed. And the park

[31:51] has to pay close to 350 to 400,000 a

[31:54] year to service those portaotties for

[31:57] the visitors. It's a lot of money of the

[31:58] taxpayers that's going there and you

[32:00] have a beautiful facility that if we had

[32:02] that sewer line could be used. You'll

[32:04] also see that at the grotto. There's

[32:06] almost a brand new comfort station there

[32:08] that's have to being supplemented with

[32:10] um portaotties. So the sewer line's

[32:12] critical and right now we have over 11

[32:15] million for that project. None of that's

[32:17] federal. Um Zion Forever is working with

[32:20] Senator John Curtis to get an

[32:21] appropriation for three million. So when

[32:23] you think of that stretching of private

[32:25] partnerships, the public um aspect,

[32:28] we're going to have a sewer line for $14

[32:31] million and the federal investment will

[32:32] be probably about three million into

[32:34] that, not including all the great work

[32:36] that Jeff's staff does to make it

[32:38] happen. Um Zion Forever is funding

[32:40] housing in the project.

[32:45] » Thank you. Um Zion Forever is working

[32:47] with the park to fund the first Ranger

[32:49] housing. um since the 1950s at the

[32:51] Watchmen, we've raised over $6 million

[32:53] for that. So, we're very excited about

[32:56] that piece. So, I don't want to talk

[32:58] long, but over a hundred years, this

[33:00] organization has served faithfully. Um

[33:02] we are so grateful to the citizens here.

[33:04] Many of you are donors, and we

[33:05] appreciate the support, but like I said,

[33:08] 100% of everything that comes back to us

[33:09] goes right to the park. Um we also

[33:12] support the park not just through

[33:13] education condor research um all the

[33:16] seasonals that you see. Um we fund a

[33:18] variety of those seasonal rangers

[33:20] through Zion Forever tribal gathering

[33:22] programs, tribal partnerships and of

[33:24] course the new discovery center on the

[33:26] east side. Over $50 million raised for

[33:28] that project and Zion Forever raised an

[33:30] additional 5 million um from the outdoor

[33:32] adventure commission and we're hoping

[33:33] that will open in 27. Um, we're also

[33:36] working on a regional recreation

[33:38] management plan that does head-on

[33:39] address the concerns of the crushing

[33:42] visitation that we're seeing and how we

[33:43] can start to alleviate some of that for

[33:45] the park. And that's being done through

[33:47] a regional recreation management

[33:48] planning process. Um, we will um receive

[33:51] $1.5 million from the National Park

[33:54] Foundation uh to fund the implementation

[33:56] of that and a staff member for that

[33:58] particular project as well. So, those

[34:00] are just a few of the things that we're

[34:01] doing. I'm happy to answer questions,

[34:03] but our goal is to give back to the

[34:05] park. And we do believe we're critical

[34:07] to the operations of the park. We're not

[34:09] the boots on the ground folks, but we're

[34:11] the behind the-scenes folks that really

[34:12] fill in the gaps when they're needed to

[34:14] be filled. Even the new shuttle systems

[34:16] that you see, we invested the first

[34:18] $250,000

[34:19] um into that to ensure we could leverage

[34:21] those $33 million being invested into

[34:24] the shuttle system. So grateful as

[34:26] always. It all began here a hundred

[34:28] years ago with the residents of

[34:29] Springdale and Rockville lining the

[34:31] streets selling um postcards to visitors

[34:34] on Union Pacific tours to fund

[34:35] naturalist programs and we carry that

[34:38] history and that integrity and that

[34:39] honor in everything we do today. So,

[34:41] thank you to you Barbara and excuse me,

[34:43] Mayor Baro um and to the council for all

[34:46] your support of Zion Forever. We're

[34:47] excited to host a concert here on July

[34:49] 4th with Luke Grimes. All the proceeds

[34:51] from that will go directly to the park.

[34:53] It's sponsored by Zans's Bank and hope

[34:55] we'll get to see some of you out there

[34:57] for the concert at the OC Tanner

[34:58] Amphitheater. So, thank you so much.

[35:00] >> Thank you, Natalie.

[35:01] >> Happy to answer questions if there are

[35:03] any.

[35:03] >> I just wanted to say really quick, you

[35:05] know, how uh critical I think it is that

[35:08] this kind of information is shared. Um

[35:11] especially uh you know with what you've

[35:14] said and what Jed had had to say about

[35:16] this, there is so much misunderstanding

[35:20] on spending authority and a lot of

[35:22] people when they when you tell them

[35:24] there are millions of people pouring

[35:27] through the gate, they don't understand

[35:29] that all of that money does not stay in

[35:31] the park. And so this is the kind of

[35:33] information that is so critical to

[35:36] educate people on what exactly spending

[35:38] authority

[35:41] >> and and and how it's applied. So

[35:44] >> I appreciate that. But I think the thing

[35:46] too for our park service folks, we think

[35:48] of this, you know, all very localized.

[35:50] But as Jeff mentioned, when we think

[35:51] about staffing cuts, those are happening

[35:52] at the regional and Washington levels

[35:54] and those impact everything in

[35:56] individual park units. Um, hiring takes

[35:59] longer when you don't have as many

[36:00] staff. Um, somebody that the

[36:02] superintendent worked with last week may

[36:04] be gone next week. And so all the

[36:06] systems and the things that you see as

[36:08] far as hiring, HR, um getting folks

[36:10] background checks is taking far longer

[36:13] than it normally would because we're

[36:14] seeing, you know, significant changes at

[36:16] the staffing level at the region. Um so

[36:18] people are like just put somebody in the

[36:19] fee booth. Um that would take an act of

[36:21] Congress for us to make those changes.

[36:23] Um so I appreciate you bringing that up

[36:25] so much, Councilman.

[36:27] >> Thank you.

[36:31] » Are there any questions about council

[36:34] reports?

[36:37] Looks like not. So, uh, Sean Emma, do

[36:40] you want to come and make your

[36:41] presentation, introduce yourself, and

[37:08] Um, thank you very much for uh inviting

[37:10] me up and and our board member Pat

[37:12] Campbell. He's been doing a great job on

[37:14] our board. Um, we got a meeting

[37:16] tomorrow, don't forget.

[37:19] Uh, we only have five meetings a year,

[37:21] so it's uh pretty important to get to

[37:23] those. Um, but we do a great job and uh

[37:27] take care of a lot of stuff. I've

[37:29] brought a few things today just to uh

[37:31] give a quick overview of what we do,

[37:34] especially in your community. Just kind

[37:36] of a broad overview and then I'll get

[37:38] right down to what we're doing here in

[37:40] the community. But first off, we're just

[37:42] a h a special service district created

[37:45] in 2002 by a vote of the the people in

[37:47] Washington County. Um, Springdale also

[37:50] eventually signed up on that as wanting

[37:53] to participate. Um, we're funded only

[37:56] through uh property tax. That's our only

[37:58] revenue. Um, we try to we have not

[38:02] raised taxes since I've been um managing

[38:05] the district. So, um, and want to try to

[38:08] keep it that way. Um, it's also, if you

[38:11] look at your tax roles, we're like right

[38:13] at the very bottom usually. It's a

[38:16] 0.00002 00002

[38:19] uh meal levy. So we're pretty low about

[38:21] $3 for every $100,000 value is is kind

[38:25] of an average and that fluctuates

[38:27] depending on how many people move to our

[38:30] area. We do get a little increase every

[38:32] year just on growth. So the growth will

[38:35] raise that amount that we're able to

[38:37] collect. But um so that's that's how

[38:40] we've been trying to fund everything. Um

[38:43] right now we have about um a dozen uh

[38:48] staffed right now for the for the

[38:50] season. Um many of those are seasonals.

[38:54] Uh we got four we've got five that are

[38:57] uh full-time staff that just work all

[39:00] year long doing uh educational

[39:03] coordinating um going into schools,

[39:06] going to events and doing different

[39:07] things as well. So, um, this little

[39:10] flyer here just talks a little bit about

[39:12] who we are. Some fun facts about

[39:14] mosquitoes. Um, tells you about what

[39:17] mosquitoes are because a lot of the, uh,

[39:20] service requests we get, uh, still are

[39:23] people going, I've got mosquitoes

[39:24] swarming me and we say, well, are they

[39:27] biting? And typically those are not

[39:30] mosquitoes. So, there's a lot of those

[39:32] faux mosquitoes that are out there. Um,

[39:35] so you got to be careful. So a little

[39:36] bit about their life cycle, but it also

[39:38] has a section on West Nile virus. So

[39:41] that still is in our area. That's one of

[39:43] the reasons the district was created was

[39:46] in 1999. It came into the US and by 2002

[39:50] it was actually already present here in

[39:52] the area and our biggest season I think

[39:55] was 2006.

[39:57] But and it just cycles up and down from

[39:59] there about how much we have in the

[40:01] area. We have had some deaths in the

[40:03] area because of that. We've had a lot of

[40:05] people get sick. There's some lingering

[40:08] um problems if you do catch it. Um so

[40:11] there's there's always a problem. And so

[40:14] we're more on the um the public health

[40:17] side as well as um actually taking care

[40:21] of the the pest side of the um mosquito

[40:25] control. So um anyways, that's that's a

[40:29] fun one to to look through. also talks

[40:32] about some of the places in your yard

[40:33] you can look and look for standing water

[40:36] and make sure you take care of that and

[40:39] uh using proper repellents and um taking

[40:42] care of not getting bit um is important.

[40:46] So um I want to kind of shift a little

[40:49] bit about to some of these other papers

[40:51] we have. I don't know if you ended up

[40:53] getting those on here at all.

[40:59] So, um, yeah, we'll start with that one.

[41:01] State of the district. This is just a

[41:03] page telling a little bit kind of, you

[41:05] know, state of the union, state of the

[41:07] state. This is the state of our

[41:09] district. Just tells a little bit about

[41:11] where we've been, what we're doing. Um,

[41:13] some of the accomplishments we've had.

[41:16] Um, and this last year we had, you know,

[41:19] not a huge significant uh year. We only

[41:22] had three West Nile virus pools. And

[41:25] that that means that we've we've

[41:27] collected mosquitoes. We put them in a

[41:29] vial and each vial is a pool. We only

[41:32] had three that were positive. Up north

[41:34] they had over 54 human cases, most of

[41:38] those neuroinvasive, so they affected

[41:40] the brain and caused uh major problems.

[41:43] I think they had four deaths as well up

[41:45] north. Um so we knew that the uh we know

[41:49] that primarily birds are the reservoir

[41:52] for that um disease and them just

[41:55] migrating through were going to bring

[41:58] some of that disease as they went south.

[42:00] So in September we ended up getting a

[42:02] little bit of West Nile virus um as and

[42:06] that's all down was down in St. George.

[42:08] We've yet to date um to find any West

[42:12] Nile up in the Zion corridor here. So um

[42:18] since I think 2011 was the only time we

[42:21] found some and that was down in a um

[42:24] isolated pond down in Virgin. Um since

[42:26] then we've we've hopefully been

[42:29] controlling the mosquitoes well enough

[42:31] that the numbers are down and we just

[42:33] don't see the uh the disease coming

[42:36] through here. Um, so that's been good.

[42:39] So, this is interesting to read through,

[42:42] but we're going to skip ahead to um

[42:45] distribution chart. It's the I think

[42:47] this little pretty one here. There we

[42:49] go. Okay. And when I started in 2009, I

[42:53] knew two things about mosquitoes. There

[42:55] was two kinds. There was the one that

[42:57] was buzzing around my ear, and then

[42:58] there's the one I smashed on my arm. Um,

[43:01] so I I've kind of developed from there

[43:04] into uh loving to talk about mosquitoes.

[43:08] This was a chart I developed even way

[43:11] back in 2009 when I started um because

[43:14] my uh manager loved graphs. He loved the

[43:17] colors and and so what I did was I put

[43:20] together a chart of everywhere where we

[43:22] trap for adult mosquitoes and every all

[43:25] the different species that we have. You

[43:28] can see there's quite a list of them

[43:29] across that top. Um those are uh we have

[43:33] over 21 different species um that we

[43:36] collect here in the county. Um some of

[43:39] them way up in the mountains, some of

[43:41] them all the way down in the lowest

[43:43] parts of uh the county. Um and some of

[43:46] them are prevalent all the way through

[43:48] the county um in in every elevation. Um

[43:52] so these just show some of the the hot

[43:55] spots you would say. Um down at the

[43:57] bottom, if you scroll down to the bottom

[43:59] for the people back here, we do have

[44:02] Springdale. We only have one trap that

[44:04] we put out in Springdale. It's uh right

[44:06] near the um Springdale pond right behind

[44:09] the uh hotels there. And um we either

[44:14] put it there at that pond specifically

[44:16] or there's a some private property that

[44:18] has a couple of ponds and uh one of them

[44:21] is is not been being filled up as much.

[44:24] So, there's some standing stagnant water

[44:26] there and it produces quite a few

[44:29] mosquitoes. As you can see there, almost

[44:31] 400 mosquitoes. Um, most of them were um

[44:36] were a mosquito that could potentially

[44:39] carry West Nile. So, we're trying to

[44:41] keep those numbers down as low as

[44:43] possible, but that's over a whole

[44:45] season. So, 400 mosquitoes actually is

[44:47] not that um that many to deal with. So,

[44:50] it's it's we've done a pretty good job.

[44:53] um before I started that would be like

[44:55] one trap night. We'd get that many

[44:58] mosquitoes. So hopefully we're uh we're

[45:00] putting a dent in there on that. But uh

[45:03] this is a fun chart to look at. Um I

[45:06] wanted to go to a map. Hopefully there's

[45:09] a map down here. This just shows um some

[45:12] of the uh areas that we check in um

[45:17] Springdale area. There's a few spots

[45:19] along the river um right down by

[45:22] Bumbleberry there. Um some ponds that uh filled with irrigation water

[45:28] mostly just down along the river there's

[45:30] a few spots that uh um as the water

[45:34] starts to recede. Um there's little

[45:36] pools off to the side and I'll find

[45:39] stuff in there. Just the other day I

[45:40] found a whole pool that was just loaded

[45:42] with probably thousands of mosquitoes.

[45:45] Uh we took care of those before they

[45:46] hatched out and were biting people. So

[45:49] um and then that Springdale pond area um

[45:52] we do catch quite a few there and of

[45:54] course we put a trap there. Um the the

[45:57] other items we have the or icons we have

[46:01] are little hashtags are storm drains. So

[46:05] we try to keep an eye on all the storm

[46:07] drains that we have in town. Um we it's

[46:10] hard to find all of them. Um, so maybe

[46:14] I'll have to get with staff and and see

[46:16] if there's some that we're missing. I

[46:18] even cover the ones that are around the

[46:20] city office because they'll have uh

[46:22] quite a few uh larvae in them as well.

[46:25] So, we'll try to stay on top of those.

[46:27] But if we do miss it, that's why we're

[46:29] here is so we can um because the public

[46:32] becomes the eyes and ears for us because

[46:34] we don't have enough staff to cover

[46:35] everywhere all all the time. So, as

[46:38] people start getting bit, we like to

[46:40] receive those phone calls and then we

[46:42] come and check out the area and we'll

[46:44] survey the whole whole area. Um, one of

[46:47] the one one of the main things that

[46:50] we've had a issue with here in

[46:52] Springdale is um we had an invasive

[46:55] species come and it's this last um this

[46:59] last page. It's they're they're called

[47:00] the 80s Egypti mosquito. Um and you

[47:04] probably don't have that one. I don't

[47:05] know if they ended up getting on there,

[47:07] but you guys have a copy of this and I

[47:10] think I might have a few copies if

[47:12] anybody's interested, but uh down by

[47:16] what's the name of your road?

[47:19] >> Yeah.

[47:20] >> Can you view View? Okay. Right down that

[47:21] road there's uh they they popped up

[47:24] quite a few years ago when we had that

[47:25] really big rainstorm that wiped out the

[47:28] campground and everything uh just down

[47:30] the road from here. um had a lot of

[47:34] standing water in containers and buckets

[47:36] and and there was a lot of uh also some

[47:39] landscaping that had been done and and

[47:41] we suspect that uh these invasive

[47:44] species mostly out of southern

[47:46] California and and Arizona were probably

[47:50] brought in through uh mulch or potting

[47:52] soil and then they were able to um uh

[47:58] hatch out here and then finally get

[48:00] established.

[48:01] So, there's one little pocket. They

[48:03] don't fly very far. Um, but they do.

[48:06] They're vicious biters. They're urban

[48:08] mosquitoes. Uh, they love containers,

[48:11] plant pots, ornamental ponds. Uh, you'll

[48:13] find them in just anywhere that has, um,

[48:17] just as much as a bottle cap of water.

[48:20] Um, they can survive in. And, uh, so

[48:22] they're pretty prevalent. I think last

[48:24] year I found a big trash can that had

[48:26] just filled up with some rain water that

[48:28] had poured off a roof. Um, and it was

[48:31] just full of full of larvae and and

[48:34] mosquitoes flying around. So, um, we

[48:37] like to find those and try to take care

[48:38] of them. Um, one time we did try a what

[48:41] we call a fogging event here in town.

[48:43] That didn't go over so well. So, um,

[48:47] people weren't sure because they'd never

[48:48] seen that before. You know, what's this

[48:50] big cloud of smoke coming out of the

[48:52] back of your vehicle? We're not going to

[48:54] try that again. We do what we call spot

[48:55] fogging. So, we find an area where we

[48:58] we've found the uh the mosquitoes, the

[49:02] adults, and we just use a handheld

[49:04] fogger and just do that particular

[49:07] place. If we can't get into a backyard,

[49:09] that is a problem because there might be

[49:11] a source in that yard um that uh that

[49:16] has the lar developing and we can't get

[49:18] in there, then we can't get rid of those

[49:20] mosquitoes. So, I think that's why we've

[49:23] been continuing to see them is because

[49:25] we haven't been able to get into every

[49:27] yard in the area. Um, the state law does

[49:31] allow us that we could if we wanted to,

[49:33] but we're u very aware of private

[49:36] property rights and we don't want to

[49:38] offend people and have them, you know,

[49:40] kick us out completely. So, we try to uh

[49:43] try to manage that and sometimes we get

[49:45] them and sometimes we can't. So, we do

[49:47] the best we can but these are a major

[49:50] problem. The again the best way to find

[49:52] out where they are is people have to

[49:54] call us. So just let uh people know that

[49:57] we're there as a free service um as far

[50:00] as the treatments as far as uh just

[50:03] coming in and inspecting a yard. Um if

[50:06] you're wondering if your yard just needs

[50:08] um to to be looked at to see if there's

[50:11] any standing water, we can come and do

[50:13] that. Um it's no problem. I personally

[50:17] um cover a lot of this area because I

[50:19] also live in the Canyon corridor and uh

[50:22] and love it here. And so it's always

[50:25] nice to come up at least a couple of

[50:26] times a week and uh and uh enjoy the

[50:30] area up here and also get right out into

[50:32] the uh um the backwoods, you'd say, and

[50:36] down by the river and uh find these

[50:38] mosquitoes. So, all right. Um that's

[50:42] about all. If you have any questions,

[50:45] >> questions for Sean,

[50:46] >> I do have questions. Um, so when you

[50:49] treat a source and we get a rain, is

[50:51] there enough residue left behind that it

[50:54] keeps that place treated or do you need

[50:56] to do come back?

[50:57] >> Yes. Okay. So, there's three different

[51:00] types of treatments. Mostly we use a

[51:02] bacterial product. Um, and that's very

[51:05] short-lived. Um, then we have a growth

[51:08] regulator that's specific to mosquitoes.

[51:11] Um that one will last up to five or six

[51:14] months. Um and we usually use those in

[51:17] storm drains, areas like that. Um we

[51:20] also have another couple um of those

[51:22] growth regulator products that is more

[51:24] of a sand granule and it kind of sticks

[51:26] to the sides of the the cement um in um

[51:30] storm drains. We also um don't use it

[51:34] very often, but a um it's a mineral oil

[51:38] that very thin film. it breaks the

[51:41] surface tension of the water and it

[51:43] doesn't last very long but it will um

[51:46] the mosquitoes can't stay at the top to

[51:48] breathe so therefore they they drowned.

[51:51] Um we use that on a limited basis but

[51:54] sometimes um it's necessary to do that

[51:57] because the pupa don't feed on that

[51:59] bacteria so you have to use it for those

[52:02] um but then it dissipates within within

[52:05] 24 hours. So, but it will possibly kill

[52:08] other beneficial insects. So, we try not

[52:10] to use that as much. So, good question.

[52:14] >> Answered my other question, which was

[52:16] are you using pesticides or are you

[52:18] using like the modified mosquito?

[52:21] >> Yeah. Do you know what I'm talking

[52:23] about? The

[52:25] >> genetically modified or the sterile

[52:27] mosquitoes?

[52:28] >> Sterile mosquitoes.

[52:29] >> Okay. the sterile um

[52:32] the sterile mosquito technique is being

[52:35] used quite widely in areas where they

[52:38] have these Egypt eye mosquitoes. Um if

[52:41] we were to use those, it'd only be in

[52:43] the areas where we have those, but it's

[52:45] also very expensive and it's also not

[52:48] quite as effective because we're

[52:50] widespread

[52:51] um areas. Um that's why you'd only use

[52:54] it for these is because they don't fly

[52:56] very far. uh we don't anticipate on

[52:59] using those. I call them microwaved

[53:01] mosquitoes because that's really kind of

[53:02] what it the technology is is they low

[53:05] microwave these sterilize the mosquitoes

[53:08] and then um and it's just the male

[53:10] mosquitoes. So when they go and breed

[53:12] with the females then they become um the

[53:15] eggs become infertile and you don't have

[53:17] to worry about it. So releasing more

[53:19] mosquitoes to control mosquitoes doesn't

[53:22] make sense, but the males don't bite, so

[53:24] they're not a a threat to the public

[53:26] health. So good question though.

[53:30] >> That's a lot about mosquitoes.

[53:32] >> Yeah, I love talking about mosquitoes.

[53:34] I'll keep you here for hours, but I

[53:35] probably won't do that. So,

[53:37] >> any other questions?

[53:39] >> Thanks, Sean.

[53:40] >> Have we put this in our newsletter? I

[53:42] feel like we have, but maybe this would

[53:43] be good material, like a blurb.

[53:47] April's shaking her head.

[53:49] >> We'd we'd be happy to put something

[53:51] together for you. Just uh reach out,

[53:53] please, and we'll send something right

[53:55] back for a newsletter. That would be

[53:57] awesome. Okay.

[53:58] >> I think what's most important is the if

[54:01] you have experience day biting

[54:02] mosquitoes, here's who you call. So,

[54:04] we'll we'll definitely get something in

[54:06] our newsletter that goes out to

[54:07] everybody.

[54:08] >> Awesome. I appreciate it. Thank you very

[54:10] much.

[54:11] >> Okay. Thanks.

[54:13] >> Okay. Next item is community comments.

[54:16] If you'd like to make a comment, please

[54:18] step to the microphone, state your name.

[54:20] If you want to make a comment about one

[54:22] of the public hearing items, please wait

[54:24] for that public hearing to do that. So,

[54:27] are there any general public comments?

[54:35] Looks like not.

[54:37] Kyla, do you want us to wait for you?

[54:40] >> Kella's dog needs to go home. So, okay.

[54:44] Um, I would entertain a motion to

[54:46] approve the consent agenda, which is a

[54:48] review of the monthly purchasing report

[54:51] minutes from the February 20th, March

[54:54] 11th, April 3rd, and April 8th, 2026

[54:57] meetings, and proclamation 2026-05

[55:01] declaring May 2026 as bike month in the

[55:04] town of Springdale.

[55:06] >> Move to approve the consent agenda.

[55:09] >> Second.

[55:09] >> Got a motion by Jack and a second by

[55:11] Randy.

[55:12] >> India. Barbara.

[55:14] >> Okay. So, the first public hearing is a

[55:19] zone change from the Foothill

[55:20] residential zone to the Foothill

[55:22] residential zone with the workforce

[55:24] housing overlay zone at 120 Kosava

[55:27] Drive, lot 5, K-1.

[55:31] The applicant is Kathy Lefave who is

[55:33] here and the staff contact is Nile

[55:35] Connelly. We will be following the

[55:37] public hearing format on the back of the

[55:39] agenda and you can see there are some

[55:41] rules of order. If you're interested in

[55:44] speaking, please make sure you've signed

[55:45] into the meeting so we get your name

[55:47] right. Um, we want to limit your

[55:52] comments to three minutes for the

[55:54] interest of time. If others have

[55:56] expressed the same interest as your own,

[55:58] you may indicate that you agree rather

[55:59] than repeat that or you may repeat that

[56:02] if you'd like. Um, we prohibit clapping,

[56:05] booing, or shouts of approval or

[56:07] disagreement from the audience. And when

[56:09] your item is done, if you'd like to be

[56:11] leave the meeting, please do so quietly

[56:13] so as to not disrupt the meeting. So

[56:15] with that, we will um get a staff

[56:19] introduction of the item.

[56:21] >> Thank you. So yes, this is an

[56:24] application for the workforce housing

[56:26] overlay zone. Uh the applicant is Miss

[56:29] Kathy Lefay and she's applying for the

[56:32] workforce housing overlay zone to be

[56:35] applied to her property at 120 Kava

[56:39] Drive. Um the workforce housing overlay

[56:44] zone allows an increase in density in

[56:47] exchange for a deed restriction that

[56:50] limits the occupancy of the units to

[56:52] qualified households.

[56:54] So, those are essentially households

[56:57] where one member of the household is in

[56:59] full-time employment

[57:02] um within the town of Springdale or

[57:04] within Z National Park.

[57:07] Um so, Miss Lefave's current property um

[57:12] has one single family home. H she would

[57:15] like to build one additional single

[57:17] family home on the property. Um both

[57:20] would be privatelyowned homes and to be

[57:23] occupied by qualified households.

[57:26] Um this was reviewed by the planning

[57:29] commission uh who recommended approval

[57:32] of the zone change. Uh so the town

[57:36] council should review the application

[57:38] and determine whether to approve it or

[57:41] not. Um, Miss Lefave is here also. Uh,

[57:45] and she I think she'll be prepared to

[57:47] present or ask qu answer questions as

[57:50] well if you would like.

[57:53] >> Thank you, Nile. Um, Kathy, do you want

[57:55] to step up to the microphone and add

[57:58] anything you want to add to Nile's

[58:00] comments?

[58:02] >> Kathy Lefay,

[58:04] you know, I don't want to take up too

[58:06] much of you guys this evening because I

[58:07] know you've got a full agenda. Um, so a

[58:10] lot of what I have in term of terms of

[58:13] comments is already presented in my

[58:15] application. Um, however, I'm pretty

[58:19] passionate about this. I've, it's not my

[58:22] first time in front of any of you guys

[58:24] saying that I'm a supporter of

[58:27] attainable housing, workforce housing, for young people. I think our

[58:32] general plan speaks to the fact that

[58:35] part of the general plan says one of our

[58:37] missions and goals is to provide housing

[58:39] for a diverse population. We all can see

[58:44] that the diverse population has shrink

[58:47] within the town of Springdale and you

[58:50] know I'm an aged part of the population

[58:52] but I still happen to be working and my

[58:54] husband's a retired

[58:56] employee of Zion National Park. Um we

[58:59] both have given to the community in a

[59:02] number of ways. Um I know that this the

[59:07] character of this zone is to offer this

[59:10] forward to the general public. Um and in

[59:15] fact

[59:17] even though if my daughter offers to buy

[59:19] the second lot for a dollar we would

[59:21] consider that. She's also been somebody

[59:24] who went to elementary school here,

[59:26] who's worked full-time in Springdale,

[59:28] except for when she was a college

[59:30] student, and has recently um passed her

[59:33] pack test and is now part of Z National

[59:34] Park Search and Rescue. So, these are

[59:37] people who give and there are a lot of

[59:39] people in this community who give. I

[59:41] encourage the planning commission, I

[59:42] encourage the town council to look at

[59:44] creative ways to have those individuals

[59:47] be part of our community. I think it's

[59:49] very, very important. I also looked at

[59:52] other ways like Jonathan Zambella said,

[59:55] you know, couldn't this be accomplished

[59:56] with a PUD? Well, currently in Foothill

[59:59] Residential, that's not allowed. Could

[1:00:01] it be accomplished by, hey, your parents

[1:00:04] are aging? Could you build something a

[1:00:06] home to take care of the aged? That's

[1:00:09] not allowed in Foothill Residential. So,

[1:00:11] currently workforce housing overlay zone

[1:00:14] is the only zone that's allowed in

[1:00:17] Foothill Residential.

[1:00:20] The workforce housing overlay zone would

[1:00:22] allow a two acre parcel to put 16 units.

[1:00:27] I think that's way too excessive. I

[1:00:29] think it's too excessive to impose on

[1:00:30] our neighbors. I would not propose that.

[1:00:34] So, we're asking that our current two

[1:00:36] acre parcel be divided into two parcels,

[1:00:40] both being deed restricted. That means

[1:00:43] that we're willing to concede some level

[1:00:46] of value to our home because our home in

[1:00:48] the future should we want to sell it

[1:00:50] could only be sold to somebody who is

[1:00:52] either a full-time employee as defined

[1:00:54] by the town or volunteer.

[1:00:57] We're willing to do that because we

[1:00:59] think it's important. We think it's

[1:01:00] important to have younger people as part

[1:01:02] of our population. It also deed

[1:01:05] restricts the other property. Person's

[1:01:07] going to pay the full price to build a

[1:01:09] home and that deed restricts it. And

[1:01:11] that's okay. In my opinion, it's okay

[1:01:13] because I believe in workforce housing

[1:01:16] and should I decide to sell my home in

[1:01:19] the future, I'm willing to get a lower

[1:01:21] price for that because I believe in it.

[1:01:24] Um,

[1:01:28] I've lost my train of thought

[1:01:30] completely.

[1:01:31] Um, I guess I would, you know,

[1:01:34] precedent. Would this set a precedent?

[1:01:36] Um, currently I think the only Foothill

[1:01:39] residential application that's been

[1:01:41] approved was at um the Benton Spur. Um,

[1:01:46] I hope it sets a precedent that if in

[1:01:48] Foothill Residential we consider this in

[1:01:50] the future that it's small, it's not 16

[1:01:55] units on a twoacre parcel. Also, the

[1:01:58] application already states that we meet

[1:02:01] all the requirements. The lot won't be

[1:02:03] on a ridge line.

[1:02:05] There's a number of things that it it

[1:02:07] can't. We've already done did a poll

[1:02:09] test with the town to make sure that it

[1:02:10] does not create a high visual lot. It

[1:02:13] will not. The home built on the second

[1:02:15] lot will be a one-story home so as not

[1:02:18] to be in the viewshot of neighbors. our

[1:02:22] closest neighbor has written a letter in

[1:02:24] support of um I think Jonathan Zambellis

[1:02:28] was the only one that could be construed

[1:02:30] as somewhat hey maybe we should look at

[1:02:32] and that was his suggestion that what

[1:02:34] about a PUD but that's not allowed. Um

[1:02:38] so in instead of just rereading my

[1:02:40] entire application do you guys have

[1:02:42] questions for me?

[1:02:45] >> I have a question for now. Um,

[1:02:51] so their existing home, if they get this

[1:02:53] workforce housing overlay zone for this

[1:02:57] section that's

[1:02:59] partitioned off,

[1:03:02] does the code require or does the

[1:03:04] ordinance require them to have their

[1:03:06] existing home as workforce housing?

[1:03:10] Yes, it would it would apply the overlay

[1:03:12] zone to the whole property and which

[1:03:15] would deed restrict the whole thing. So,

[1:03:18] both homes.

[1:03:19] >> Okay. So, in order in doing this, it the overlay zone

[1:03:24] applies to the whole property, not just

[1:03:26] to the property they're subdividing off.

[1:03:29] >> Not just to the new the new home, but

[1:03:33] the existing home would be deed

[1:03:35] restricted as well. And we'd be applying

[1:03:37] the zone before the property is

[1:03:38] subdivided, right? So it would be on

[1:03:40] that entire

[1:03:41] >> That's correct. So the first step would

[1:03:42] be applying the overlay zone and then it

[1:03:44] would have to be subdivided and then the

[1:03:47] they would both have that overlay zone

[1:03:50] >> and we're willing to comply with all the

[1:03:53] requirements of that deed restriction.

[1:03:55] >> But I guess my question is

[1:03:58] and maybe you you answered it. I mean

[1:04:00] you couldn't subdivide it and then apply

[1:04:02] it to just the new parcel.

[1:04:06] No, because

[1:04:08] the lot is not big enough to subdivide

[1:04:11] without having the overlay zone on it.

[1:04:14] >> Yeah.

[1:04:15] >> And we realize it's a give. It's a big

[1:04:18] give,

[1:04:19] but we we realize it's a big gift,

[1:04:23] >> but we're asking for a gift. And I think

[1:04:26] that sometimes you have to give

[1:04:27] something to to ask for concession, and

[1:04:30] we're willing to do that. I plan to live

[1:04:32] and die in Springdale, so

[1:04:36] Any other questions for either Nyall or

[1:04:38] Kathy from from

[1:04:41] council?

[1:04:43] If not, then we'll open for any

[1:04:45] clarifying questions from the audience.

[1:04:47] That would be just clarifying questions

[1:04:48] and we'll take comments later.

[1:04:51] Looks like there are none. So, I'd

[1:04:54] entertain a motion to open public

[1:04:56] hearing.

[1:04:57] >> Move that we open the public hearing.

[1:05:01] Got a motion by Kyla and a second by

[1:05:03] let's say Jack

[1:05:04] >> and I Randy.

[1:05:06] >> Barbara I

[1:05:08] >> we're open for um public comments. It

[1:05:11] does not have to be a question. Please

[1:05:13] limit your time to less than three

[1:05:15] minutes and state your name at the

[1:05:16] microphone.

[1:05:25] N Benson, I just want to say that uh

[1:05:28] although I do have a lot of problems

[1:05:29] with this overlay zone, I think this

[1:05:31] application is fantastic and uh the

[1:05:35] neighbors have, you know, given their

[1:05:39] support and I think that's definitely a

[1:05:41] positive for this and I uh I support the

[1:05:44] proposal. Thanks.

[1:05:45] >> Thank you.

[1:05:49] Anyone else?

[1:05:53] If not, we will I'd entertain a motion

[1:05:56] to close public hearing.

[1:05:58] >> And will we close the public hearing?

[1:06:00] >> Second.

[1:06:01] >> Motion by Randy, second by Pat.

[1:06:04] >> Randy,

[1:06:04] >> Barbara,

[1:06:06] >> I.

[1:06:07] >> And we would allow a response from you,

[1:06:10] Kathy, now, but there was really

[1:06:11] probably nothing said that you want to

[1:06:13] respond to, so we'll skip that if that's

[1:06:15] all right.

[1:06:16] >> Okay. So, we're in deliberation now.

[1:06:21] So, I have been

[1:06:25] pushing workforce housing.

[1:06:28] I still think it's a shame that we

[1:06:31] didn't have workforce housing or the

[1:06:35] ADUs

[1:06:37] uh in the foothill residential zone

[1:06:40] under a workforce housing

[1:06:43] stipulation restriction. But I totally

[1:06:47] support this. This is, you know, it's a,

[1:06:50] as Kathy says, it's a huge gift for them

[1:06:53] to give up uh the

[1:06:56] retail market value of their home in

[1:07:00] order to do this. So, I think this is

[1:07:03] awesome

[1:07:07] » and and I I I live where I'm looking

[1:07:11] down on their property.

[1:07:13] I think it's kind of interesting to see

[1:07:16] how the workforce housing overlay zone

[1:07:19] will evolve and what creative solutions

[1:07:23] come out of it and this is one of them.

[1:07:26] Um and I think you know we have all said

[1:07:28] in the past that there isn't one answer

[1:07:31] to addressing uh workforce housing in um

[1:07:35] Springdale. It's going to be a number of

[1:07:38] different approaches and I think this is

[1:07:40] definitely in concert with that and um I

[1:07:43] can certainly support it.

[1:07:47] >> I agree. Um two houses on a 2 acre

[1:07:51] parcel even if there are slopes. I mean

[1:07:54] this the slopes maybe come into

[1:07:56] consideration when we're talking about

[1:07:57] density but still to the eye it's going

[1:08:00] to look like a twoacre parcel. Um, I

[1:08:03] think the application shows the

[1:08:05] restraint that uh and fitting in with

[1:08:08] the character of the the current

[1:08:10] neighborhood and respecting the

[1:08:12] neighbors and the traffic

[1:08:13] considerations. Um, I do think that the

[1:08:18] application is supported by the general

[1:08:20] plan, um, in several sections of the

[1:08:22] general plan and making sure that we

[1:08:24] have a diversity of people that can live

[1:08:26] here and and you know, kind of the same

[1:08:29] old drum that we beat when we talk about

[1:08:32] workforce housing. and the the fact that

[1:08:38] you know this applicant is

[1:08:42] coming to us with this this idea under

[1:08:47] well

[1:08:49] with some self-sacrifice.

[1:08:51] you know, the fact that their own

[1:08:53] property

[1:08:56] will be under the workforce housing

[1:08:58] restriction. And like um she mentioned,

[1:09:01] probably that's going to come with a bit of a uh downfall in the price that

[1:09:10] they'll be able to get for that price.

[1:09:11] But I think it's very altruistic of

[1:09:13] them. Uh I like the application and I

[1:09:15] think it would be a good fit for the

[1:09:18] neighborhood.

[1:09:21] My concern with workforce housing

[1:09:24] has always been the size, how it how it

[1:09:27] could uh explode. Um, and I think Mr. V

[1:09:32] has done an excellent job of of

[1:09:36] keeping things uh contained. It's not

[1:09:39] huge. It serves a purpose. I thought the

[1:09:42] application was excellent. Um, and this

[1:09:45] would be one time when although I wasn't

[1:09:46] a big fan of workforce housing when it

[1:09:48] first came out,

[1:09:51] this changes my mind a little bit. I

[1:09:53] think you've done a nice job actually.

[1:09:56] >> I agree. And I think that the fact that

[1:09:58] this is the second application in the

[1:10:00] Foothill Residential Zone and both have

[1:10:02] been absolutely appropriate

[1:10:05] um styles and amounts of housing for the

[1:10:08] zone. I think it it does tell us that

[1:10:10] we're on to something here. And I think

[1:10:12] there will be areas where 16 units per

[1:10:14] acre may be appropriate, but I don't

[1:10:17] think there will be many of those in the

[1:10:18] town of Springdale. So, I appreciate

[1:10:20] that

[1:10:21] nobody yet has tried to to max that out

[1:10:24] and I can support this, especially given

[1:10:26] that when we look at our our staff

[1:10:29] report, um she's complaining and all the

[1:10:31] requirements. So, seems like we're ready

[1:10:34] for a motion if somebody wants to make

[1:10:36] one.

[1:10:41] Okay, I'll do it.

[1:10:43] Um, the town council approves the zone

[1:10:47] change

[1:10:49] Oh, okay. Hold on. Zone change amendment

[1:10:52] application which would apply the

[1:10:54] workforce housing overlay zone to the

[1:10:57] property at 120 Kennesa Drive. Um, the

[1:11:02] motion is based on the following

[1:11:04] findings. This zone change meets the

[1:11:08] criteria for a zone change because it

[1:11:11] furthers the goals and objectives of the

[1:11:13] general plan

[1:11:15] um in the goals of housing general goal

[1:11:20] and sub goal A and sub goal B which I

[1:11:24] know I probably read those if somebody

[1:11:28] wants to do that.

[1:11:31] >> Would you like those in there?

[1:11:34] >> Yes. If maybe we can. Yeah, just say

[1:11:38] that

[1:11:38] >> you said sub goals

[1:11:39] >> A and B, the general goal and then sub

[1:11:42] goal A and sub goal B.

[1:11:46] » I'll second.

[1:11:50] » So we've got a motion by Kyla and a

[1:11:52] second by Randy

[1:11:53] >> and I.

[1:11:54] >> India.

[1:11:54] >> Barbara.

[1:11:55] >> Jack I.

[1:11:56] >> Kyla I.

[1:11:58] >> Okay. Passes.

[1:12:01] The next item is also a public hearing.

[1:12:04] It's public hearing ordinance 2026-08

[1:12:08] review of land use ordinance amendment

[1:12:10] application from null Benson proposing

[1:12:13] an amendment to section 10-18-4

[1:12:17] of the town code. The proposed amendment

[1:12:19] would introduce tiered minimum landscape

[1:12:21] and open space requirements based on the

[1:12:24] property size in the village commercial

[1:12:26] zone. And the staff contact is Nyall

[1:12:28] Connelly and Nyall we will start with

[1:12:30] your introduction and explanation.

[1:12:33] Thank you. Um, so Mr. Null Benson has

[1:12:37] made an application for a land use

[1:12:39] ordinance ordinance amendment. Um, so

[1:12:43] the these applications don't come up

[1:12:45] very frequently, but it's where a a

[1:12:48] member of the public can make an

[1:12:49] application for a revision to the code.

[1:12:53] Um, and so that's what this is. Um the

[1:12:58] proposal is that the minimum landscape

[1:13:00] requirements in the village commercial

[1:13:02] zone be adjusted to introduce a tiered

[1:13:06] requirement based on the property size.

[1:13:09] So similar tiered landscape requirements

[1:13:13] exist in the central commercial zone and

[1:13:15] also in the valley residential zone. Um

[1:13:20] this proposal would um would introduce a

[1:13:24] taring where um

[1:13:29] properties of half an acre or larger

[1:13:33] would still be at the 60%. So that does

[1:13:36] not change. Uh properties between a

[1:13:39] quarter of an acre and half an acre that

[1:13:42] landscape requirement would go down to

[1:13:44] 50%. And then parcels smaller than a

[1:13:48] fourth of an acre uh would have a

[1:13:51] landscape requirement of 40%.

[1:13:54] Um so the planning commission reviewed

[1:13:58] this. Uh they made a recommendation that

[1:14:01] this would be approved. Um there's two

[1:14:05] additional points I just wanted to flag.

[1:14:07] Um there was a discussion during the

[1:14:10] planning commission meeting about um

[1:14:14] introducing a

[1:14:17] um sort of a 5%

[1:14:21] um

[1:14:23] zone around the the percentages. So if you are 5% larger than

[1:14:31] um

[1:14:33] say the the the

[1:14:37] quarter of an acre threshold that there

[1:14:40] would be kind of a a 5%

[1:14:43] um

[1:14:45] flexibility within that area where you

[1:14:47] could have the lower standards apply if

[1:14:50] your property zone is within or your

[1:14:52] property area is within that 5%. So that was discussed at the planning

[1:14:57] commission. Um

[1:15:01] as I followed the planning commission

[1:15:02] meeting, it it didn't seem to make

[1:15:04] itself make its way into the final

[1:15:09] um motion, but it was something that was

[1:15:11] discussed. So you may want to to

[1:15:13] consider that. Now, um

[1:15:17] the other point, um so a number of uh

[1:15:22] public comments came through that were

[1:15:25] um that were forwarded to you. We

[1:15:28] received one just during the close

[1:15:30] session, so you you won't have seen

[1:15:33] that. we we weren't able to forward that

[1:15:36] to you, but um just very briefly.

[1:15:41] Um

[1:15:44] uh it was sent from Ariana and Jacob

[1:15:47] Gaye and

[1:15:49] it said in I support the proposed tier

[1:15:52] landscape amendment or landscape

[1:15:54] requirements in village commercial. It

[1:15:56] seems like a good way to help smaller

[1:15:58] properties while still maintaining the

[1:15:59] character of the town. So that that just

[1:16:02] came in uh just just during the close

[1:16:05] session. Um so I would be happy to

[1:16:08] answer any questions that you have and

[1:16:10] also Mr. Benson is here also and

[1:16:13] available to present and ask question

[1:16:16] answer questions too.

[1:16:18] >> So um the process is that null would

[1:16:21] present his application and then we

[1:16:23] would ask questions of either of you. So

[1:16:26] why don't we do that? Patel, if you want

[1:16:27] to come up and add anything that uh you

[1:16:30] want to add to what Nile said

[1:16:32] >> and then stay there for any questions.

[1:16:34] >> Well, Benson,

[1:16:36] well, first of all, the reason I'm here,

[1:16:39] sorry about that, but it's me. Uh, but,

[1:16:42] uh, the reason I'm here is because our

[1:16:43] family has a property that's right about

[1:16:45] a quarter acre in Village Commercial,

[1:16:46] and it's been really, really difficult

[1:16:48] to figure out how to improve that

[1:16:51] property. And

[1:16:54] you know, I just want to be clear

[1:16:55] though, I am not a developer. And if we

[1:16:57] end up doing something on that property,

[1:16:59] it'll be the very first time that I that

[1:17:01] I've done something like that. We're

[1:17:02] just residents in Springdale that are

[1:17:03] trying to create a business here. Uh and

[1:17:07] you know, something I've, you know,

[1:17:08] noticed during my explor exploration of

[1:17:10] this property is that the code sort of

[1:17:15] it sort of directs how things can be

[1:17:17] developed on these small properties. It

[1:17:19] really really shapes what's possible.

[1:17:22] And on this particular property, there's

[1:17:25] three

[1:17:26] sort of ideas. One is

[1:17:29] under development where you're working

[1:17:32] within the the the framework that's

[1:17:34] currently in place. And everything I do

[1:17:38] when I'm when I'm trying to figure that

[1:17:39] out points me towards a bike rental

[1:17:41] shop, that type of thing, because it

[1:17:42] needs very little indoor space. And you

[1:17:45] can I know this maybe you know not

[1:17:48] everybody agrees but you can do that

[1:17:49] business without too much parking. And

[1:17:52] the other possibility would be too much

[1:17:54] development. So I could just maximize

[1:17:56] and go as high and as big and can lever

[1:17:58] and put parking underneath and it

[1:18:01] becomes sort of a passion project at

[1:18:03] that point. It doesn't pencil out

[1:18:04] because the the the cost of construction

[1:18:07] would be going up so much. And the third

[1:18:09] idea is just to kind of leave it as it

[1:18:11] is. And I don't know if you know the

[1:18:14] property, but it's right next to Zion

[1:18:16] Gallery, and it's not the prettiest

[1:18:18] property in town. And I would certainly

[1:18:19] like to be able to make that better for

[1:18:21] us and for everybody else. Uh,

[1:18:26] you know, uh, the planning commission

[1:18:30] had some concerns about the setbacks

[1:18:32] because the setbacks,

[1:18:34] they limit, excuse me, they limit what I

[1:18:38] could do as far as the building

[1:18:39] structure. They were doing the math and

[1:18:41] saying, "Hey, look, even if you got down

[1:18:43] to the 40% tier on this property, you'd

[1:18:45] be limited by the setbacks and you

[1:18:47] couldn't develop the whole thing

[1:18:48] anyway." And that's partially true, but

[1:18:51] there are a lot of things that you can

[1:18:53] do outside of the setbacks like patios

[1:18:55] and so forth. So, if if I was able to

[1:18:58] get down to that 40% tier, it would

[1:19:00] still be a very positive uh way to

[1:19:04] improve that property much more easily

[1:19:06] and make it much better for the town as

[1:19:08] far as what the town's looking for.

[1:19:11] Uh Nile had mentioned about the 5%

[1:19:13] tolerance. So, during the planning

[1:19:15] commission meeting, I was saying that

[1:19:18] our particular property,

[1:19:20] excuse me, is just over at least I

[1:19:22] believe it's just over a quarter acre.

[1:19:25] So even if this is approved, we would be

[1:19:27] in that 50% tile and not the 40

[1:19:29] percentile. And so what I was proposing

[1:19:31] was a 5% tolerance at the thresholds.

[1:19:34] And what that would mean is if a

[1:19:37] property was in 5%

[1:19:39] of the threshold,

[1:19:42] then you could approve for it to go down

[1:19:44] to the lower tier. So for instance,

[1:19:46] we're just over a quarter acre, but

[1:19:48] we're within the 5% of the quarter acre.

[1:19:51] So, if that tolerance was worked into

[1:19:53] the to the ordinance change, I could

[1:19:56] apply for that to go down to the 40%.

[1:19:58] Now, it's true that I couldn't get all

[1:20:01] the way to 40% because of the setbacks,

[1:20:03] but again, there are many advantages

[1:20:05] like patios and so forth that can be put

[1:20:07] outside of those setbacks. So, I would

[1:20:09] really like to have that considered. And

[1:20:11] I think when when we were having the

[1:20:14] meeting, I think Terry looked at me and

[1:20:15] said, "Hey, do you want to amend your

[1:20:18] application?" And I felt like at that

[1:20:21] time they were going to approve that 5%

[1:20:24] tolerance. So I said, "Yeah, I want to

[1:20:26] amend it." But when they made the

[1:20:29] motion, I don't believe they put the

[1:20:31] word amended into the motion, but I

[1:20:33] believe the intent by the entire

[1:20:35] commission was to allow that 5%

[1:20:37] tolerance at the thresholds.

[1:20:40] That's really about it. So hopefully the

[1:20:43] application's complete and thorough and

[1:20:45] happy to answer any questions. So,

[1:20:48] council questions for either Nyall or

[1:20:51] Null.

[1:20:53] >> I have a question um for null. Um you've

[1:20:57] done a really great job explaining to us

[1:20:59] how it would work specifically on this

[1:21:02] particular property. Did you investigate

[1:21:05] any other properties when you kind of

[1:21:08] were thinking about this code?

[1:21:10] >> Well, I did ask Tom if there were other

[1:21:13] properties that would be affected and

[1:21:14] there are other properties. I didn't

[1:21:16] exactly do the math on other individual

[1:21:19] properties, but it wouldn't just be us.

[1:21:21] There would be a benefit to other small

[1:21:24] village commercial property owners in

[1:21:26] town.

[1:21:29] >> I hear you right though.

[1:21:33] » Yeah.

[1:21:36] » At a quarter, you can't meet the 40%.

[1:21:40] >> Well, if Yeah. If you're at a quarter

[1:21:43] acreish and you're granted the 40%, you

[1:21:47] know, percentage, the setbacks do take

[1:21:51] up more than that. And so I think that

[1:21:54] was a concern for the planning

[1:21:56] commission. They couldn't quite get

[1:21:57] their heads wrapped around it. And I was

[1:21:59] saying, look, the structures have to be

[1:22:01] within the setbacks. We know that and

[1:22:02] they're locked in there. But things like

[1:22:05] patios and signage and walkways and

[1:22:06] other things can be outside of those.

[1:22:08] And even the parking in this case,

[1:22:11] because this property is surrounded by other commercial, it doesn't it's not

[1:22:15] next to any residential properties. Uh

[1:22:18] with with town approval, with staff

[1:22:20] approval, uh I could even go halfway

[1:22:22] into the setbacks side in the rear with

[1:22:25] parking. Still, I can't develop fully at

[1:22:29] 40%. But again, that's okay. I'll be

[1:22:32] bound by those setbacks, and that's what

[1:22:34] they are. But at least I'll have the

[1:22:35] latitude to do things outside of the

[1:22:37] setbacks that are appropriate.

[1:22:39] >> I mean, so part of my question for you

[1:22:41] then is if you're bumped into the next

[1:22:44] tier, you're slightly over a quarter.

[1:22:48] >> 50% 50.

[1:22:49] >> Is that 50?

[1:22:49] >> I mean, you can't meet that.

[1:22:52] >> I can meet that.

[1:22:53] >> Can I can go below 50 for sure. Yeah, I

[1:22:55] can go. I applied for a variance that

[1:22:57] didn't uh get approved and I was

[1:22:59] applying for a 48% on that one because

[1:23:01] even that extra 2% was very very

[1:23:03] valuable to me.

[1:23:05] >> So there is a mechanism in place for

[1:23:07] somebody to apply for a variance rather

[1:23:09] than than include the 5% variance as

[1:23:13] part of this change.

[1:23:15] >> I I recognizing there's no guarantee

[1:23:19] someone in the future is going to get

[1:23:21] the variance approved. So, so for me, I

[1:23:24] mean, if you put the 5% uh tolerance at

[1:23:27] the thresholds in the ordinance change,

[1:23:30] I would still have to get permission

[1:23:31] from you to be able to get down to that

[1:23:34] lower tier. I I assume so. I mean, I

[1:23:36] don't know how the town would want to

[1:23:37] structure that exactly. You know, it's

[1:23:40] kind of weird because this property when

[1:23:42] uh I first started looking at it almost

[1:23:43] two years ago uh to do something, public

[1:23:47] records had 0.24 acres. So, a man, I'm

[1:23:51] just under a quarter acre. Well, I had a

[1:23:52] survey that put me just over a quarter

[1:23:54] acre, but there's been some eminent

[1:23:57] domain stuff that's happened on that

[1:23:58] property. There's been a lot line

[1:23:59] adjustment on that property. So,

[1:24:03] if the 5% tolerance doesn't go through

[1:24:06] with you guys this evening that I'm

[1:24:09] going to hire uh, you know, get a new

[1:24:11] survey done to see because I pulled it

[1:24:14] up this year and it says 26 acres.

[1:24:16] Suddenly, public records has changed it.

[1:24:18] Now, they do that from GPS imaging and a

[1:24:20] lot of different sources. I don't know

[1:24:21] why they redid this one, but I do think

[1:24:24] there's a chance that it might be a

[1:24:26] little bit smaller than they're saying,

[1:24:28] and I'll definitely pay the money to get

[1:24:29] that extra potential 10% if I need to.

[1:24:32] So,

[1:24:34] >> yeah.

[1:24:37] >> Would you go for 5% on all those zones?

[1:24:41] >> Would you?

[1:24:42] >> Sorry.

[1:24:43] >> Talking about a 5% tolerance for the

[1:24:46] 0.25 to 0.5 acres.

[1:24:48] >> That's a great question. I mean that

[1:24:50] that's not something that I applied for

[1:24:51] in the ordinance change, so it's not

[1:24:53] part of my proposal. I think that's

[1:24:56] probably a good idea on these smaller

[1:24:57] properties in all zones. Yeah, I I I

[1:25:00] think so because, you know, properties

[1:25:02] have different shapes. They have

[1:25:03] different frontages for different

[1:25:05] streets. You know, mine's right on SR9

[1:25:07] and it has good frontage, so it's got

[1:25:09] those advantages. But if you're off the main highway, maybe

[1:25:13] you'd be less inclined to approve, you

[1:25:15] know, going down to that that lower uh

[1:25:17] threshold. if it's honest or not, maybe

[1:25:19] you're more, you know, more agreeable to do something like that.

[1:25:24] >> I I listened to the planning commission

[1:25:26] meeting and had to take out my old

[1:25:28] calculus book to try to figure some of

[1:25:29] this.

[1:25:33] I

[1:25:34] >> think I have the answer for this. You

[1:25:35] and I talked briefly before. In your

[1:25:38] mind, is the limiting factor on

[1:25:39] something like this, the setbacks or the

[1:25:41] landscape?

[1:25:42] >> Oh, the setbacks are a huge huge uh you

[1:25:45] know, restriction and and and issue.

[1:25:48] but they are what they are. And so I

[1:25:50] just felt like if I can get down into

[1:25:52] the 40s, I could do something with this

[1:25:54] property that would be viable and

[1:25:56] appropriate for the general plan and all

[1:25:58] that kind of stuff.

[1:25:59] >> That was that was my conclusion. Um

[1:26:02] which is why currently leaning towards

[1:26:04] the 40%. I mean that's why I got that's

[1:26:07] why I got there. But you mentioned that

[1:26:09] 45 might work and I don't know what

[1:26:11] ultimate difference that'll make. Couple

[1:26:13] hundred feet maybe couple hundred square

[1:26:15] feet. It's hard to say because I haven't

[1:26:17] done, you know, I've done so many

[1:26:18] scenarios and I've paid a lot of money

[1:26:21] for, you know, architects and draftsmen

[1:26:22] to kind of rework these ideas because

[1:26:25] there's a lot of moving parts to this

[1:26:26] stuff. It's not even just this thing.

[1:26:28] It's about, you know, if I put if I made

[1:26:31] the building twotory, then I could

[1:26:33] actually put landscaping partially

[1:26:35] underneath the structure and count

[1:26:38] towards landscaping. So, there's a lot

[1:26:39] of sort of moving parts with that. I

[1:26:41] don't want to do any of that stuff. I

[1:26:43] don't want to do something big and

[1:26:44] grand. and I want to do something quite

[1:26:45] modest and this felt like the most

[1:26:48] appropriate way to do it. U

[1:26:51] yeah, this felt like the most

[1:26:52] appropriate way. I would certainly love

[1:26:54] to have less less setbacks. That would

[1:26:56] be, you know, amazing, but you know,

[1:26:59] >> that'd be a very So, I have a couple of

[1:27:02] questions for you.

[1:27:04] One is that in our in our staff report,

[1:27:07] it says the town council's role in this

[1:27:10] case is to review the specific ordinance

[1:27:13] language that has been submitted and

[1:27:15] decide to either adopt the proposed

[1:27:16] changes or not adopt. But now we're

[1:27:19] talking about making changes to what we

[1:27:22] adopt.

[1:27:24] Are we able to make changes to what we

[1:27:26] adopt?

[1:27:27] >> Yeah. So the way um the way I would

[1:27:30] recommend that you do that is that if

[1:27:32] you um because obviously he's made the

[1:27:36] application so he deserves his due

[1:27:38] process for a yes or no. If you want to

[1:27:42] amend it to introduce something else the best way probably to do that would

[1:27:46] be to ask Mr. Venson if he's willing to

[1:27:49] amend his proposal

[1:27:52] to include whatever it is and he can do

[1:27:53] that just right here and then and then

[1:27:56] you could vote on that if that was what

[1:27:59] you wanted.

[1:27:59] >> So there wouldn't be a new application

[1:28:01] with a new fe

[1:28:03] >> because the other the other thing is

[1:28:04] that in the changes on the I wondered

[1:28:07] about the changes to the introductory

[1:28:09] paragraph. I think there's some gramm it

[1:28:12] doesn't make sense grammatically.

[1:28:14] So that could also be changed here.

[1:28:17] So it says the following chart

[1:28:19] establishes the percentage properties

[1:28:21] are required to be landscaped or

[1:28:23] retained as natural. I think what what

[1:28:26] he was saying is establishes the

[1:28:28] percentage properties are required to

[1:28:30] landscape or retain as natural open

[1:28:32] space. But as it is it doesn't really

[1:28:34] make sense. We can talk about that later

[1:28:36] too. But the other question I had is why

[1:28:39] are the numbers what they are? Why why

[1:28:42] was the chart set up with some zones

[1:28:44] having different levels and others not?

[1:28:48] Do you do you know how that came about?

[1:28:51] >> I don't know the history of that of why

[1:28:53] there's there's tears. I suspect I mean

[1:28:56] the the landscape areas do make sense in

[1:28:59] that the commercial zones have less

[1:29:02] landscape than than bigger ones. I think

[1:29:05] the valley residential A and B zones

[1:29:08] those are non-compliant lots. basically

[1:29:11] that are they're very small. Um and I my

[1:29:16] understanding is that the landscape

[1:29:17] requirements is are reduced for those

[1:29:19] because they are so small and the

[1:29:22] commercial zone again the central

[1:29:24] commercial zone because there are some

[1:29:26] very small parcels. Um I think that's why there is that tier unless Tom

[1:29:34] you have anything else. Now there's also

[1:29:36] uh the idea of being able to do a

[1:29:37] planned unit development in the

[1:29:39] residential zone and like in Anastasia

[1:29:42] for instance you have all this open

[1:29:43] space that's conserved and then you have

[1:29:45] smaller properties that you can fully

[1:29:47] develop. Same thing in Gford Park they

[1:29:49] have these you know smaller properties

[1:29:50] with zero setbacks but all this

[1:29:52] conservation area. So I think those sub

[1:29:54] zones you know lend to that possibility

[1:29:56] as well. Tom, do you know?

[1:29:59] >> Um, yeah, plan developments are are done

[1:30:03] a little bit differently. The percentage

[1:30:05] of properties is calculated as the whole

[1:30:06] project, not on a property bypropy

[1:30:08] basis. That's that's a little bit

[1:30:09] different. But as Nile has explained,

[1:30:11] the the VRS, VRA and VRB

[1:30:15] um variations in landscape. That's

[1:30:16] correct. As far as a central commercial

[1:30:18] zone goes, it used to be a straight 50%

[1:30:21] requirement in the central commercial

[1:30:23] zone. That's how the the code was

[1:30:25] originally drafted in 1992.

[1:30:27] A number of years ago, there was a

[1:30:29] similar thought process with the central

[1:30:32] commercial zone as Nile mentioned,

[1:30:33] recognizing that there are a number of

[1:30:35] properties that are smaller and that 50%

[1:30:39] applying that standard um 50% landscape

[1:30:43] requirement on those smaller properties

[1:30:45] made development of those properties

[1:30:46] difficult. And so the planning

[1:30:48] commission of their own initiative and

[1:30:49] then the town council altered the the

[1:30:53] central commercial zone landscaping to

[1:30:55] introduce that kind of tiered step. That

[1:30:57] was done maybe like 10 15 years ago, but

[1:31:00] it was only looking at the central

[1:31:01] commercial zone. So essentially what Mr. Benson is asking for is for

[1:31:05] that same kind of analysis to be applied

[1:31:07] now in the village commercial zone.

[1:31:08] >> So it just didn't come up back then. It

[1:31:10] was just a specific. Okay. Thanks.

[1:31:12] That's that's all my questions. Are

[1:31:14] there other questions before we open

[1:31:15] public hearing? question.

[1:31:17] >> Okay.

[1:31:18] >> No, you go.

[1:31:20] >> 5% tolerance. Um, for me, I can kind of

[1:31:24] see where that makes sense for the lower

[1:31:26] two tiers. Help me understand how that

[1:31:28] would apply to the top tier.

[1:31:32] I'm looking at

[1:31:33] >> it was Pat that suggested that, not all.

[1:31:36] So, Pat.

[1:31:37] >> Yeah. I'm just curious, Pat.

[1:31:39] You were asking, should it be applied to

[1:31:41] all three tiers?

[1:31:47] just going to take the 0.25 acres and

[1:31:49] say if you're 5% over that like 26

[1:31:54] whatever it is should that same

[1:31:55] percentage be applied to everything in

[1:31:58] that chart.

[1:32:00] >> So you're talking about going to the

[1:32:02] valley residential and the center

[1:32:04] commercial I think is what he's saying.

[1:32:07] Not

[1:32:07] >> not going up to the

[1:32:10] >> the halfacre or greater. He's not

[1:32:13] talking about that. village

[1:32:16] all those other words integrated

[1:32:19] >> oh ice

[1:32:22] >> he's saying they have that same leeway

[1:32:24] in all three of those categories on

[1:32:25] there

[1:32:26] >> yeah in center commercial village

[1:32:28] >> oh okay

[1:32:29] >> residential

[1:32:30] >> I'm not sure it makes sense

[1:32:31] >> so to me

[1:32:32] >> I mean not tonight to us but

[1:32:36] >> we might have the planning commission if

[1:32:37] we decide to do it

[1:32:39] >> yeah if we did only the if you go half

[1:32:42] quarter or smaller to me only the lower

[1:32:46] two makes sense to apply a 5% variance.

[1:32:49] >> Yeah. No, I agree.

[1:32:51] >> Yeah.

[1:32:52] >> Well, and and what I was going to follow

[1:32:54] up on with null is the the 5%

[1:32:58] administrative

[1:33:00] what do you call it?

[1:33:01] >> 5% tolerance thresholds.

[1:33:04] >> Okay. Yeah. Variance tolerance. I lost

[1:33:07] the word. Um

[1:33:10] >> I think I heard you mention that maybe

[1:33:13] you thought it could that would be like

[1:33:15] a planning commission decision or are

[1:33:17] you envisioning this being a staff

[1:33:18] decision?

[1:33:20] >> You know, I was going to put it in my

[1:33:22] original application, but I didn't want

[1:33:23] to screw up the whole thing by putting

[1:33:26] that in there and so I I left it out.

[1:33:29] You know, the

[1:33:31] how you wanted to to do that is is not

[1:33:34] something that I've, you know, really

[1:33:36] thought out so much. If my thought would

[1:33:39] be that it maybe it goes straight to you

[1:33:42] guys because or if commissioner can

[1:33:44] actually make the decision. It seemed

[1:33:45] kind of weird if it would go through

[1:33:47] both bodies again. But however the staff

[1:33:51] and you guys want it to be structured is

[1:33:54] what I'll what I'll do. So

[1:33:56] >> Okay. Well, I'm just thinking like

[1:34:01] considering this that tolerance is maybe

[1:34:04] a new concept

[1:34:08] adding it. Yeah, maybe that's a

[1:34:10] discussion.

[1:34:10] >> Yeah. And that's a deliberation to

[1:34:14] >> I thought I would see what his what your

[1:34:16] ideas were like if you had envisioned

[1:34:19] something like this needed to go. You

[1:34:21] were thinking if the tolerance gets

[1:34:22] added in to your application tonight,

[1:34:25] would you want that to be staff directed

[1:34:29] across the board? They get to say if the

[1:34:32] person, you know, add the the 5%.

[1:34:37] >> It makes more sense if the commissioner

[1:34:39] council makes that decision in my mind,

[1:34:42] but I would love to be able to call up

[1:34:44] Nile and say, "Hey, can you approve

[1:34:45] this?" And he says, "Yeah, go for it."

[1:34:46] All right.

[1:34:49] >> Fantastic. Nile's like, "No, no, thank

[1:34:51] you."

[1:34:51] >> No, I don't think not not today. Call me

[1:34:53] tomorrow. We'll see how I'm feeling.

[1:34:56] >> Did you have something to add?

[1:34:57] >> Yeah, just a few points on this. Um, for

[1:35:01] simplicity, it might be better if if

[1:35:04] this 5%

[1:35:06] um tolerance is is something you want to

[1:35:09] go with. is maybe just to specify

[1:35:14] um like the you know

[1:35:18] specify the exact square footage that

[1:35:21] you're allowing within the code here. So

[1:35:25] for instance a half acre plus 5% is

[1:35:28] 22,869

[1:35:31] square ft. I I I just think it it might

[1:35:33] make it a little bit simpler to have to

[1:35:36] have those figures in the code. Um the

[1:35:39] other thing about if to consider if if

[1:35:43] planning commissioner town council

[1:35:46] needs a needs to approve this tolerance

[1:35:49] every time

[1:35:52] you're going to be seeing a lot of

[1:35:54] applications that you don't see right

[1:35:56] now. So, um, it might be just something

[1:36:01] to consider that if you want to do it, may be better to leave it in the

[1:36:06] hands of staff just from a practical

[1:36:09] point of view because

[1:36:11] potentially every application we receive

[1:36:15] might want this. So, it's just from an

[1:36:18] administer perspect.

[1:36:19] >> Yeah, I agree. I don't see any reason if

[1:36:21] it's in the code that we couldn't just

[1:36:23] let staff make that decision. Are there

[1:36:25] other questions before we open up to the

[1:36:27] public for questions?

[1:36:31] Um, does anyone in the audience have

[1:36:33] clarifying questions?

[1:36:36] Looks like not. So, um, thank you. No,

[1:36:38] I'll entertain a motion to go into

[1:36:41] public hearing.

[1:36:42] >> Love to go into public hearing.

[1:36:44] >> I'll second.

[1:36:44] >> Motion by Jack and second by Kyla

[1:36:48] >> and I. Randy.

[1:36:49] >> Barbara. I.

[1:36:50] >> Jack. I.

[1:36:51] >> Kyla. I.

[1:36:53] >> Okay. Okay, we are in a public comment

[1:36:54] period. I think you all know what to do.

[1:36:58] Looks like looks like there are none.

[1:37:02] So, I'd entertain a motion to close

[1:37:04] public hearing.

[1:37:06] >> We close the public hearing.

[1:37:08] >> I'll second.

[1:37:09] >> A motion by Kyla and second by Jack.

[1:37:13] >> Barbra.

[1:37:14] >> Kyla. I

[1:37:16] >> Okay, we're in deliberation.

[1:37:21] I just want to I want to start by saying

[1:37:23] that I have absolutely no problem with what null wants to do with that

[1:37:31] particular property. I think it would be

[1:37:34] great to have something done there

[1:37:36] that's that's a positive and an addition

[1:37:38] to the town. I just want to and and we

[1:37:42] know this, but I'm gonna say it anyway.

[1:37:43] I just want to remember remember that

[1:37:45] this isn't about that property. This is

[1:37:48] changing an ordinance and there it's

[1:37:51] going to affect a lot of properties

[1:37:53] potentially and not just that one. So,

[1:37:55] while we've talked a lot about that

[1:37:56] property and what could and couldn't be

[1:37:58] done, let's look at this as an ordinance

[1:38:01] that is going to affect any property

[1:38:03] that that fits in this category and

[1:38:06] let's think about any other potential

[1:38:08] consequences. So,

[1:38:10] >> yeah, and I'll just follow up with that,

[1:38:12] Barbara, that I I that is where my my

[1:38:15] largest concern lies. I think there's a

[1:38:18] lot of merit and value in these ideas

[1:38:20] and things that should

[1:38:24] there are some good ideas here. So I

[1:38:27] think uh regardless of the well not

[1:38:31] regardless if if I think this

[1:38:33] conversation should continue maybe past

[1:38:36] tonight. Um,

[1:38:39] but I even think that when the planning

[1:38:42] commission was evaluating this, um, they

[1:38:44] were evaluating it as if it was an

[1:38:46] application for a specific property. And

[1:38:49] I think, um, I have a lot of concerns

[1:38:53] because there are other properties in

[1:38:55] that quarter acre that it would apply

[1:38:58] to. And we have an applicant here who

[1:39:00] seems really committed to a smallcale

[1:39:04] development. Um, and you know, we didn't

[1:39:07] ask a lot about that tonight, but in the

[1:39:09] planning commission meeting, there was a

[1:39:10] lot of talk about, you know, keeping the

[1:39:13] building modest, and I think that's

[1:39:15] great, and that's actually what I would

[1:39:17] prefer to see happening. However, if we

[1:39:20] scale back on allowable

[1:39:24] landscape, the next developer may see it

[1:39:28] as actually the reason that they get to

[1:39:31] go as big, as tall and as um intense as

[1:39:36] possible. And so I do have some concerns

[1:39:40] about that the fact that we would we

[1:39:43] would allow um you know make these

[1:39:46] allowances which which have merit and probably um would would benefit but

[1:39:52] that we've also not kind of followed up

[1:39:54] on the back end to talk about um height

[1:39:59] you know which has been something that

[1:40:00] Jack has brought up in the past and um

[1:40:05] and I'm not I'm that's just a concern I

[1:40:09] have that we could potentially end up

[1:40:11] with something that is less desirable.

[1:40:13] >> But this this ordinance change wouldn't

[1:40:15] impact the height that's allowed in the

[1:40:17] village commercial or

[1:40:19] >> That's what I'm saying. Like this

[1:40:20] ordinance change doesn't address that

[1:40:23] dense feeling and potentially having a

[1:40:26] property that does abut residential

[1:40:28] which typically village commercial does

[1:40:31] but not always. Sometimes it does and

[1:40:34] that we could be potentially putting

[1:40:36] more dense structures, more dense

[1:40:40] everything closer to residential

[1:40:43] properties. Um even though this

[1:40:46] particular property, those aren't

[1:40:48] concerns because there there isn't

[1:40:50] residential um surrounding this

[1:40:53] property. So I'm just saying

[1:40:55] >> actually I think there is

[1:40:58] >> not across the street I guess,

[1:41:00] >> but

[1:41:02] Oh, okay.

[1:41:03] >> So, while I'm saying this particular

[1:41:06] code revision does not address height, I yes, I completely see that. I see that

[1:41:13] there might be compounding issues that

[1:41:15] this particular version does not

[1:41:17] address. But let me ask I mean some of

[1:41:19] the things that you're bringing up um

[1:41:21] when uh the work that was done that

[1:41:24] addresses setbacks I mean wasn't that

[1:41:27] done for the sole purpose of um

[1:41:30] addressing the whole density issue

[1:41:33] >> right the like graduated height yeah

[1:41:36] which

[1:41:36] >> well and set and front setback

[1:41:39] >> yeah I thought that was only in valley

[1:41:42] residential

[1:41:44] >> there's in the village commercial there

[1:41:46] is that name.

[1:41:48] >> Yeah.

[1:41:49] >> Well, you know,

[1:41:52] if somebody is in a village commercial,

[1:41:56] um

[1:41:57] with the ordinance as it is right now,

[1:42:00] the 6030,

[1:42:02] uh that in my mind is forcing them to go

[1:42:06] up.

[1:42:08] And uh you know in in changing this

[1:42:14] it's kind of making it more economically

[1:42:16] viable for them to do a more modest

[1:42:20] uh if we change the uh the landscape

[1:42:23] requirements if they have a property of

[1:42:26] say only a quarter acres. It's we're

[1:42:30] giving

[1:42:31] we're we're

[1:42:34] saying we would like a more modest

[1:42:37] um development on your progress doesn't

[1:42:42] require

[1:42:43] >> No, it doesn't. I'm just saying in that

[1:42:45] position of we're gonna hope for the

[1:42:46] best, right?

[1:42:49] The spirit is that we're giving you more

[1:42:51] so that you won't go and but we haven't.

[1:42:55] >> We haven't said that we don't

[1:42:57] >> like we still we want modesty. like how

[1:43:00] are we how are we roping in to make sure

[1:43:04] we get the modesty

[1:43:06] and we're not just going big.

[1:43:08] >> Well, we do have the option I mean we do

[1:43:10] have the option of saying you get you

[1:43:13] get this lower landscape if you agree to

[1:43:15] one story or something but that I mean

[1:43:18] that that isn't addressed in this

[1:43:19] application that would be starting

[1:43:21] again. So, we need to work with what we

[1:43:23] have in front of us

[1:43:24] >> or have the application revised or

[1:43:28] >> or what are our options? N

[1:43:33] >> what I mean like do we do we send it

[1:43:35] back to planning commission with some

[1:43:37] suggested language change because we're not talking about this

[1:43:40] property, we're talking about an

[1:43:42] ordinance and that's I think the only

[1:43:44] concern we have. We don't have a concern

[1:43:45] about this property.

[1:43:46] >> Yeah. So, I think because because the

[1:43:50] applicant has has made this, he is

[1:43:52] entitled to a decision um from the the

[1:43:56] town council. Um I I don't think it

[1:43:59] would be appropriate to defer a decision

[1:44:02] and send it back to the planning

[1:44:04] commission to for them to kind of work

[1:44:06] it out for an undefined period of time.

[1:44:09] I think the town council does need to

[1:44:13] make a decision. I think if it's as

[1:44:17] presented, if it's not exactly um what

[1:44:21] you're comfortable with, um there's an

[1:44:25] opportunity within this meeting to to

[1:44:28] see if Mr. Benson's willing to to pro,

[1:44:31] you know, accept an amendment and then

[1:44:34] you could vote on that. Um

[1:44:37] but yeah, I wouldn't recommend sending

[1:44:40] it back to the planning commission to

[1:44:42] kind of

[1:44:44] consider things more broadly. In this

[1:44:47] instance, you you could make a decision

[1:44:49] on this and then separately give

[1:44:54] instruction to the planning commission

[1:44:55] to discuss related issues. Um but I I

[1:44:59] think this does need some kind of

[1:45:01] decision.

[1:45:02] >> Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I'm I'm just I'm

[1:45:05] trying to understand your concern, Kyla.

[1:45:09] Uh because the ordinance as it's written

[1:45:12] right now in village commercial, if they

[1:45:14] have a property that's less than a

[1:45:16] quarter acre, they have to have 6030. So

[1:45:20] that in my mind means that they have to

[1:45:24] do something really tall and dense.

[1:45:29] Whereas if if we're cutting down this

[1:45:32] requirement on uh the landscaped area in

[1:45:35] the open space area, we're allowing them

[1:45:39] the opportunity to build something more

[1:45:41] modest. In my mind, this this this sort

[1:45:44] of says you can do something a little

[1:45:46] more modest because you don't have to

[1:45:48] really uh go up.

[1:45:51] >> It says you can, but it doesn't say you

[1:45:53] must. And something like parking could

[1:45:55] not go up. So that that would require.

[1:45:57] But I um

[1:46:00] yeah, I

[1:46:07] struggle with is the 5% thing. I've been

[1:46:09] working some numbers here and it

[1:46:13] could be a mess.

[1:46:15] >> Maybe we just

[1:46:16] >> Yeah. And I I've really uh I think we're

[1:46:19] opening a can of worms with that that on

[1:46:22] all of our ordinances,

[1:46:25] you know, not just this on Oliver

[1:46:27] ordinance. We have a uh you know,

[1:46:30] Foothill Residential

[1:46:32] is either a two or five acre. It's not 2

[1:46:36] acres plus 5%. Yeah.

[1:46:38] >> It's 5 acres plus 5%.

[1:46:40] >> We're opening a huge can of worms. You

[1:46:43] do this.

[1:46:43] >> We have Yeah, we have set on all our

[1:46:46] ordinances. We have very set uh acreage

[1:46:50] and I I don't think we put this 5% in

[1:46:53] because it's a it just opens up a can of

[1:46:56] worms in our whole ordinance system.

[1:46:58] >> It does and it's also given him what he

[1:47:01] asked for

[1:47:02] >> rather than second guessing what he

[1:47:04] wants.

[1:47:05] >> You codified it where it goes a quarter

[1:47:07] acre or smaller. You'd have to do 2625

[1:47:10] acres or smaller. The second one goes a

[1:47:14] quarter acre to a half acre. Well, you

[1:47:15] have to adjust a halfacre up right now

[1:47:18] at 0.525. I mean, it's it's it's

[1:47:21] >> it also opens opens people up to a

[1:47:24] little fudging with their survey or and

[1:47:27] >> I'd say we just give if we're going to

[1:47:29] pass this, let's pass it as he presented

[1:47:31] it. But no, I would like to alter that

[1:47:34] introductory language just to clarify a

[1:47:36] little bit if you would accept that

[1:47:38] amendment.

[1:47:40] >> Do do you know what I'm saying on that?

[1:47:43] >> Okay. I think it should say the

[1:47:45] following chart establishes

[1:47:48] the percentage properties are required

[1:47:50] to landscape or retain as natural open

[1:47:52] space. I think that reads more

[1:47:55] correctly.

[1:47:59] » And you know, and just a general comment

[1:48:02] that uh I think this is very appropriate

[1:48:06] for village commercial because

[1:48:10] it's between valley residential and

[1:48:12] central commercial and it just makes

[1:48:15] sense to do that. So I I do think that's an appropriate thing to do to

[1:48:20] break this out that way, not just So,

[1:48:23] let me if if I could ask um because I

[1:48:27] think and I want to talk a little bit

[1:48:29] about the building height, which I think

[1:48:31] is a totally separate

[1:48:34] uh subject from what this discussion is,

[1:48:38] but I think it kind of brings back what

[1:48:41] we were talking about last year. and I

[1:48:43] always kind of felt like I rolled over

[1:48:45] too soon on it and that I I strongly

[1:48:48] feel that if we're trying to protect the

[1:48:51] SR9 corridor through Springdale, we

[1:48:54] cannot uh move forward in the future

[1:48:58] with every building being a two-story

[1:49:00] structure and continue to claim that

[1:49:02] we're trying to save small town

[1:49:04] character. And this has kind of opened

[1:49:07] up that thought process again on these

[1:49:09] smaller lots. Do we want have another

[1:49:12] conversation again on smaller lots to

[1:49:16] encourage more modest structures that

[1:49:19] are not twostory

[1:49:21] and do we want the planning commission

[1:49:23] to take another look at that?

[1:49:28] I think that if we are moving towards

[1:49:33] decreasing the landscape requirement

[1:49:36] that we should on some level make sure

[1:49:40] that we are going to get the kind of

[1:49:41] building we want in the village

[1:49:44] commercial. I know that the spirit of

[1:49:46] this in what Randy is saying is that we

[1:49:50] are giving them less landscape so

[1:49:52] therefore they don't have to go up but I

[1:49:55] know we will get the developer

[1:49:58] who says

[1:50:00] I can still go up

[1:50:02] >> build as big as I can. I agree.

[1:50:03] >> Yeah,

[1:50:05] >> but that is a separate issue.

[1:50:06] >> So it is a totally separate issue. So, right. I think that maybe if you know

[1:50:11] wherever we go with this tonight and

[1:50:14] it's sounding like most of us like it

[1:50:16] that maybe secondly we direct the

[1:50:19] planning commission to kind of look into

[1:50:20] this

[1:50:22] readressing density in the village

[1:50:24] commercial zone considering these new

[1:50:27] amended landscape requirements.

[1:50:29] >> Maybe not density because this is

[1:50:31] addressing density but height.

[1:50:33] What did we call it when we were getting

[1:50:35] density all mixed up with not actually

[1:50:37] density like feeling dense? It's called

[1:50:40] uh intensity maybe. I don't know the

[1:50:43] height building.

[1:50:44] >> Well, let's let's finish this up and

[1:50:46] give Nola's answer and then we can take

[1:50:49] a straw poll on whether we want to ask

[1:50:51] planning to look at heights in the

[1:50:52] village commercial zone. So, seems like

[1:50:55] we're all con um agreed. Do we have a

[1:50:57] motion?

[1:51:00] >> Okay. Thank you.

[1:51:03] Town Council reviewed and approves the

[1:51:05] land use ordinance amendment application

[1:51:08] proposed by Mr. Null Benson which would

[1:51:11] revise section 10184 of the town code by

[1:51:14] introducing a tiered landscaping

[1:51:16] requirement in the village commercial

[1:51:18] zone with the following revision.

[1:51:22] Uh, under 10184 landscape requirements

[1:51:26] and regulations, the table will now show

[1:51:28] properties.

[1:51:30] Did I get this right? One quarter of an

[1:51:32] acre or larger with 60% landscape, 30%

[1:51:36] open natural space.

[1:51:39] That right?

[1:51:40] >> No,

[1:51:41] >> you could say just at the table%

[1:51:43] landscape either landscape to natural

[1:51:46] space. How's that?

[1:51:48] >> Half acre or greater. You said quarter.

[1:51:52] I said, did I say quarter? Yeah,

[1:51:53] halfacre or larger. 60%

[1:51:57] uh percentage of property is landscaped

[1:51:59] or natural open space. Quarter acre to

[1:52:02] half acre, 50%

[1:52:05] landscaped or natural open space. And

[1:52:07] quarter acre or smaller, 40% landscape

[1:52:10] or open natural space.

[1:52:15] >> You've got quarter in both of those.

[1:52:18] Actually, it says

[1:52:20] >> less than a quarter.

[1:52:22] >> Yeah.

[1:52:22] >> So, a quarter fits in the 50 to 25.

[1:52:27] >> Less than a quarter fits in the

[1:52:31] >> Maybe that's a change we need to make.

[1:52:33] Like if it's a quarter or less,

[1:52:36] >> it's not the way it's not important. The

[1:52:39] way quarter

[1:52:41] >> to a to less than a half

[1:52:44] >> is 50. We're approving what was put on.

[1:52:48] That's what's on the chart.

[1:52:49] >> That's what's on the chart. That's

[1:52:51] >> less than a quarter properties half acre

[1:52:54] or greater 60% properties quarter acre

[1:52:58] up to a half acre 50% properties less

[1:53:01] than quarter acre 40%.

[1:53:03] >> Yes.

[1:53:05] >> Based on the following findings, the

[1:53:07] proposal supports the land use and town

[1:53:09] appearance goals, especially sub goal C

[1:53:12] wherein the town council will update

[1:53:14] land use ordinances to make stays true

[1:53:16] to the intention of promoting mixed use

[1:53:18] along Zion Park Boulevard while allowing

[1:53:21] development that meets community needs

[1:53:22] and desires. It also meets sub goal

[1:53:25] economic subgoal A to enhance and

[1:53:28] support small and independent businesses

[1:53:30] that are unique to Springdale and help

[1:53:33] promote the town small town village

[1:53:35] character. The town council also finds

[1:53:37] that adopting a tiered landscape and

[1:53:39] open space framework for village

[1:53:41] commercial zone better aligns village

[1:53:43] commercial standards with existing

[1:53:45] valley residential and central

[1:53:47] commercial districts while maintaining

[1:53:49] the community's desired character. The

[1:53:52] council further finds that the scaling

[1:53:53] requirements by a lot size provides

[1:53:55] meaningful relief for smaller commercial

[1:53:57] properties. Improving development

[1:54:00] feasibility and reducing nonconformities

[1:54:03] without reducing overall landscape and

[1:54:05] open space expectations for larger more

[1:54:08] impactful sites and authorizes the mayor

[1:54:10] design.

[1:54:12] >> I'll second motion by Pat and second by

[1:54:16] Randy.

[1:54:19] >> Barbara I.

[1:54:21] Um, Kyla. And I'm gonna vote no because

[1:54:24] I feel like not because the there are

[1:54:27] some details that have merit, but I feel

[1:54:30] like there are other details that need

[1:54:31] to be uh addressed.

[1:54:35] Okay, motion passes. So, let's just take

[1:54:39] a straw poll. We've talked about this a

[1:54:41] few times, Jack, about whether we allow

[1:54:43] two-story structures on in village

[1:54:45] commercial.

[1:54:47] I have a problem with being able to

[1:54:49] build a two-story house and and someone

[1:54:52] who has a village commercial property

[1:54:53] not being able to build two stories, but

[1:54:55] I also am concerned about the the visual

[1:54:59] on SR9. So,

[1:55:02] >> yeah, I mean I guess

[1:55:03] >> we could keep that to SR9. I mean, but

[1:55:05] maybe we just want to vote to we want to

[1:55:07] ask planning to take a look at that

[1:55:09] again. Well, and I am talking about

[1:55:11] properties that are adjacent to SR9.

[1:55:16] >> Okay. Not visible from but adjacent to

[1:55:19] Okay. Do we um who is in favor of asking

[1:55:22] planning to relook at that?

[1:55:26] >> Yeah.

[1:55:27] >> Let's pat you. Yes. You know, I think

[1:55:30] one of the one of the things I remember

[1:55:33] about all these discussions about

[1:55:34] height,

[1:55:36] you know, we're certainly

[1:55:39] trying to not feel real closed in on

[1:55:42] SR9, but uh we also were kind of looking

[1:55:45] at what's going to obstruct the view of

[1:55:49] somebody driving down SR9 and

[1:55:57] » and that's something commission can

[1:55:59] handle too.

[1:56:00] >> Well, and I guess for me, I just want to

[1:56:02] say that we have now several new

[1:56:05] developments in Springdale that are not

[1:56:08] twostory

[1:56:10] that are very successful businesses. I

[1:56:12] think they've demonstrated that it can

[1:56:15] be done. It does not have to be a

[1:56:18] two-story structure to be successful.

[1:56:21] And again, you know, we are we should be

[1:56:25] looking out 20 years from now on what

[1:56:28] Springdale looks like. And so anyway, I

[1:56:31] just would really appreciate us at least

[1:56:34] being willing to have that conversation

[1:56:36] again and see if there's any change.

[1:56:40] >> We're not in a public hearing. Sorry.

[1:56:43] >> Nel, do you want to take that to

[1:56:44] planning commission?

[1:56:46] >> Yes. So specifically the the scale of

[1:56:48] village commercial zone buildings that

[1:56:50] are on SR9 and the height and

[1:56:52] >> the height is I think what the concern

[1:56:55] is.

[1:56:55] >> Yeah.

[1:56:56] >> Along SR9 only village commercial.

[1:56:58] >> Sure. Yeah.

[1:56:59] >> Okay.

[1:57:00] Let's move on. Our next item of

[1:57:02] business is review and possible award of

[1:57:05] wrap tax applications for Zion Canyon

[1:57:07] Art and Humanities Council building

[1:57:10] momentum with inspiring programs for the

[1:57:12] Canyon and Zion Canyon Arts Festival.

[1:57:15] Applicants are Lisa Zump and Adrien

[1:57:18] Gates. And the staff contact is it you

[1:57:20] Tom?

[1:57:21] >> Okay. And we've got um Lzette Buyers and

[1:57:25] Dan Pacik here representing Zart. So do

[1:57:28] you want to introduce this? Sure. Thank

[1:57:30] you.

[1:57:30] >> Is this a public hearing? It's not a

[1:57:31] public hearing.

[1:57:32] >> It's not a public hearing, but you

[1:57:33] you'll receive presentations from the

[1:57:35] two applicants. We also have Adrien

[1:57:37] Gates on uh Zoom. Um so we'll un unmute

[1:57:42] her in a second so she can speak as

[1:57:44] well. So you can address the uh Zion

[1:57:46] Kenya Art Festival. Before I begin, just

[1:57:48] a a request from the clerk that if you

[1:57:53] could make sure, council members that

[1:57:55] your your microphone is close enough to

[1:57:58] pick up your

[1:58:00] uh uh comments. We want to make sure

[1:58:03] that they get

[1:58:05] >> our beautiful voices.

[1:58:09] » Thanks. So, uh, this application every

[1:58:10] year, um, the the town makes wrap tax,

[1:58:14] um, available to organizations in the

[1:58:16] community for either cultural

[1:58:18] programming or, uh, recreation, um,

[1:58:21] projects. Um, the town has a policy that

[1:58:24] says that up to 50% of that wrap tax can

[1:58:27] be spent on programming, up to 50% can

[1:58:30] be spent on projects. Um and no single

[1:58:33] organization

[1:58:35] awarded more than 25% of the total

[1:58:39] anticipated wrap tax. This year the

[1:58:41] town's anticipated wrap tax will um

[1:58:43] revenue will be $60,000

[1:58:45] which means that the council can

[1:58:47] allocate up to $30,000 on programming um

[1:58:51] up to $30,000 on projects and also that

[1:58:54] no single applicant can be awarded more

[1:58:56] than $15,000.

[1:58:58] Um also the the um council is aware that

[1:59:02] the town can use RAP tax for its own

[1:59:04] projects and initiatives without going

[1:59:06] through this process.

[1:59:09] And in fact we the town has proposed

[1:59:11] several uses of the wrap tax this year

[1:59:13] that we can talk about as part of the

[1:59:15] tentative budget. But what your uh what

[1:59:17] your action right now is is to review

[1:59:20] the two requests from community

[1:59:22] organizations that we have received for

[1:59:24] use of this year's wrap tax. One is from

[1:59:28] Z Arts for $15,000

[1:59:31] um for a number of different projects

[1:59:32] that they have throughout the year. The

[1:59:35] other request is from the Zen Canyon Art

[1:59:38] Festival. This is will be an inaugural

[1:59:40] event that is proposed and the request

[1:59:43] is for $5,000 to help that um that

[1:59:47] project get get off the ground. So, you

[1:59:50] will have the opportunity to hear

[1:59:52] presentations from both of these and ask

[1:59:54] questions. And then at the conclusion,

[1:59:56] you'll have the opportunity to um decide

[1:59:59] whether or not to fund these two

[2:00:01] applications.

[2:00:02] >> And we'll do both at once.

[2:00:04] >> Both at once. Yep.

[2:00:05] >> Okay.

[2:00:05] >> So, ju just a a question if I may on

[2:00:09] this. Is is this second application

[2:00:12] also fit under the program and

[2:00:15] activities?

[2:00:16] Is that how that you would view this

[2:00:19] one?

[2:00:19] >> That is correct. and and and actually

[2:00:22] the Z Arts is mostly programming, but

[2:00:25] there's a little bit of projects um like

[2:00:28] the mosaic tile things is probably more

[2:00:31] of a project than it is programming. Um

[2:00:33] but but yes, both of these are are

[2:00:35] pretty much in the programming category.

[2:00:38] Okay, so um we've got Lzette here who's

[2:00:41] prepared to talk about the Zarts

[2:00:43] application and Adrienne is on Zoom. We

[2:00:46] can unmute Adrien

[2:00:48] and and she'll be able to talk about the

[2:00:53] um Zian Canyon Art Festival.

[2:00:55] >> Liz, do you want to kick it off?

[2:00:57] >> Um, sure. Uh, first of all, I want I

[2:01:00] want to thank uh the town council for

[2:01:02] our previous year's wrap tax.

[2:01:05] >> But yes, both of these are are pretty

[2:01:06] much in the programming cap.

[2:01:11] » Um, so we've made very good use of that

[2:01:14] funding. Um Lisa Zump prepare prepared

[2:01:18] this year's application. She did a great

[2:01:21] job.

[2:01:22] >> And as part of our application, we did

[2:01:24] add u an interim final.

[2:01:27] >> You want to take it off?

[2:01:29] >> Um sure. Uh first of all, I want I want

[2:01:31] to thank uh council for our previous

[2:01:34] year.

[2:01:38] » Yes, you do sound different there than

[2:01:40] you do there.

[2:01:42] If you were wondering, you did.

[2:01:46] Um, all right. So, um, we do have an

[2:01:50] interim, uh, final report to document

[2:01:54] what we did with last year's funding.

[2:01:57] And a good part of this year's request

[2:01:59] is just sort of keeping the the truck

[2:02:03] moving. Um, we've had very good success

[2:02:07] with the our uh inaugural inaugural uh

[2:02:13] talent show and with um you know we've

[2:02:17] seen growth with the film festival. Um

[2:02:20] kids loved still love the green jello

[2:02:23] sculptures as do the comm community

[2:02:27] voters who come to the the um

[2:02:31] uh St. Patrick's Day festival. Um, so,

[2:02:34] uh, yeah, it's really just it's really

[2:02:38] helpful to get this funding given, um,

[2:02:41] our

[2:02:43] membership revenue that it's doesn't

[2:02:46] quite look like the national parks

[2:02:48] plummeting of funding, but it's it's not

[2:02:52] growing as much as we would hope. We

[2:02:55] haven't quite rebounded from um, prior to the pandemic numbers. So, we're

[2:03:03] yeah, we're a grassroots volunteer

[2:03:06] organization and we deeply appreciate

[2:03:10] the support of the town.

[2:03:14] » Are there questions for Lette?

[2:03:16] It's a It's a great application. It's

[2:03:18] very complete.

[2:03:20] >> Yeah, I really do appreciate how

[2:03:23] thorough and specific the application

[2:03:25] is. Did you guys get good attendance

[2:03:28] this year at the field the filmfest?

[2:03:31] Yes. Uh this year we had all of the

[2:03:34] films screening at the Bumbleberry

[2:03:36] Theater versus last year we had a

[2:03:40] feature film at the Bumbleberry and the

[2:03:42] rest of the films screening at the Cable

[2:03:45] Mountain Lodge. Um this year we got a

[2:03:50] total of 160 people come through the

[2:03:53] film festival over the course of two

[2:03:55] nights

[2:03:56] uh or two days and three screenings. Uh

[2:03:59] last year we had 115 people come

[2:04:02] through. So an increase of about 40%.

[2:04:05] Um lots of very good feedback. Um we are

[2:04:10] absolutely planning on doing it again

[2:04:11] next year and we'll we'll discuss how

[2:04:14] that looks like next year too.

[2:04:22] » Only comment I want to make um the

[2:04:24] application like you mentioned Kyle very

[2:04:26] specific. I like the fact that you say

[2:04:29] here's what we're going to do and here's

[2:04:31] what it's going to cost. Very specific.

[2:04:33] Thank you.

[2:04:35] >> As you know, as as you know, as a

[2:04:37] nonprofit, being fiscally responsible is a good plus and we try.

[2:04:43] >> Okay. So, it sounds like you've answered

[2:04:46] all our questions. We will listen to

[2:04:47] Adrian and then we'll make a decision

[2:04:50] afterward about both applications. Jen,

[2:04:52] do you want to say anything?

[2:04:56] Okay.

[2:04:59] >> Thank you.

[2:05:03] » You want to get Adrian on there?

[2:05:21] Um, Adrien, if you can hear, if you can

[2:05:24] unmute on your end now, try unmuting.

[2:05:26] That would be fine.

[2:05:34] » Hello.

[2:05:35] >> There we go. Yep.

[2:05:37] >> We can hear you.

[2:05:38] >> We We can go ahead.

[2:05:41] >> Can anyone hear me? Yes,

[2:05:47] » I am not able to hear anyone.

[2:05:51] >> Hello,

[2:05:54] » we can hear you.

[2:05:58] >> We talk loud.

[2:05:58] >> If you can unmute on your end now. Try

[2:06:00] unmuting. That would be better.

[2:06:02] >> I am unmuted. Can anyone hear me?

[2:06:06] >> Yes. Yes, we can hear you.

[2:06:08] >> We're trying to work through it. Hold

[2:06:10] on.

[2:06:10] >> There it is.

[2:06:15] Okay.

[2:06:17] >> So, I actually cannot hear you through

[2:06:20] my phone. I am listening on YouTube and

[2:06:23] I can hear you on YouTube, but there is

[2:06:25] a very big gap in time.

[2:06:29] So, I'm not sure.

[2:06:37] » I am unmuted. Can anyone hear me?

[2:06:44] resorting to telegram

[2:06:48] smoke signals

[2:06:49] >> few seconds

[2:06:53] » I actually

[2:07:04] » so I'm not sure

[2:07:18] I am still here. I'm not sure what to

[2:07:20] do. I I just can't hear any of you all

[2:07:24] in my phone.

[2:07:28] » Trying to

[2:07:29] >> Are you calling her?

[2:07:30] >> We're texting and now we're calling.

[2:07:41] I think he's listening to my

[2:07:51] » I could FaceTime her

[2:07:54] >> still here. I'm not sure what to do. I

[2:07:56] >> What is happening? I just can't hear

[2:07:58] anyone.

[2:08:06] » Do you want me to FaceTime her up here

[2:08:07] and we can all talk to her here?

[2:08:13] » Yeah. Because So,

[2:08:16] >> and you can tell her what questions we

[2:08:18] have and she can talk.

[2:08:19] >> Okay. phone number

[2:08:24] » where

[2:08:26] I'm trying

[2:08:31] » dial in one of these phone numbers. Dial

[2:08:33] in like this local 669.

[2:08:36] >> It says they're listening. So, let me

[2:08:38] just dial I'm going to try to dial in.

[2:08:41] >> Do I have

[2:08:42] >> Yeah, read.

[2:08:44] Wait, what does that say? Oh.

[2:08:46] >> Oh, okay. I'm just gonna talk because I

[2:08:48] don't want to waste your time and it

[2:08:50] seems like you can hear me.

[2:08:53] >> Okay.

[2:08:56] >> Um

[2:08:56] >> Okay. Yeah.

[2:08:57] >> Yeah. I'm gonna just present here. So,

[2:09:00] the reason I'm actually not able to

[2:09:02] present in person is that um I've been

[2:09:06] under the weather. I would love to be

[2:09:08] there, however, and that is why um I

[2:09:11] wanted to submit sort of a separate plan

[2:09:13] today than what is in front of you. Um,

[2:09:17] I'm not sure what the procedure for that

[2:09:19] would be. If it would be better or

[2:09:20] easier for you to

[2:09:23] go ahead and I resubmit the proposal or

[2:09:28] if you would like to just have me go

[2:09:30] ahead and explain what I would like to

[2:09:33] do. Um, I have spoken with some of the

[2:09:35] folks in town um about this previously,

[2:09:39] Kendall, um, Robin, Ryan Gooler. Um, and

[2:09:43] so it's not a completely unfamiliar

[2:09:45] plan, but I understand that there's

[2:09:47] procedure that you need to follow to be

[2:09:48] able to approve my application.

[2:09:54] » My biggest question is whether

[2:09:58] OC Tanner, whether Adrian has already

[2:10:01] worked with Utah Tech to make

[2:10:03] arrangements to use OC Tanner.

[2:10:08] » Put that in the Telegram.

[2:10:09] >> Okay.

[2:10:11] because I think most of it's kind of

[2:10:13] self-explanatory

[2:10:14] >> right now.

[2:10:15] >> And I hate to say it. It's not it's not

[2:10:17] that much of an ask, but I just want to

[2:10:20] make sure it's really going to happen.

[2:10:21] >> But I'm also curious to know if what we

[2:10:23] what our packet is incorrect like what

[2:10:26] are the what are the changes? What is

[2:10:29] the

[2:10:30] >> Yeah. What's the ask now? Is that the

[2:10:32] amount that's changed or how the money

[2:10:33] will be used?

[2:10:37] » I think for me too, I think we need

[2:10:41] Okay. So, I am here. I can still hear

[2:10:42] you. Um, yeah, actually I have actually

[2:10:44] held events at the OC Tanner before. Um,

[2:10:51] » it's not it's not that much of an ask,

[2:10:53] but

[2:10:56] » so

[2:11:02] what are the changes?

[2:11:06] » I have several questions. I just don't

[2:11:08] know that it's fair to her to do it.

[2:11:12] >> Sure.

[2:11:14] >> Gosh, this delay is so difficult. I

[2:11:15] apologize everyone.

[2:11:19] >> Tom, do we need to do this one tonight?

[2:11:21] Could we go ahead?

[2:11:23] >> So, now

[2:11:24] >> you can make a decision. Um, moving

[2:11:25] forward to answer your question, uh, the

[2:11:28] change would be simply to eliminate the

[2:11:31] OC Tanner, um, and have the festival be

[2:11:35] located in town as an art stroll or an

[2:11:38] art walk with businesses involved, which

[2:11:42] was always the plan, but I was going to

[2:11:44] get everyone on board individually once

[2:11:46] I was in town to organize. my health

[2:11:49] issues are keeping me tied to um where I

[2:11:52] live for uh insurance and doctor's

[2:11:54] appointment reasons, but I am able to

[2:11:57] still participate in organizing the

[2:11:59] festival and I don't want to cancel it

[2:12:00] for this year. I do want to move forward

[2:12:04] um with an event that will benefit the

[2:12:06] town and um have done so in the past

[2:12:10] with uh an earth dance that we did at

[2:12:13] the OC Tanner as well as a followup the

[2:12:16] next year. Um, those events were

[2:12:19] difficult and there is a lot of stress

[2:12:23] and strain that comes with the OC

[2:12:25] Tanner. I think you guys all know

[2:12:27] probably as well or better than I do.

[2:12:31] Um, I think that

[2:12:34] with everything that's possible in towns

[2:12:38] where art festivals are a centric part

[2:12:40] of the presentation, why people come,

[2:12:43] why they travel there. Um, typically

[2:12:46] there are a few more galleries than

[2:12:48] Springdale has, but I think that

[2:12:49] Springdale has the most incredible

[2:12:52] backdrop and the most amazing um, you

[2:12:56] know, individuals and town character is

[2:12:59] what I really would like to build up. I

[2:13:01] would like to have the individual

[2:13:04] businesses participate as they see

[2:13:07] desirable with hopefully some help maybe

[2:13:11] streamlining some of the approval for um

[2:13:13] what might be in the way or difficult in

[2:13:16] those respects. I know that parking and

[2:13:18] canopy tents and um you know individuals

[2:13:21] wanting to do different things on

[2:13:23] different properties could be a lot of

[2:13:24] red tape. Um I'm willing to you know

[2:13:28] figurehead all of that. Um, I think that

[2:13:31] this would just take the amount of

[2:13:33] budget and time and energy for my event

[2:13:35] in total with the OC Tanner where I

[2:13:37] would have to create a large spectacle

[2:13:40] um, in order to draw a crowd there and

[2:13:43] maintain an art festival vibe. um if I

[2:13:46] do this and scale down then I think that

[2:13:50] I can better present a inaugural um you

[2:13:55] know grassroots sort of feel while

[2:13:57] everyone gets a chance to understand

[2:13:59] about the event and participate and I

[2:14:01] think that

[2:14:03] although that's a totally different

[2:14:04] concept um again I had intended on doing

[2:14:07] that along um I am not asking for a

[2:14:10] difference in the allocated funding I

[2:14:13] would still be using the $5,000 I would

[2:14:15] just be using it directly to help

[2:14:16] support businesses um and the art

[2:14:20] installations and events that are

[2:14:21] already happening in the town and you

[2:14:23] know throughout the year.

[2:14:26] Has she talked with the galleries that

[2:14:29] she envisions being part of the gallery

[2:14:31] stroll?

[2:14:34] >> Scaling down my sponsorship.

[2:14:42] » There there was not a date in the in the

[2:14:44] packet and so we can ask what the date

[2:14:46] is as well.

[2:15:01] arts. I'm I'm getting jello

[2:15:05] >> I just don't know what I'm getting with

[2:15:07] this group.

[2:15:08] >> I have uh I have spoken with the

[2:15:10] galleries. I do know most of the

[2:15:12] gallery. I think everyone that owns all

[2:15:14] of the galleries I've just at least, you

[2:15:16] know, been acquainted. Um I

[2:15:20] am um actually from Springdale. If if

[2:15:23] any of you don't know me, I I have

[2:15:25] family that goes all the way back to

[2:15:26] Shunsburg. Um and I grew up with um you

[2:15:31] know, art festivals being centric to the

[2:15:34] way that I traveled because my dad was

[2:15:35] an artist. And so I always kind of

[2:15:38] dreamed that Springdale would have

[2:15:39] something like that going on. I also

[2:15:41] always very much looked forward to the

[2:15:43] events that Springdale did have going

[2:15:45] on.

[2:15:49] I have a website as well um that

[2:15:51] highlights all of the town's

[2:15:54] um existing art projects and sort of

[2:15:58] highlights all of this. It's uh zion

[2:16:01] canyonart festival.com.

[2:16:09] » Any other questions before we

[2:16:10] deliberate?

[2:16:14] » Okay, I think

[2:16:16] Yeah, maybe would she be willing to

[2:16:20] >> if it's possible, maybe this is breaking

[2:16:22] the rules. Would she be willing to put

[2:16:24] together this new idea

[2:16:26] >> that highlights all

[2:16:27] >> in the same application form? And I know

[2:16:30] she's

[2:16:31] >> essentially omitting the OC Tanner, but

[2:16:33] it sounds to me like

[2:16:35] >> kind of a different animal

[2:16:37] >> and I'm wondering if that would suit us

[2:16:40] better to see a new application or a

[2:16:42] revised application. I think that would

[2:16:44] be helpful because she talks about the

[2:16:46] 5,000 mostly going to help businesses,

[2:16:49] but what does that look like? I don't

[2:16:51] think there's any clarity on

[2:16:54] >> what the money will be used for and what

[2:16:56] we will get in return.

[2:17:07] » I don't know what that means.

[2:17:09] Yeah.

[2:17:10] >> Well, and I know, you know, in earlier

[2:17:12] conversations with Ryan on this, um

[2:17:16] there's a lot of concern about not

[2:17:18] having somebody here on the ground to

[2:17:20] coordinate

[2:17:22] >> and to follow it through.

[2:17:25] >> And so I I think we need more assurance

[2:17:28] even if it's written letters of support

[2:17:31] from galleries or who businesses who

[2:17:34] support this. I think we need to have a

[2:17:36] higher level of assurance on how the

[2:17:39] money will be spent and who's going to

[2:17:41] be here to call.

[2:17:42] >> Um,

[2:17:43] >> if you can hear me, I am 100% willing to

[2:17:46] resubmit.

[2:17:50] » Is is it necessary that we make this

[2:17:52] decision tonight or can we make the wrap

[2:17:54] tax decision later?

[2:17:57] >> You can make it later. Um, your

[2:17:59] tentative budget tonight has wrap tax

[2:18:01] allocations in it, but the tentative

[2:18:03] budget is is tentative as the name

[2:18:06] implies. Um, and even after the final

[2:18:08] budget, I mean, you you the and Don,

[2:18:11] correct me if I'm going astray here a

[2:18:14] little bit, but I mean the wrap tax just

[2:18:16] stays in the wrap tax fund. as if you

[2:18:18] can hear me. I

[2:18:19] >> you can use that at your

[2:18:22] >> you know if if you were to say oh yes

[2:18:25] later in the year even August or

[2:18:26] September

[2:18:27] >> there's an application that came through

[2:18:28] that you wanted to allocate some of that

[2:18:30] tax that wrap tax. It's just sitting

[2:18:32] there in an account. So

[2:18:33] >> okay great. So let's go ahead and make a

[2:18:35] decision about Zarts and let's ask

[2:18:37] Adrian to resubmit with more detail and

[2:18:39] the new and the new event plan.

[2:18:42] >> Is that fair?

[2:18:43] >> I think so. I think that really

[2:18:45] >> Yeah. that gives us better information

[2:18:48] to go on for Adrian's.

[2:18:50] >> And I personally am supportive of

[2:18:53] awarding Zarts the 15,000 that they're

[2:18:56] asking for.

[2:18:59] » Oh, yes. Later in the year, even

[2:19:01] >> do we need a motion for this?

[2:19:02] >> Yeah. But so I I totally agree. I mean,

[2:19:06] I think Zarts is kind of

[2:19:08] >> So, let's go ahead and absolut Sorry,

[2:19:10] I'm really distracted by the background

[2:19:12] noise.

[2:19:13] >> Um, let's get Winston back over here. I think Zarts is doing a great job and I

[2:19:19] have to disclose I am a beneficiary.

[2:19:21] Like I attend your events, my kids

[2:19:24] attend the events. Um and I do

[2:19:27] appreciate what Z Arts does for the

[2:19:29] community. I love the application that

[2:19:32] it's very specific.

[2:19:34] Like Pat pointed out, we know we're

[2:19:36] getting some green jello and a talent

[2:19:39] show and that the mosaics are going to

[2:19:42] be kept up. I think that's wonderful.

[2:19:45] >> That's great.

[2:19:46] >> Um,

[2:19:47] it's not glamorous work, but it needs to

[2:19:50] be done. Um, so I just I appreciate Z

[2:19:52] Arts and I had to disclose that I do

[2:19:56] benefit.

[2:19:56] >> So then why don't you make a motion?

[2:19:57] >> I will. I move that we approve the wrap

[2:19:59] tax funding for Z Arts in the amount of

[2:20:01] $15,000.

[2:20:03] >> I'll second.

[2:20:04] >> Got a motion by Kyla, second by Jack.

[2:20:06] >> I

[2:20:07] >> Barbara I.

[2:20:10] >> Thank you for being here.

[2:20:13] Okay, next item. Do we need a break or

[2:20:15] we want to just keep playing?

[2:20:16] >> Yeah, it's only going to get better from

[2:20:18] here.

[2:20:20] >> Well, unless Jeff is gonna make some

[2:20:22] >> You just jinxed it.

[2:20:25] >> Okay, we'll keep going for now. The next

[2:20:28] item is a public hearing.

[2:20:29] >> The last ones left. Is that what you're

[2:20:31] telling?

[2:20:31] >> Um, well, we got Jeff Brady Ba and Jan

[2:20:34] Pacy.

[2:20:37] >> They deserve stickers.

[2:20:38] >> The big hitters are here. Okay. Uh,

[2:20:41] public hearing ordinance 2026-09

[2:20:43] amending chapter 18, I'm sorry, amending

[2:20:46] chapter 10-21-8

[2:20:49] of the town code relating to maintenance

[2:20:51] and repair of non-complying buildings

[2:20:54] and inserting a new section of code

[2:20:56] dealing with involuntary removal of a

[2:20:58] non-complying building. Staff contact is

[2:21:01] Nile.

[2:21:05] » Thank you. So,

[2:21:08] you will probably remember last

[2:21:10] September um being asked to interpret

[2:21:13] the ordinance uh relating to the

[2:21:16] redevelopment of a a property. Um and so

[2:21:21] arising out of that, the town council

[2:21:24] instructed the planning commission to improve or add clarity to the

[2:21:31] definition of ordinary maintenance and

[2:21:33] repair as it relates to um non-complian

[2:21:38] structures. So the the planning

[2:21:41] commission have spent a number of months

[2:21:43] working on this. Um what they've done is

[2:21:47] what they've proposed is uh adding a

[2:21:50] line to the definition of ordinary

[2:21:53] maintenance and repair. Um to clarify

[2:21:56] that ordinary maintenance and repair

[2:21:59] does not include extensive construction

[2:22:02] or reconstruction such as entirely

[2:22:05] replacing exterior walls or completely

[2:22:08] replacing roof trusses. So that kind of

[2:22:11] ties that down a little bit. Um the

[2:22:14] planning commission also uh have

[2:22:19] proposed an additional scenario

[2:22:23] um to be added to the code which deals

[2:22:26] with what uh what's termed involuntary

[2:22:29] removal of a non-compliant building and

[2:22:31] struct or structure. So this is trying

[2:22:34] to catch situations which are not quite

[2:22:38] catastrophe level but um where you have

[2:22:42] a cons uh a building that's

[2:22:44] non-compliant that declines over an

[2:22:47] extended period and um does need pretty

[2:22:51] extensive work that would exceed the

[2:22:55] definition of ordinary maintenance and

[2:22:57] repair.

[2:22:59] And so what what they've uh crafted

[2:23:02] would allow more extensive

[2:23:06] reconstruction. So potentially

[2:23:08] reconstructing exterior walls and roofs

[2:23:10] and and those sorts of things. Um in in

[2:23:14] these circumstances uh but to to qualify

[2:23:18] for that uh planning commission approval

[2:23:21] would be required. Approval would be

[2:23:24] required before you demolish the

[2:23:27] structure. Um,

[2:23:30] and a written opinion from an engineer

[2:23:33] or other suitably qualified individual

[2:23:35] would be required to describe why this

[2:23:39] is why kind of these extensive

[2:23:43] uh improvements are needed. Um and if

[2:23:47] the planning commission determines that

[2:23:49] this is justified then they give

[2:23:52] approval uh for these kind of more

[2:23:54] extensive uh work or extensive

[2:23:57] improvements.

[2:23:59] Um

[2:24:01] uh minor deviations would be uh allowed

[2:24:05] so long as they don't increase the

[2:24:07] non-compliance of the structure. Um and

[2:24:13] this also assumes that the floor slab or

[2:24:15] footings will remain that they can't be

[2:24:18] removed. However, um

[2:24:23] if there is a circumstance where part of

[2:24:25] the footings or the floor slab does need

[2:24:28] to be removed or replaced for safety

[2:24:30] reasons, this could potentially be be

[2:24:33] included in this too. So that's that's

[2:24:36] what the planning commission has

[2:24:37] proposed. Um and um yeah it's for you to

[2:24:42] deliberately upon.

[2:24:44] >> So we are in a public hearing format. It

[2:24:47] is time now for any clarifying questions

[2:24:49] from council for Nile.

[2:24:53] >> You have one um the words reconstruct or

[2:24:57] reconstruction

[2:24:59] redevelopment and then the next thing

[2:25:00] we're going to deal with renovation.

[2:25:04] I I think that they're all equivalent,

[2:25:07] but they shouldn't be, right? Those

[2:25:10] words, because you say under D may be

[2:25:14] entirely reconstructed, but you get down

[2:25:15] to E and it said will constitute

[2:25:17] redevelopment. So what's the difference

[2:25:20] between reconstruction and

[2:25:22] redevelopment?

[2:25:25] » Yeah. So in in point D where it talks

[2:25:28] about um

[2:25:31] building elements may be completely

[2:25:34] reconstructed.

[2:25:37] Um

[2:25:39] >> I guess what I'm asking is can in E can

[2:25:42] the word redevelopment just be replaced

[2:25:45] with reconstructed?

[2:25:48] >> Yeah. I

[2:25:49] >> because when you get to the next deal C

[2:25:52] we get to C4, it really gets messy. I

[2:25:55] >> Yeah, that those terms are kind of all

[2:25:57] used interchangeably.

[2:26:00] I think point D is saying

[2:26:02] >> there is a difference. I don't know.

[2:26:03] >> Yeah, I I think point D is when it uses

[2:26:07] the term reconstructed, I think it's

[2:26:09] talking about something a little bit

[2:26:10] different from redevelopment in point E.

[2:26:14] Um

[2:26:15] because in point D it's it's talking

[2:26:19] about these building elements being

[2:26:21] rebuilt whereas in point E

[2:26:25] uh where it says if you remove the slabs

[2:26:28] it constitutes redevelopment which which

[2:26:32] triggers kind of a whole you need to

[2:26:34] come back into compliance. So I I think

[2:26:37] in this sense reconstructed means

[2:26:40] reconstructing building elements whereas

[2:26:43] redevelopment

[2:26:45] is um

[2:26:47] >> starting over with development

[2:26:48] >> starting over and coming back into

[2:26:50] compliance.

[2:26:50] >> Yeah, I think they are different.

[2:26:52] >> I mean

[2:26:54] so that's an understanding that if

[2:26:55] somebody reads this, an applicant reads

[2:26:58] this, they would know the difference.

[2:27:00] >> So

[2:27:01] >> or could be explained to them.

[2:27:02] >> Yeah. And it it is a fair comment that

[2:27:04] potentially if this is confusing and if

[2:27:06] some of these terms are um potentially

[2:27:10] overlapping in an unhelpful way, that's

[2:27:12] something that that we could resolve.

[2:27:15] >> So I guess the way I read it was

[2:27:18] reconstruction is above the floor plan

[2:27:21] or excuse me, above the the slab, the

[2:27:24] floor slab.

[2:27:25] >> Yeah.

[2:27:26] >> Redevelopment would be taking out the

[2:27:30] slab too.

[2:27:31] Yeah. So, redevelopment, I think, as

[2:27:34] we've tried to describe here, is really

[2:27:37] just kind of

[2:27:39] scorched earth situ. You're kind of

[2:27:41] starting from scratch.

[2:27:42] >> You're taking the footings and the slab

[2:27:44] out,

[2:27:45] >> whereas a reconstruction is you're using the same slab, which

[2:27:50] hopefully means that you're not

[2:27:52] increasing the footprint.

[2:27:55] >> Yeah.

[2:27:56] >> Building the overall footprint. And

[2:27:59] that's the way I read it at least.

[2:28:01] >> And if that's an understanding we have,

[2:28:03] it's going to be interesting to apply

[2:28:05] that that concept in the next code of

[2:28:08] read.

[2:28:09] >> Yeah. Is it not defined somewhere like

[2:28:11] in our basic definitions? Do we define

[2:28:13] redevelopment and rection?

[2:28:16] >> I don't think we do it in this

[2:28:19] particular section.

[2:28:20] >> This kind of says removal of the floor

[2:28:21] slab or footings will constitute.

[2:28:24] >> So it's defined. Okay. right there in my

[2:28:27] mind.

[2:28:28] >> That's what defined it to me.

[2:28:30] >> But I mean, are you not building an

[2:28:32] entirely new building then? And do you

[2:28:35] not need a a building permit to do that?

[2:28:38] >> Oh, yeah. You need a building permit for

[2:28:40] sure.

[2:28:40] >> So, there's things here and I'm I'm

[2:28:43] trying not to be too critical. I had to

[2:28:45] read this numerous

[2:28:48] >> Oh, you did?

[2:28:49] >> Yeah. The comments you put in on the

[2:28:51] document.

[2:28:53] >> I didn't know I was sharing them.

[2:28:55] Anyway, I had to read it numerous times

[2:28:58] to make have it make sense. I I think

[2:29:02] the involuntary removal I mean

[2:29:06] for me is like a really interesting

[2:29:08] choice of a word. Involuntary

[2:29:12] I mean really. So

[2:29:14] I could not approve this the way it is.

[2:29:16] I mean when we're struggling to

[2:29:18] understand it and we're asking someone

[2:29:22] one of our residents or you know someone

[2:29:24] who wants Yeah. No, no, no.

[2:29:34] » Yeah, let's let's ask questions first.

[2:29:36] >> I do. Okay, I do have a question. Thanks

[2:29:38] for

[2:29:38] >> better be a question.

[2:29:39] >> It is a question and it's maybe a a a

[2:29:44] question based in inexperience. Um, when

[2:29:47] we're talking about involuntary removal

[2:29:49] and it is going to require like an

[2:29:50] engineer saying yes, this is actually

[2:29:53] needs to be replaced. Can an engineer do

[2:29:57] that assessment if it's mold?

[2:30:02] » Potentially, yes. Okay. I think it

[2:30:05] >> it it's not defined here. Um what it

[2:30:08] says is uh the opinion states that the

[2:30:11] proposed refurbishments are necessary to

[2:30:14] make the structure safe and sanitary in

[2:30:16] accordance with the local building code.

[2:30:18] So I think that could potentially

[2:30:20] include mold.

[2:30:22] >> Okay.

[2:30:22] >> Well, and it does say engineer or other

[2:30:24] suitably qualified individual. So that

[2:30:26] might be a mold expert

[2:30:28] >> and that's fine. I I didn't catch the

[2:30:31] suitably qualified expert. Um, and I was

[2:30:36] just wondered like we're gonna say,

[2:30:37] well, you didn't get an engineer to say

[2:30:38] that this mold is an issue. Um, and

[2:30:41] we're just kind of like painting

[2:30:42] ourselves into a corner. So, I think

[2:30:44] it's covered.

[2:30:45] >> So, in the deliberation, I think we

[2:30:47] could talk about our real life case and

[2:30:49] how this would have changed this

[2:30:51] process. But any other questions?

[2:30:54] >> Okay. So, let's have a motion to open

[2:30:57] public hearing.

[2:30:58] >> What about questions from Oh, well, I

[2:31:00] guess you asked questions from the

[2:31:02] audience. I just assume she would. Yeah,

[2:31:04] she's gonna make comments, not

[2:31:05] >> Jan has something.

[2:31:07] >> We're down.

[2:31:07] >> I move that we open the public hearing.

[2:31:13] >> We have a second. Open. Okay. Motion by

[2:31:16] Kyla, second by Randy.

[2:31:17] >> I Randy.

[2:31:18] >> Arbite.

[2:31:19] >> Kyla. I

[2:31:21] >> Nothing. You got nothing. Okay. Motion

[2:31:23] to close public hearing.

[2:31:25] >> Are you as confused as we are?

[2:31:28] >> I move we close public hearing.

[2:31:29] >> I'll second. Motion by Randy. Second by

[2:31:31] Kyla.

[2:31:32] >> And I

[2:31:33] >> Jack.

[2:31:38] » Here. I'll do you and you do me.

[2:31:41] >> Jackie.

[2:31:42] >> Barbby.

[2:31:44] >> Kyla. I

[2:31:46] >> Your voices have changed.

[2:31:49] >> Oh, it's gonna get worse. Okay. So, we

[2:31:53] are now in deliberation.

[2:31:55] So in our real in our real case

[2:31:58] scenario, what would have happened is

[2:31:59] that in theory, the contractor would

[2:32:04] have gotten an engineer or suitably

[2:32:06] qualified individual to come to the town

[2:32:11] and state that the building was not

[2:32:12] savable, that it had to be taken down,

[2:32:15] and

[2:32:17] then there would have been a demolition

[2:32:19] permit, and then there would have been a

[2:32:21] whole new rebuild, but on the same

[2:32:23] footprint, right? Yeah. So they they

[2:32:25] would have had to come before demolition

[2:32:27] happened with this request and with this

[2:32:30] opinion uh and ask for permission from

[2:32:33] the planning commission and then they

[2:32:36] could have gone ahead with it.

[2:32:39] >> And and I I like I like this idea. I

[2:32:43] think that the planning commission did a

[2:32:45] fairly good job,

[2:32:48] but I do understand that you might have

[2:32:50] some concerns, Jack, and that Pat has

[2:32:52] brought up some maybe definitions that

[2:32:54] are missing. Um, I mean, but if you're I

[2:32:59] guess I felt like I understood the

[2:33:02] direction that they were going in.

[2:33:04] >> Yeah, I I agree. I I really thought I

[2:33:07] did.

[2:33:08] For me, the whole thing was, are you

[2:33:11] leaving the slab and the footings there

[2:33:13] >> so that you not incling the footprint of

[2:33:16] the of the building and you dig

[2:33:18] everything out above that? That's

[2:33:20] reconstruction. You need There's some

[2:33:22] stipulations on it, but

[2:33:25] that's reconstruction.

[2:33:28] So, are you Randy, are you saying you're

[2:33:30] against

[2:33:33] So, if somebody does have to remove the

[2:33:35] floor slabs and footings, are we still

[2:33:38] okay with them

[2:33:40] keeping the nonconformity and rebuilding

[2:33:42] or would we want to just even eliminate

[2:33:44] that and then they just start over?

[2:33:48] But, but again, this is only in the case

[2:33:50] of unexpected or involuntary removal and

[2:33:53] not just because they want to

[2:33:58] Does that make sense?

[2:33:59] >> Well, I I mean the way this in my mind,

[2:34:01] the way this thing's written is

[2:34:04] um that's redevelopment of the property,

[2:34:07] which is a brings into a whole new

[2:34:13] thing. Then they have to comply

[2:34:16] with the

[2:34:18] if I'm reading this right if they have

[2:34:21] to go into the footings and the and the

[2:34:24] floor slab to remove those then they

[2:34:28] have to come back with a new application

[2:34:30] to comply with the

[2:34:33] >> they have to build bring the building

[2:34:35] under compliance.

[2:34:37] So

[2:34:38] >> whatever they build there.

[2:34:40] >> Yeah. So just to clarify that that is

[2:34:42] the case except there is a carve out at the end of E which um says if a

[2:34:49] written opinion from an engineer's other

[2:34:52] suitably qualified individual provides

[2:34:54] evidence that repairs or replacements of

[2:34:57] sections of the floor slab or footings

[2:34:59] is necessary for safety reasons. This

[2:35:02] may be approved. So there is

[2:35:05] >> and it would stay it could stay

[2:35:06] non-conforming in terms of setbacks and

[2:35:08] that kind of thing even in that case

[2:35:10] right.

[2:35:11] >> Yeah.

[2:35:11] >> Okay.

[2:35:12] >> Yeah. So that that that is a carve out

[2:35:14] from what you've described there Randy.

[2:35:16] Yeah.

[2:35:18] >> Wouldn't there be times when you got to

[2:35:19] tear the foundation up to get a pipes?

[2:35:22] >> No.

[2:35:23] >> Wouldn't there be times when you'd have

[2:35:24] to tear the foundation up to get at

[2:35:26] pipes?

[2:35:27] >> Yeah. And I think that's that's maybe a

[2:35:29] scenario that they're envisaging there.

[2:35:32] Yeah.

[2:35:34] I just think it needs more

[2:35:36] straightforward language,

[2:35:38] you know? It's like so circular,

[2:35:41] you know, and I mean, you at least for

[2:35:43] me, I had to keep reading reread it. And it is, you know, we're

[2:35:48] trying to have ordinances that the

[2:35:50] average lay person can understand.

[2:35:54] They shouldn't have to keep rereading

[2:35:56] it. And so that really uh concerns me.

[2:36:00] But it also concerns me that how widely

[2:36:04] interpreted that can be

[2:36:07] and and that's where I think we can get

[2:36:09] into problems where we've got somebody

[2:36:12] sitting out there saying, "Well, this

[2:36:14] was my understanding." And then we've

[2:36:16] got their experts sitting in the

[2:36:18] audience with them saying, "Yeah, I

[2:36:20] agree. I I could see how they could

[2:36:22] interpret it that way."

[2:36:25] >> Jack, I don't I don't find it confusing.

[2:36:28] So I maybe it's me. Well, or maybe

[2:36:32] >> it won't it isn't just you because that

[2:36:34] there will be somebody else who cracks

[2:36:35] open this ordinance and is like I don't

[2:36:38] get it. But maybe hopefully they call

[2:36:41] staff

[2:36:42] >> and and not to say that it's that's the

[2:36:44] way we should leave it. If you had like

[2:36:46] some I mean are there specific things

[2:36:48] you'd like to see? Absolutely. Do you

[2:36:51] know that that you want some section

[2:36:53] cleaned up? I guess for me this stems

[2:36:55] back from that conversation we had where

[2:36:58] I mean I voted no on it where I felt

[2:37:00] like you know everybody else was in

[2:37:02] agreement that complete removal of a

[2:37:05] building could be done under repair and

[2:37:07] maintenance and without the benefit of a

[2:37:11] demolition permit. So like you know for

[2:37:14] me what what where there should be

[2:37:16] triggers is in the case of you know if

[2:37:20] you are looking at what we're going to

[2:37:22] call redevelopment which I find an an

[2:37:25] interesting word then say this triggers

[2:37:27] a building permit

[2:37:30] you know if you are going to do complete

[2:37:32] removal of the entire structure you need

[2:37:36] a demolition permit

[2:37:38] >> but you need a building permit even if

[2:37:40] you're remodeling Right.

[2:37:42] >> So, um I think that we voted for that

[2:37:46] because we felt our ordinance was so

[2:37:49] unclear, which if this is unclear, we

[2:37:52] should not pass it. But

[2:37:54] >> well, I mean, if it's I this is a no for

[2:37:56] me, but if it's a rest a yes for you

[2:37:58] guys, then you know, I would move

[2:38:00] forward. But yeah, I couldn't I couldn't

[2:38:04] say yes for this.

[2:38:07] Well, I I understand what what they're

[2:38:10] trying to do and and if I if I think

[2:38:12] about it and I had to read it more than

[2:38:14] just a few times like Jack did,

[2:38:17] >> I agree with where it's going. I just

[2:38:19] think it needs to be written more

[2:38:20] clearly.

[2:38:21] >> Okay,

[2:38:21] >> that's just my opinion.

[2:38:22] >> So, um

[2:38:23] >> don't disagree with concept. Yeah, I I

[2:38:25] think the concept I I think I think it's

[2:38:29] everything that we need, but Nyall,

[2:38:32] could you maybe

[2:38:34] clean it up a little bit?

[2:38:36] >> Yeah, absolutely.

[2:38:36] >> So, should we table it? Is that what we

[2:38:38] should do?

[2:38:40] >> I think if we table it, we need to just

[2:38:42] be real specific like what do we want

[2:38:44] cleaned up? We want some things defined

[2:38:46] like redevelopment and reconstruction

[2:38:49] >> and that maybe we want um some triggers

[2:38:52] so it's very clear when you need a

[2:38:54] demolition permit and when you need a

[2:38:56] building permit.

[2:38:58] >> Well, it sounded to me like what Jack

[2:39:00] and Pat's issue might be different, but

[2:39:02] what Jack was saying was we just need to

[2:39:05] be real clear. You still need a building

[2:39:07] permit in this case. You you still need

[2:39:10] a demolition permit, right?

[2:39:11] >> Well, so this is an example right here.

[2:39:13] the the you know involuntary removal of

[2:39:16] a non-compliant building. So we're

[2:39:18] talking about removal

[2:39:20] you know right in B then it goes to a

[2:39:23] written opinion from an engineer blah blah stating that the proposed

[2:39:28] refurbishments are necessary.

[2:39:32] >> So you should say the proposed

[2:39:34] >> that's not removable

[2:39:35] >> demolition is necessary.

[2:39:37] >> Yeah. So, I mean, to me, it felt like it

[2:39:40] was such a mixed bag of we're bouncing

[2:39:42] back and forth between actually removing

[2:39:46] the structures and then talking about

[2:39:48] what kind of improvements we might be

[2:39:50] making.

[2:39:52] Um, C, uh, the planning commission finds

[2:39:56] there's ample justification for allowing

[2:39:58] the proposed improvements and the

[2:40:01] existing nonconformities to be retained.

[2:40:04] I mean, what does that have to do with

[2:40:05] removal? So I think if we're talking

[2:40:08] about removal, let's talk about removal.

[2:40:12] >> Yeah. Now that you say that, it is

[2:40:13] interesting because under 10219, which

[2:40:16] is removal, it's talking about

[2:40:18] rehabbing, isn't it?

[2:40:21] >> Yeah.

[2:40:22] >> So anyway, I think it just could be

[2:40:24] cleaned up

[2:40:27] » like consistent language.

[2:40:29] >> Yes.

[2:40:30] >> Do you want to work with nylonic?

[2:40:33] >> Sure. Would that be acceptable?

[2:40:36] >> Absolutely. Yeah.

[2:40:38] >> Let's give it a test. If Jack can

[2:40:40] understand it, it's probably ready to

[2:40:42] come back.

[2:40:42] >> That would be that would be really great

[2:40:44] to get your input on that.

[2:40:46] >> Okay,

[2:40:47] >> Jack. I think is dissing.

[2:40:51] >> That's all right.

[2:40:52] >> Apparently want to be him.

[2:40:54] >> Okay. So, I think we need a motion to

[2:40:56] table this and send it back to Nile to

[2:40:59] work with Jack on revised language. Is

[2:41:02] that is that appropriate?

[2:41:05] >> Okay.

[2:41:05] >> So, I move to table um ordinance

[2:41:12] » Oh, hold on. I move to table or yeah, to

[2:41:15] table the changes to chapter 10-21-8.

[2:41:19] Um, and ask that staff work with Jack to

[2:41:23] clarify

[2:41:25] some of the issues that were discussed

[2:41:27] in our meeting on May 13th.

[2:41:32] There

[2:41:32] >> a second.

[2:41:33] >> Second.

[2:41:33] >> Motion by Kyla, second by Randy.

[2:41:35] >> And I Randy.

[2:41:37] >> Barbara.

[2:41:37] >> I Kyla. I.

[2:41:41] >> Next item is also a public hearing and

[2:41:43] it's uh ordinance 2026-10 amending

[2:41:46] chapter 10-21

[2:41:48] of the town code relating to renovation

[2:41:51] and redevelopment of non-complying

[2:41:53] buildings in the commercial zones. And

[2:41:56] this is Nile.

[2:41:58] >> Okay. So this this item uh arose during

[2:42:04] the discussion at the planning

[2:42:06] commission of the last item. So still

[2:42:09] staying with the topic of non-complying

[2:42:11] buildings. Um

[2:42:15] this proposal centers around uh the idea

[2:42:19] that most of the properties in the

[2:42:22] central commercial zone and in the

[2:42:24] downtown and many of the village

[2:42:25] commercial zone properties too are

[2:42:28] non-compliant.

[2:42:30] um and that redevelopment or investment

[2:42:35] in a lot of these properties

[2:42:37] um is

[2:42:40] potentially quite unrealistic because

[2:42:43] they're um to bring them into compliance

[2:42:46] with today's ordinances ordinance as far

[2:42:49] as setbacks, landscape, minimum parking,

[2:42:52] those sorts of things, um the commercial

[2:42:55] floor space in a lot of these properties

[2:42:58] would really shrink. Um

[2:43:01] and so the there was a discussion at the

[2:43:04] planning commission level um about well

[2:43:07] how can we um

[2:43:10] encourage investment in in our downtown

[2:43:14] while obviously um you know keeping true

[2:43:18] to the ordinances and the spirit of the

[2:43:20] general plan. There's also a discussion

[2:43:23] around, you know, how a lot of these

[2:43:25] older properties, even though they may

[2:43:26] not be in compliance, that they have a

[2:43:29] charm of their own and contribute a lot

[2:43:31] to the character of the town. Um so the

[2:43:35] intention of this uh this ordinance

[2:43:38] revision was to allow um properties

[2:43:41] within the commercial zones

[2:43:44] um

[2:43:45] to be reconstructed

[2:43:49] um including removal and replacement to

[2:43:52] the foundation. though wholesale um

[2:43:58] but specifically just looking at the

[2:44:00] non-compliance with minimum setbacks and

[2:44:04] the maximum building sizes. So to allow

[2:44:06] th those non non-conforming elements to

[2:44:10] be reconstructed

[2:44:12] um but not um but requiring that

[2:44:16] everything else has to come into

[2:44:17] compliance. So landscaping and parking.

[2:44:21] Um

[2:44:22] so that that was the intention of of

[2:44:26] these standards. Um

[2:44:29] and it it allows once one kind of go at

[2:44:33] redeveloping under these standards and

[2:44:35] then redevelopment after that would um

[2:44:39] would need to come back into compliance

[2:44:43] going forward.

[2:44:44] >> Are there any clarifying questions for

[2:44:46] now?

[2:44:50] If not, we'll entertain a motion to go

[2:44:52] into public hearing.

[2:44:55] >> We open the public hearing.

[2:44:58] >> Motion by Kyla, second by Randy

[2:45:00] >> Pat. I

[2:45:02] >> Barbara.

[2:45:03] >> Kyla. I

[2:45:05] >> Jan's not making any moves. Okay. I need

[2:45:08] a motion to close public hearing.

[2:45:09] >> I move that we close the public hearing.

[2:45:12] >> Motion by Kyla, second by Randy.

[2:45:15] >> Randy.

[2:45:15] >> Barbara.

[2:45:17] I

[2:45:18] >> we are in deliberation. I thought this

[2:45:21] was pretty straightforward. Jack, did

[2:45:23] you did you

[2:45:30] » Here's here's the thing. We get into

[2:45:32] this

[2:45:34] >> renovation, redevelopment. It's a

[2:45:36] reconstruction.

[2:45:39] What in good God's ter

[2:45:45] related to the renovation or

[2:45:46] redevelopment? We had a discussion just

[2:45:48] 10 minutes ago. Is it reconstruction? Is

[2:45:51] isn't that what it is?

[2:45:54] I mean the terms are kind of in

[2:45:56] intertwined throughout the entire code

[2:45:59] but in the renovation redevelopment

[2:46:02] further on

[2:46:04] 102110 says renovation but further on

[2:46:07] down it calls it development. Further on

[2:46:08] down calls it reconstruction, then it

[2:46:10] goes back to redevelopment, then back to

[2:46:13] reconstruction, then back to

[2:46:14] constructed.

[2:46:17] » Well, so

[2:46:18] >> I know I know where you're going with

[2:46:19] it, but I just I don't I don't

[2:46:21] >> we want the same thing for this code

[2:46:23] that we wanted in the last code, right?

[2:46:24] To be clear and specific and define the

[2:46:28] undefined. more to Jack's point, if you

[2:46:31] go to E on this thing, um, some

[2:46:34] applicant says, I'm reading, he says,

[2:46:36] all compliant aspects on on and on other

[2:46:39] than building size and suspect must be

[2:46:41] brought into compliance when the

[2:46:42] property is redeveloped.

[2:46:46] But under G, it says may only be

[2:46:48] reconstructed once. I can see a guy

[2:46:51] saying, well, I'm reconstructing it. I'm

[2:46:53] not redeveloping it. You know what I

[2:46:55] mean? I mean, and and how if you know

[2:46:58] the guy in the in the black suit up

[2:47:01] there, he has to make a judgment on what

[2:47:04] do you mean? We we should point to what

[2:47:06] these terms mean. No.

[2:47:09] >> So, I think I think these that's a valid

[2:47:13] point, Pat, that there is inconsistency

[2:47:16] in what we're calling really the same

[2:47:18] thing. And this could be cleaned up, as

[2:47:21] Kyla said, like the other one. Um,

[2:47:25] I really like the concept. I really like

[2:47:27] the idea of allowing So, for example,

[2:47:30] the the Fatali Gallery, they are

[2:47:34] deliberately keeping that building and

[2:47:36] not starting all over with it, even

[2:47:38] though it probably should be killed

[2:47:40] because they want the setback. So, if

[2:47:42] they're able to keep the setback, that

[2:47:43] may encourage better kinds of

[2:47:45] redevelopment and and development of

[2:47:47] some empty properties that are that

[2:47:50] shouldn't be empty. So, I really like

[2:47:52] the concept and I really want to pass

[2:47:54] something like this, but maybe just with

[2:47:56] a cleanup of consistent language. And

[2:48:00] maybe Pat works with you on that one.

[2:48:02] You good with that, Pat?

[2:48:05] >> Maybe if I could just ask a question

[2:48:07] just to so I make sure I'm clear on this

[2:48:08] is that what we're recognizing is that

[2:48:11] the majority of the buildings in the

[2:48:12] downtown are nonconforming

[2:48:15] and we're recognizing

[2:48:17] those imperfections.

[2:48:20] So they can continue to to maintain the

[2:48:23] building as is. If it has to be rebuilt,

[2:48:26] it has to be conforming. If or are we

[2:48:29] saying, well, you can build on the same

[2:48:31] footprint, but you you will live with

[2:48:34] the setback that currently is

[2:48:37] nonconforming

[2:48:38] >> once we will,

[2:48:41] >> but other things have to come into

[2:48:43] compliance like maybe landscape,

[2:48:45] building height. Yeah, because one of

[2:48:47] the things that kind of surprised me is

[2:48:49] in the virtual was looking at a new

[2:48:51] building

[2:48:53] >> that was rebuilt that is taller than it

[2:48:57] should be.

[2:48:59] And

[2:49:00] >> we just did the graduated setbacks,

[2:49:02] right?

[2:49:03] >> No, it exceeds 26 feet.

[2:49:06] >> Oh.

[2:49:07] >> So anyway, those are the things that I,

[2:49:09] you know, I was kind of confused by

[2:49:11] that. Um,

[2:49:14] but I I guess what I'm hearing is that

[2:49:17] there's certain certain um conditions

[2:49:22] that we will accept as part of of

[2:49:25] maintenance or rebuilding the structure,

[2:49:27] but there's some things they'll have to

[2:49:29] come into compliance. Yeah, it's it's

[2:49:31] really mostly setbacks that we're

[2:49:33] allowing to be kept because it says all

[2:49:35] non-compliant aspects of a property in

[2:49:37] the central commercial or village

[2:49:39] commercial zone other than building size

[2:49:42] and setback must be brought into

[2:49:43] compliance when a property is

[2:49:45] redeveloped. So in other words, even the

[2:49:47] building size, they could use that

[2:49:48] existing footprint

[2:49:51] but not not go bigger on the first go

[2:49:53] round. Isn't that right, Nile?

[2:49:56] >> Yeah. So th those were the two elements.

[2:49:59] So the building size and the setbacks

[2:50:01] that the planning commission were were

[2:50:03] willing to see kind of continued but

[2:50:07] they wanted to see some incremental

[2:50:10] improvements in compliance in you know

[2:50:13] landscaping and and those other

[2:50:15] elements.

[2:50:16] So, this is kind of a a side question,

[2:50:18] but one of the the businesses here, if

[2:50:22] you have um the front of your your

[2:50:26] building is completely uh gravel,

[2:50:30] >> have you met the the landscape

[2:50:32] requirement?

[2:50:34] >> Is there's no there's no vegetation,

[2:50:37] just gravel. Is that meeting the

[2:50:38] landscape requirement?

[2:50:40] >> So, the landscape requirements do

[2:50:42] require planting. there is minimum uh

[2:50:46] minimum requirements for a certain

[2:50:49] amount of shrubs, a certain amount of

[2:50:51] trees that are required. So there is um

[2:50:56] so yeah bare gravel is generally not

[2:50:59] going to meet the landscape requirement.

[2:51:06] I hate to keep tossing hand grenade your

[2:51:09] way. Uh under B it says uh if compliance

[2:51:14] with any other land use regulation makes

[2:51:16] it impossible to reconstruct. You mean

[2:51:18] like physically impossible or

[2:51:20] economically impossible or aesthetically

[2:51:22] impossible? I mean we talk about it a

[2:51:25] technical impossibility.

[2:51:27] >> Yeah. So I think where

[2:51:31] what we're talking about here is say say

[2:51:33] you have a building um that is non-complying in several

[2:51:40] ways. So as far as setbacks, building

[2:51:43] size, parking, landscape,

[2:51:46] um

[2:51:48] under this you it allows you to

[2:51:51] redevelop or reconstruct or whatever

[2:51:53] term we want to use um the non-complying

[2:51:56] setbacks and the building size.

[2:52:00] But if you did if you rebuilt that

[2:52:02] building exactly as it is, it wouldn't

[2:52:05] be complying for landscaping or parking

[2:52:07] or something else. So you couldn't

[2:52:11] actually do it because

[2:52:12] >> it's technically impossible.

[2:52:13] >> Yeah. Correct. Yeah.

[2:52:18] » Well, it sounds like we need a motion to

[2:52:20] table this item.

[2:52:21] >> Yeah.

[2:52:21] >> Rework it.

[2:52:22] >> I will work on that. Um, I move to table

[2:52:25] ordinance 2026-10

[2:52:29] amending chapter 10-21 of the town code

[2:52:32] relating to renovation and redevelopment

[2:52:35] of non-complying buildings in the

[2:52:37] commercial zone. And we would like staff

[2:52:41] to work with Pat um to review the ideas

[2:52:45] that were discussed in the meeting um on

[2:52:48] May 13th uh to

[2:52:51] uh work on clarity, definitions, and

[2:52:54] consistency.

[2:52:58] » Second.

[2:52:59] >> Motion by Kyla, second by Jack

[2:53:01] >> P. I bar

[2:53:08] Kyla I

[2:53:10] >> I was going to do it for you.

[2:53:11] >> We need to amend the motion.

[2:53:15] » Oh,

[2:53:17] >> pardon.

[2:53:18] >> I was wondering if we needed to amend

[2:53:20] the emo amend the motion. Not the

[2:53:23] emotion, but just the mo.

[2:53:26] >> We do need to

[2:53:30] » I just heard a a thing about paragraph B

[2:53:33] and I was like, did I need to include

[2:53:35] something? They were talking about you.

[2:53:37] >> I know. And my ears were burning and

[2:53:39] that's why I got emotional about it.

[2:53:45] » Are we good with that motion?

[2:53:46] >> Yeah, that's okay.

[2:53:48] >> That works.

[2:53:48] >> Um, okay. Another public hearing. Yay,

[2:53:51] Jan. Um, public hearing resolution

[2:53:55] 2026-05

[2:53:56] amending the fiscal year 2526 budget.

[2:54:00] The staff contacts are Tom and Don. and

[2:54:04] we'll start with an explanation of the

[2:54:06] item.

[2:54:15] » Um so the council's aware that um under

[2:54:19] the um vision and leadership of Chief

[2:54:22] Breck, we now have emergency backup

[2:54:25] power at both the town council, excuse

[2:54:27] me, the town hall and the central

[2:54:29] commercial zone. So that's fantastic.

[2:54:31] That's great. And the great thing is

[2:54:34] that um instead of originally as

[2:54:35] proposed having one mobile backup

[2:54:38] generator that could power one of those

[2:54:40] buildings, we now have permanent

[2:54:43] uh backup generators at both of those

[2:54:45] buildings. So So this is fantastic news.

[2:54:48] Um however, um there are some additional

[2:54:51] um costs associated with that project

[2:54:53] that exceed the original budget. And so

[2:54:56] this budget amendment um recognizes

[2:54:59] those additional costs there. Uh the

[2:55:01] project is about $38,000 more than what

[2:55:04] we initially anticipated. Those costs

[2:55:06] have to do with uh things like buried

[2:55:09] propane tanks and screening of of

[2:55:13] mechanical equipment and and those kinds

[2:55:15] of things that were not anticipated with

[2:55:17] the mobile generator. So what this

[2:55:20] resolution does is um uh account for

[2:55:24] those extra costs and also finds

[2:55:26] additional revenue to offset those

[2:55:27] costs. Um some of that additional

[2:55:29] revenue is through unanticipated

[2:55:32] increases in interest income and the the

[2:55:35] majority of that is through allocation

[2:55:37] of the uh fund balance. The project was

[2:55:41] originally funded entirely from fund

[2:55:43] balance and so we are proposing to take

[2:55:46] a little bit more about $26,000

[2:55:47] additional from fund balance to cover

[2:55:48] the rest of it. Any questions from the

[2:55:51] council?

[2:55:52] >> Clarifying questions.

[2:55:55] Okay. Motion for a public hearing.

[2:56:01] >> Second.

[2:56:01] >> Motion by Randy. Second by Pat.

[2:56:04] >> Randy.

[2:56:04] >> Barbry.

[2:56:06] >> Kyla. I

[2:56:10] » Okay. Motion.

[2:56:11] >> We close publicly here.

[2:56:12] >> I'll second.

[2:56:13] >> Motion by Randy, second by Kyla.

[2:56:16] >> Randy.

[2:56:17] >> Barbara.

[2:56:19] >> Kyla. I

[2:56:22] » This is a no-brainer for me. I Good job.

[2:56:27] >> Nice work, Chief.

[2:56:28] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[2:56:30] >> Well, Jack, are you okay with this? Do

[2:56:32] you want to make a motion?

[2:56:33] >> I am fine. I don't have any, you know,

[2:56:35] word smithing, rearranging,

[2:56:39] reorganizing.

[2:56:40] >> No comments.

[2:56:40] >> You don't need to be with Nyall and talk

[2:56:42] about it.

[2:56:43] >> Decimals are out of place.

[2:56:45] >> Thumbs up to Karen.

[2:56:46] >> Just glad the word redevelopment or

[2:56:48] reconstru

[2:56:53] 20 years. We will Are we going to be

[2:56:55] replacing or redeveloping the general?

[2:56:58] We're reconstructing this thing.

[2:57:02] » Can we get a motion?

[2:57:04] >> I move to approve resolution

[2:57:07] number 2026-05,

[2:57:10] a resolution opening and mending the the

[2:57:12] budget of revenues and expenditures for

[2:57:14] the various funds of the town of

[2:57:17] Springdale for the fiscal year ending

[2:57:20] June 30th, 2026.

[2:57:24] The um amendment includes increasing

[2:57:28] revenues and expenditures by 38,000 to

[2:57:31] total 6,630

[2:57:34] 537.

[2:57:36] This includes additional appropriation

[2:57:38] of fund balance of 26,653

[2:57:43] and direct the mayor to sign.

[2:57:45] >> Second that. Excellent.

[2:57:47] >> Excellent motion by Jack and second.

[2:57:50] Excellent motion by Jack. An excellent

[2:57:52] second by Randy.

[2:57:53] >> Pat I.

[2:57:55] >> Randy.

[2:57:56] >> Barbara I.

[2:57:57] >> Jack. I

[2:57:58] >> I

[2:58:02] recogn.

[2:58:05] » Okay. Ordinance 2026-12

[2:58:08] prohibiting open fires and fireworks in

[2:58:11] the town of Springdale during the 2026

[2:58:13] fire season season. This is Tom and he

[2:58:16] did send us a new corrected

[2:58:19] date.

[2:58:21] But Tom, yeah, because he sent us

[2:58:23] another email. Can we just ban fireworks

[2:58:26] all year long?

[2:58:31] » So,

[2:58:34] state code allows us to we we have to

[2:58:39] make a finding every year in order. the the state code defaults to allowing

[2:58:44] fireworks

[2:58:46] um during during holiday periods. Um it

[2:58:50] says you can you can do certain kinds of of fireworks on the 4th of July

[2:58:56] holiday on the 24th of July holiday at

[2:58:58] New Year's that is by default permitted.

[2:59:02] The state says a municipality may

[2:59:06] adopt an ordinance prohibiting those

[2:59:08] under these certain circumstances.

[2:59:11] we have to make a finding every year

[2:59:14] that those circumstances are met. Um, so

[2:59:18] that's why we've been doing this every

[2:59:20] year because the way the state code is

[2:59:23] drafted requires us to make that finding

[2:59:26] every year. So

[2:59:27] >> I'm okay with doing it every year, but I don't know why we would allow

[2:59:31] fireworks in November and December. So

[2:59:35] you I I I I think you can't there's no I reread the state code today. There's

[2:59:41] nothing that says it has to be between

[2:59:43] these certain dates. It just says we

[2:59:45] have to make this finding every year. So

[2:59:47] you could have a an ordinance that says

[2:59:49] they're banned year round. We would just

[2:59:52] need to make that finding every every

[2:59:54] year.

[2:59:56] >> What if what if we compromised and we

[2:59:58] made a finding that they're banned for

[3:00:01] this fiscal year? Because we can look at

[3:00:04] conditions every year, right?

[3:00:09] » Yeah. Well, you mean fiscal year or

[3:00:10] calendar year?

[3:00:11] >> Well, calendar year, really? Because

[3:00:13] that's what we're talking about there.

[3:00:14] Yeah. So, I mean, is it safer for

[3:00:18] compliance with the state if we say

[3:00:20] they're banned in fiscal year 2026 or

[3:00:23] does it matter?

[3:00:24] >> I I I don't think it matters. the the things that we need to find are

[3:00:28] that there are these hazardous areas,

[3:00:31] you know, 200 feet with from a a a river

[3:00:35] or a waterway or mountainous or wildland

[3:00:39] urban interface. Um we need to find that

[3:00:42] those are those hazardous areas exist.

[3:00:44] Those aren't going to change. The other

[3:00:46] thing that we need to find is that there

[3:00:48] has been um the the the current fire uh

[3:00:52] current current fire conditions are such

[3:00:54] that a prohibition is warranted and in

[3:00:56] at least two of the previous five years

[3:01:00] there have also been conditions that

[3:01:01] warrant or or justify a fireworks ban.

[3:01:05] Those are the findings that the state

[3:01:07] requires us to make every year.

[3:01:08] >> Okay.

[3:01:09] >> But yeah, there's there's nothing that

[3:01:11] says it has to be within certain dates.

[3:01:13] So yes, that's a long answer of saying

[3:01:15] yes, you can do that. You can say we are

[3:01:16] going to ban them for calendar year 2026

[3:01:20] and then we will revisit this in January

[3:01:22] of 2027.

[3:01:24] >> And can we ban fireworks but allow open

[3:01:29] fires?

[3:01:31] >> Yes. So the the all the require all the

[3:01:34] things that I've just been talking about

[3:01:36] are specific to fireworks.

[3:01:40] the our authorization to um ban fires

[3:01:43] comes from a separate section of the

[3:01:45] code that um is isn't nearly as

[3:01:49] prescriptive as the fireworks section of

[3:01:52] the code is. So you can treat them

[3:01:54] separately.

[3:01:56] >> So we could make one motion with two

[3:01:58] dates.

[3:02:01] >> In fact, the ordinance is set up that

[3:02:02] way. Um the four 4-9-2

[3:02:06] talks about fireworks. 4-9-3 talks about

[3:02:09] open fires and so you you could already

[3:02:12] kind of um amend that accordingly.

[3:02:15] >> But given that open fires don't include

[3:02:18] a fire in an approved fire pit, do we

[3:02:20] even want to allow open fires this year

[3:02:22] with the where they are?

[3:02:24] >> That's what we talked about with whether

[3:02:26] it was the chief or Tyler in addition to

[3:02:28] the fireworks last year. I we kind of

[3:02:30] asked him that a similar question and

[3:02:33] you know they do the whole permitting

[3:02:37] checking relative humidity

[3:02:39] and because you know,

[3:02:42] right? We worried that if we

[3:02:46] extended that burn ban into a date that

[3:02:49] made it unfeasible for people to do what

[3:02:52] they needed to do on their properties.

[3:02:54] So, I feel like there is a little bit of

[3:02:57] oversight there with the burn with the

[3:03:00] open burning. Not that I'm saying

[3:03:03] October 15th is the correct date for

[3:03:05] that.

[3:03:07] But I feel like if he were here, he

[3:03:10] would be saying, "Well, you probably

[3:03:12] don't want to out and out ban burning."

[3:03:15] >> Yeah. I'm guessing that there are people

[3:03:17] that are going to want to, you know,

[3:03:20] burn weeds and such during

[3:03:23] um certain times of year and and Yeah.

[3:03:28] >> And they'd have to have a permit.

[3:03:30] Whereas, if we banned them, they

[3:03:31] couldn't even burn with a permit. So,

[3:03:33] Okay.

[3:03:33] >> Right. And and I think that's reasonable. Fireworks get rid of.

[3:03:40] >> Yeah. Did you say you have a motion that

[3:03:43] >> I hope it covers all Tom's bases here?

[3:03:45] So, you let me know.

[3:03:46] >> We'll let you know. Jack will let you

[3:03:48] know.

[3:03:48] >> That's right.

[3:03:50] >> Nowhere do I use the words.

[3:03:53] >> Redevelopment

[3:03:55] reconstructing a fire.

[3:03:57] The town council has reviewed the

[3:03:59] proposed ordinance 202612, an ordinance

[3:04:02] prohibiting open fires and discharge of

[3:04:04] fireworks in the town of Springdale

[3:04:05] during the 2026 fire season. It makes

[3:04:08] the following findings which support a

[3:04:10] complete and total ban of fireworks

[3:04:12] within the town limits of Springdale

[3:04:15] until such times as the present

[3:04:17] restrictive conditions subside. Town

[3:04:19] Council finds that it's the duty to

[3:04:21] reduce the threat of fires in the town

[3:04:23] limits that cause could cause extensive

[3:04:26] damage to lives, homes, businesses,

[3:04:28] public facilities, infrastructure, and

[3:04:30] natural surroundings of Springdale.

[3:04:32] Further finds that the Hurricane Valley

[3:04:34] Fire Special Service District shares the

[3:04:37] town's goal of reducing the threat of

[3:04:39] fires in Springdale and supports the

[3:04:41] measures intended to lower ignition risk

[3:04:43] during the 2026 fire season. Council

[3:04:46] further finds that the Utah law

[3:04:49] expressly authorizes the town to

[3:04:51] prohibit discharge of fireworks in areas

[3:04:54] with existing and historical hazardous

[3:04:56] environmental conditions pursuant to

[3:04:58] title 53 chapter 7 part two section 225

[3:05:02] of the Utah code.

[3:05:05] Town council further finds that the Utah

[3:05:07] division of forestry fire and state

[3:05:09] lands identifies the town of Springdale

[3:05:10] as a community at high risk of wildfire.

[3:05:14] The town council further finds that the

[3:05:16] use of ignition sources, including

[3:05:18] explosive and other fireworks,

[3:05:19] substantially increase the risk of fire

[3:05:21] ignition and rapid fire spread

[3:05:23] throughout town. Council further

[3:05:26] determines has determined that existing

[3:05:28] and historical hazardous environmental

[3:05:30] conditions throughout Springdale

[3:05:31] necessitates strict control of ignition

[3:05:34] sources, including a complete

[3:05:36] prohibition of ignition and or discharge

[3:05:38] of fireworks during the 2026 season.

[3:05:41] Council further finds that all property

[3:05:43] within the boundaries of Springdale is

[3:05:45] subject to the hazardous environmental

[3:05:47] conditions, including areas covered in

[3:05:50] brush, dry grass, areas within 200 feet

[3:05:52] of waterways, trails, canyons, washes,

[3:05:54] ravines, and other similar features and

[3:05:56] areas located in the wildland urban

[3:05:59] interface. Council further finds a

[3:06:02] Springdale is particularly affected by

[3:06:03] the state's Utah the state of Utah's

[3:06:06] wildland urban interface code because

[3:06:08] wildfire risk conditions extend

[3:06:10] throughout the town rather than being

[3:06:12] confined to isolated areas resulting in

[3:06:14] a communitywide wildland urban interface

[3:06:17] concerns and heightened fire protection

[3:06:19] needs recognized by state law.

[3:06:23] Almost done. Not really.

[3:06:27] Council finds that hazardous conditions

[3:06:30] exist throughout town, a partial date

[3:06:32] restriction would be inadequate to

[3:06:33] protect the public and only a complete

[3:06:36] townwide prohibition is reasonably

[3:06:38] calculated to reduce the risk of fire

[3:06:40] ignition. Council finds that the ongoing

[3:06:42] drought and historically dry winter of

[3:06:44] 2526 have exacerbated wildfire

[3:06:47] conditions for the 2026 season have have

[3:06:50] increased the need for preventive fire

[3:06:52] restrictions. Council finds that a

[3:06:54] wildfire ignited within Springdale could

[3:06:56] endanger residents, visitors, emergency

[3:06:58] responders, private and public property,

[3:07:00] transportation corridors, and the

[3:07:02] economic well-being of the town. The

[3:07:04] town finds that the town's closure

[3:07:07] area properly includes State Route 9 and

[3:07:10] all areas of the town on both sides of

[3:07:12] State Route 9 as shown on the 2026

[3:07:15] fireworks restriction map. Uh by

[3:07:18] reference, this is ordinance 26-12.

[3:07:22] Town council further finds pursuant to

[3:07:25] Utah code sections 10856 and 10884

[3:07:29] the prohibition of fireworks and open

[3:07:31] during 2026 season is necessary and

[3:07:34] proper to preserve the health and safety

[3:07:36] of the town citizens, visitors, and

[3:07:38] promote the prosperity of the town and

[3:07:39] protect property within the town. Town

[3:07:42] council further finds these restrictions

[3:07:44] should remain in effect until such time

[3:07:46] as the present restrictive conditions

[3:07:49] subside as determined by town council

[3:07:52] based on a fire danger drought

[3:07:54] conditions and the advice of fire and

[3:07:56] emergency management officials and the

[3:07:58] town further finds that these hazardous

[3:08:00] conditions have existed in two of the

[3:08:02] prior five years. Based upon the

[3:08:04] foregoing findings, the council adopts

[3:08:09] the 202612 ordinance with the following

[3:08:12] change and it will read 4-9-2 fireworks

[3:08:16] prohibited. It's unlawful to ignite,

[3:08:19] discharge or cause to be ignited or be

[3:08:22] discharged any firework within the town

[3:08:24] of Springdale beginning and we can pick

[3:08:27] the date. Today's date,

[3:08:29] >> today's good

[3:08:30] >> May 13, 2026 and continuing thereafter

[3:08:34] until the town council determines that

[3:08:36] the hazardous environmental and fire

[3:08:38] danger fire danger conditions

[3:08:41] necessitating this prohibition have

[3:08:43] subsided. The term fireworks under the

[3:08:45] section is defined under title 53

[3:08:47] chapter 7 part two section 202 Utah code

[3:08:52] annotated 1953 as amended and authorizes

[3:08:55] the mayor to sign

[3:08:58] Did

[3:09:00] >> instead of

[3:09:02] >> saying it starts

[3:09:14] » it could have been so it doesn't have to

[3:09:16] come back to us to determine is that

[3:09:20] >> 27 26

[3:09:22] >> or January 1st

[3:09:25] >> 2027

[3:09:26] have to revisit it yearly. So why don't

[3:09:28] we put like February of 2027 and then we

[3:09:32] can address it in the January meeting.

[3:09:38] » Is there a second?

[3:09:40] >> So can I just clarify the language would

[3:09:42] then would say beginning May 13, 2026 um

[3:09:46] until such time as fire conditions have

[3:09:47] subsided or February 1st, 2027.

[3:09:51] >> Okay,

[3:09:52] >> I'll second. Motion by pass, second by

[3:09:55] Kyla.

[3:09:57] >> Barbara,

[3:09:58] >> I.

[3:10:00] >> Next item is review and possible

[3:10:02] adoption of the fiscal year 2627 town of

[3:10:05] Springdale tentative municipal budget.

[3:10:08] And this is Tom and Don.

[3:10:17] Um, so the council reviewed the

[3:10:22] um

[3:10:24] the

[3:10:26] I'm sorry, I'm just going to read from

[3:10:27] my notes here. So

[3:10:30] um the Utah law requires the council to

[3:10:33] review and adopt a tenative budget

[3:10:34] during our first meeting of May. So

[3:10:36] that's what we're doing here tonight. Um

[3:10:38] to prepare for this, the council held a

[3:10:40] work session in April where we uh

[3:10:42] discussed a staff budget. At that time,

[3:10:45] you expressed general approval of the

[3:10:48] expenditures and projected revenues in

[3:10:50] the staff budget and uh directed the

[3:10:53] staff to prepare a tentative budget

[3:10:55] based on that staff budget. Um we have

[3:10:59] done so. There are a few minor changes

[3:11:02] to the tentative budget versus what was

[3:11:06] discussed in April at your work session.

[3:11:08] Those changes are discussed in the staff

[3:11:11] report. They're also highlighted in

[3:11:13] yellow on the budget sheets in the

[3:11:16] tentative budget except however there's

[3:11:19] some um rogue yellow highlighting in the

[3:11:23] water and sewer funds which uh which is

[3:11:26] not supposed to be there. So I apologize

[3:11:28] about that. Um all the other yellow

[3:11:30] highlighting that you see in the budget

[3:11:32] reflect the changes that were made from

[3:11:34] the between the time of the staff budget

[3:11:36] and the tentative budget. Um so the

[3:11:39] council's action tonight is to adopt the

[3:11:44] uh fiscal year 2026 27 tentative budget.

[3:11:47] Um you you state law requires that you

[3:11:50] do that tonight.

[3:11:52] However, welcome to say to give staff

[3:11:55] direction on changes that need to be

[3:11:57] made to that tentative budget and the

[3:11:59] preparation of the final budget. So,

[3:12:00] what you're approving tonight isn't

[3:12:02] necessarily lock you into the the budget

[3:12:05] that you see before you. It's just

[3:12:07] tentative in nature and you're welcome

[3:12:08] to give staff direction on necessary

[3:12:10] changes. Um, and then the the other

[3:12:14] thing that you're required to do tonight

[3:12:15] is to schedule a date for the public

[3:12:17] hearing to gather community input on the

[3:12:19] final budget. and staff recommends that

[3:12:22] you do that in your regularly scheduled

[3:12:24] June council meeting um which will be on

[3:12:27] June 10th, 2026 at 5:00 pm.

[3:12:32] » I have a couple of questions. One is the

[3:12:35] Paute Tribe donation $500. What is that?

[3:12:39] >> So, uh the Pyute tribe every year holds

[3:12:41] something called the restoration pow. Um

[3:12:44] and for a number of years we they they

[3:12:47] ask for sponsors for that powow. And for

[3:12:49] a number of years, we've been

[3:12:50] contributing $500 to the trib's

[3:12:52] restoration pow.

[3:12:54] And

[3:12:54] >> then my other question is whether the

[3:12:56] windscreen at the pickle ball courts is

[3:12:59] sort of a done deal. Um

[3:13:02] like is has that decision been made or

[3:13:04] do we need because it's in the budget?

[3:13:08] >> That's that's in the tentative budget.

[3:13:10] So one of the things that you're you're

[3:13:11] doing is um talking about how you're

[3:13:13] going to distribute the wrap tax funds.

[3:13:16] So earlier today you you took action on

[3:13:19] a couple of community organization

[3:13:21] proposals for use of that wrap tax

[3:13:23] funds. The tentative budget has proposed

[3:13:26] expenditures for the rest of the or or much of the rest of that wrap tax.

[3:13:32] So, $14,500 for pickle ball wind

[3:13:35] screens, $8,000 for improvements to the

[3:13:38] restrooms near the pickle ball courts,

[3:13:40] $1,000 for an AED at the pickle ball

[3:13:42] courts, um, and $8,000 for a public art

[3:13:45] fund contribution. Those are all

[3:13:47] tentative at this point. If you want to

[3:13:49] make changes to any of those, you are

[3:13:50] welcome to do so.

[3:14:00] thought it was

[3:14:01] >> when Rick was here it was 11.

[3:14:03] >> Oh, I thought it was 10.

[3:14:05] >> Well, and then it went to 10.

[3:14:06] >> So that I don't know that we've ever

[3:14:08] made that contribution before. This is

[3:14:10] new.

[3:14:12] >> Um, so so it's it's actually going up by

[3:14:15] $8,000 because we've never done it

[3:14:17] before.

[3:14:18] >> You are correct.

[3:14:19] >> That's one way to look at it. Yeah,

[3:14:21] >> you are correct that as as we've talked

[3:14:23] about it in in previous discussions,

[3:14:25] there's been a few figures kind of

[3:14:26] bantered around um between 8 to10 to

[3:14:31] 12,000. So, yes, this is on the low end

[3:14:33] of that. And again, if you'd like to

[3:14:36] allocate your RAP tax differently and um put more into the public art

[3:14:42] fund, absolutely you can.

[3:14:42] >> Well, you're just trying to spread it

[3:14:44] out and that's what you came up with.

[3:14:46] >> Correct.

[3:14:48] Is that wrap tax or is that something

[3:14:50] else

[3:14:51] >> or it it's tax?

[3:14:52] >> It's wrap tax. Okay.

[3:14:54] >> So that that's the fund that's the

[3:14:55] proposed funding source for that public

[3:14:56] art fund.

[3:14:57] >> Yeah.

[3:14:57] >> If you wanted to fund it with different

[3:14:59] money, you could you could do that as

[3:15:00] well.

[3:15:00] >> Okay.

[3:15:02] Um and this is a public hearing, right?

[3:15:07] >> Oh, it is.

[3:15:08] >> Oh, no, no, no, no. Sorry, my bad.

[3:15:11] >> It's not. So, while we're talking about

[3:15:13] pickle ball courts, um I will say uh

[3:15:17] without hesitation. I am pro- AED and

[3:15:20] think we should probably have some type

[3:15:22] of outreach that trains people how to

[3:15:25] use the one since we do have one in the

[3:15:27] community center. I think and maybe

[3:15:30] there will be one in the pickle ball

[3:15:32] court and that we need to make people

[3:15:34] aware that they're available and they're

[3:15:36] here and

[3:15:38] we need to not just wait for 911 if we

[3:15:42] were to need them.

[3:15:43] >> Yeah. You want to train people to use

[3:15:44] them if they're there. So,

[3:15:48] I don't

[3:15:52] >> And I guess if I could just say real

[3:15:53] quick on the wind screens on the pickle

[3:15:55] ball court, I think a fair amount of

[3:15:57] work has already been done on that. So I

[3:16:00] >> So ugly

[3:16:02] screen is

[3:16:02] >> the pictures I've seen. Yeah,

[3:16:05] >> it is. and and and I

[3:16:10] I'm going to speak very honestly.

[3:16:14] When those tennis courts were put in,

[3:16:18] that was a community effort, right? that

[3:16:21] money was raised.

[3:16:23] Sweat, hard work, lots of um dedication went into raising

[3:16:32] the money and for tennis courts and they

[3:16:37] I know I'm bringing up bad blood that I

[3:16:38] was not a part of, not maybe not bad

[3:16:40] blood, old history. Now we have two

[3:16:43] pickle ball courts and they are they are

[3:16:45] also well-loved and they have great

[3:16:48] attendance but

[3:16:50] this feels like a lot of money and if

[3:16:53] they're ugly um that's also a concern I

[3:16:57] have and

[3:17:01] I just

[3:17:04] is this like constantly going to be

[3:17:07] something we're always chasing is like

[3:17:09] the best pickle ball courts

[3:17:13] when we could be contributing to

[3:17:15] something else in the community and kind

[3:17:17] of spreading spreading the the the

[3:17:21] contributions and spreading the the

[3:17:24] money that we have and and also like

[3:17:27] feeding other groups of other interest

[3:17:30] groups. That's just my two cents.

[3:17:33] >> Well, I mean I think sometimes you have

[3:17:35] to look at function over appearance and

[3:17:38] I mean you are talking about something

[3:17:40] That's incredibly common

[3:17:43] on pickle ball courts.

[3:17:46] >> Windscreens are

[3:17:46] >> wind screens are. Yeah. Because it's a

[3:17:48] it's an issue. You know, the balls

[3:17:51] and the and the court is well used. I

[3:17:53] just

[3:17:53] >> It's well used.

[3:17:54] >> But when you say

[3:17:56] function over form, that's not the world

[3:17:59] I lived in. I came out of a form and

[3:18:01] function are both important world.

[3:18:03] That's what I'm struggling with. But,

[3:18:05] >> you know, I know I know they're well

[3:18:06] used and and everything like that. And

[3:18:09] maybe we just need to take a little bit

[3:18:10] more time to to try and address that as

[3:18:14] best we can and see if there's something

[3:18:17] that is a little more transparent. You

[3:18:19] know, the material

[3:18:20] >> that would be a good start just but but

[3:18:23] I if a lot of work has already been

[3:18:24] done, I'm not I'm not one of the pickle

[3:18:27] ball players. I shouldn't make the

[3:18:29] decision. So, everybody should weigh in

[3:18:31] on that. And if it's if it's well along,

[3:18:34] then I'm not going to stop it.

[3:18:37] >> Okay. Then I'll just let it out. I

[3:18:39] personally will just let

[3:18:40] >> correct correct Tom.

[3:18:42] >> Well, he he's he's researched and he's identified some things. So, so in

[3:18:47] that regard, yes, he's done quite a bit

[3:18:49] of research and and trying to figure out

[3:18:51] what could be done.

[3:18:52] >> But

[3:18:54] correct. But it's it's not as if um he's

[3:18:57] uh like made preparations to install

[3:19:01] them or things like that. He's he's just

[3:19:02] done the prep work to know what's

[3:19:04] available and what the approximate price

[3:19:06] is.

[3:19:08] just

[3:19:09] do the best he can with with appearance

[3:19:13] and if and it is what it is at that

[3:19:14] point.

[3:19:18] » Okay.

[3:19:22] » Yeah, I'm less concerned about the cost

[3:19:24] and the way the picture that he sent it

[3:19:26] just we have such a beautiful

[3:19:28] environment out there and

[3:19:31] looks real fakey.

[3:19:33] So, okay. Any other complaints,

[3:19:37] questions, whining

[3:19:40] >> on the budget

[3:19:41] >> other than me?

[3:19:43] I was the whiner.

[3:19:46] >> Hint taken from Barbara then.

[3:19:49] >> That's

[3:19:51] Any other questions, comments? Okay. Do

[3:19:53] we have a motion?

[3:19:55] The motion remembers should schedule the

[3:19:58] date as June 10th for the hearing times.

[3:20:06] Uh, that's the other budget hearing.

[3:20:08] That's next year. So, that's closing it

[3:20:11] out. Closing out last year's budget.

[3:20:17] » No, no motions.

[3:20:20] >> Yeah.

[3:20:22] >> To approve the tenative

[3:20:25] >> and schedule the public hearing for our

[3:20:28] meeting in June.

[3:20:30] >> 10th.

[3:20:33] I move to approve the tenative

[3:20:37] 2627 budget

[3:20:40] and schedule a um meeting for June 10th

[3:20:45] >> public that will be a public hearing.

[3:20:48] >> Yeah. And it's just a clarification.

[3:20:50] It's a tentative budget we're approving.

[3:20:54] >> Will you accept talk about a whiner?

[3:20:57] approve the the tenative 2627 budget and

[3:21:02] schedule a public meeting for June 10th.

[3:21:07] >> Okay, I'll second.

[3:21:09] >> Motion by Jack, second by Kyla.

[3:21:11] >> Pat I.

[3:21:11] >> Randy,

[3:21:12] >> Barbara.

[3:21:13] >> Jack.

[3:21:13] >> Kyla. I

[3:21:15] >> Okay. Review and possible award of

[3:21:17] contract to bike Utah for community

[3:21:20] engagement services regarding trails in

[3:21:22] Springdale. Um Tom, I guess you'll do

[3:21:25] this in Ryan's absence.

[3:21:27] That's correct. So, in uh the previous

[3:21:30] meeting, the council awarded our

[3:21:34] um consultant selection for our public

[3:21:38] our our trails public outreach effort to

[3:21:40] Bike Utah. Um in the time since you've

[3:21:44] made that selection, we've worked with

[3:21:45] Bike Utah on um a contract for their

[3:21:48] services. the Greg and his team have

[3:21:51] reviewed that contract and have have um

[3:21:54] found it acceptable and so we're now

[3:21:58] sharing that with the council. This will

[3:22:00] formally engage Bike Utah to do our

[3:22:04] trails public outreach efforts. Um it's

[3:22:09] 80

[3:22:11] $100

[3:22:14] 80.

[3:22:19] » Um and the the scope of work is is

[3:22:23] attached to the

[3:22:26] contract. Any questions from the

[3:22:27] council?

[3:22:29] >> They were very thorough in their list,

[3:22:32] their timeline and their list of what

[3:22:33] they're going to do. I thought that was

[3:22:35] great.

[3:22:38] Is it important to have the amount um in

[3:22:41] the motion?

[3:22:43] >> It you it doesn't hurt. I don't think

[3:22:45] it's required. I just mentioned $8,100.

[3:22:48] >> It's an expenditure fund, so it's good

[3:22:50] to

[3:22:51] >> Yes,

[3:22:51] >> it's good to say it. Okay.

[3:22:57] Are we ready for a motion?

[3:23:00] >> Yes. I move to approve the contract

[3:23:03] between the town of Springdale and Bike

[3:23:06] Utah in the amount of $8,100

[3:23:09] for community engagement services

[3:23:11] regarding trails in Springdale and

[3:23:14] direct the mayor to sign.

[3:23:17] >> Second

[3:23:18] >> motion by Kyla, second by Randy.

[3:23:21] >> Barbara I

[3:23:22] >> Kyla I.

[3:23:25] Next item on the agenda, local consent

[3:23:28] request for an off- premise beer permit

[3:23:30] to sell alcohol at Hotel Denovo located

[3:23:33] at 2400 Zion Park Boulevard, Springdale,

[3:23:36] Utah 84767.

[3:23:38] The applicant is Sam Patel and the staff

[3:23:41] contact is Kindle.

[3:23:51] Excuse me. As you said, San Patel

[3:23:54] requests local consent to apply for an

[3:23:56] off-remise beer permit through the

[3:23:58] Department of Alcoholic Beverage

[3:24:00] Services at Hotel Denovo located at 2400

[3:24:03] Zion Park Boulevard.

[3:24:07] » And he's only going to sell beer there.

[3:24:11] >> That's what I'm reading.

[3:24:13] >> Probably out of their little store

[3:24:14] there.

[3:24:15] >> Yes. The off-remise beer license um will

[3:24:18] be for 5% alcohol by volume or less beer

[3:24:20] to go from retail businesses

[3:24:27] » and they well probably the restaurant

[3:24:30] already has or does the hotel already

[3:24:33] have like a like room service type of

[3:24:36] license? Do we know?

[3:24:38] >> I'm not sure, but I'd be happy to look

[3:24:40] that up. Well, it was just more of a

[3:24:42] curiosity like this is brand new to

[3:24:44] >> they have a a full bar menu, so they

[3:24:47] must already have a license. I think

[3:24:48] what he said in this application is that

[3:24:51] he wants to be able to sell it at their

[3:24:53] little convenience store in the in the

[3:24:55] hotel.

[3:24:55] >> Yeah. In order to stay with the Hilton

[3:24:57] brand in line with what the Hilton brand

[3:24:59] requires.

[3:25:01] Okay. I have a motion if we're ready.

[3:25:04] I move to approve the local consent

[3:25:07] request for an off- premise beer permit

[3:25:11] to sell alcohol at Hotel Denovo located

[3:25:14] at 2,400

[3:25:18] um Zion Park Boulevard and direct the

[3:25:21] mayor to sign.

[3:25:23] >> Second

[3:25:24] >> motion by Kyla, second by Jack

[3:25:29] >> Barb.

[3:25:30] >> Kyla I. Is there any other discussion?

[3:25:37] » You're allowed to speak.

[3:25:39] >> So, I think all of us I don't know,

[3:25:41] Kyle, if I saw you, but all of us were

[3:25:43] at the Eric Duck

[3:25:46] and I I got to tell you, sitting there,

[3:25:48] I thought, what a great event and how

[3:25:50] appropriate for Springdale. And it's

[3:25:52] just so unfortunate that we don't have

[3:25:55] more events like that. And so, I just

[3:25:58] kind of wanted to throw up the idea of,

[3:26:01] you know, whoever would like to take the

[3:26:03] ball and run with it. The idea of like

[3:26:05] kind of a springfall

[3:26:07] um music series for at the gazebo just

[3:26:12] to bring into some some performers, you

[3:26:15] know, a couple times during the year

[3:26:16] because it was such a great event. It

[3:26:19] was, you know, and you know, I wasn't

[3:26:22] sure if that's something the arts would

[3:26:24] want to take on or how that would

[3:26:26] happen, but it sure was nice. So,

[3:26:29] >> well, that one I think was planned and u

[3:26:32] taken on by the 250 committee

[3:26:35] >> which is includes Kindle. Thank you,

[3:26:39] Kendall. That was great. And maybe you

[3:26:42] can discuss another one in the fall. Um

[3:26:45] and it was nice that it was a local

[3:26:47] artist, a local musician, too. You know,

[3:26:49] somebody not Springdale, but but still

[3:26:52] local. And it's pretty great.

[3:26:55] >> Um I think that would be a great idea.

[3:26:57] Um, I don't know if the America 250

[3:26:59] committee will be going past the 4th of

[3:27:01] July, but it's okay. Something that we

[3:27:04] can definitely think about.

[3:27:06] >> I guess a question is I mean, would we

[3:27:09] want to do a placeholder for wrap tax

[3:27:11] for something like that?

[3:27:13] >> Yeah. So that that's just what I was

[3:27:15] going to mention that we were fortunate

[3:27:17] not fortunate we were fortunate to have

[3:27:19] Kindle who was very skilled at getting

[3:27:22] funding for the Eric Dodge to that that

[3:27:25] paid for him to come in. You know, he's he's not free. So if we wanted to

[3:27:30] do that, we would um need to figure out

[3:27:33] how to allocate resources to it. So yes,

[3:27:35] if you want if you wanted to um you

[3:27:39] utilize some of the wrap tax for that,

[3:27:41] you could. That would be a trade-off

[3:27:42] with some of the other things that

[3:27:43] you've already already mentioned.

[3:27:48] » Bill, how much?

[3:27:50] >> I I was I was, you know, not going to

[3:27:53] say that, but I'm glad you did.

[3:27:55] >> That would give us more bang.

[3:27:58] >> Um,

[3:27:59] >> I mean, at least I was at least heard.

[3:28:03] Anyway, Kendall, how much money um did

[3:28:08] we receive from America 250?

[3:28:11] like what do we need? What kind of goal

[3:28:13] would we have to to to accomplish an

[3:28:16] event like that?

[3:28:17] >> So, we got two stipens stipens from the

[3:28:21] state. One was 1,500, one was 1,200 and

[3:28:25] then Robin Sanders actually applied for

[3:28:27] a concert sponsorship which helped cover

[3:28:30] the Eric Dodge concert and that was

[3:28:32] 2,000.

[3:28:33] Eric Dodge himself was was about two

[3:28:37] grand.

[3:28:41] that at least gives us an idea of like

[3:28:43] what kind of money we need to

[3:28:47] think about.

[3:28:48] >> Yeah. And then we also had a food truck

[3:28:51] which we we didn't purchase that. Um and

[3:28:54] then we had the large outdoor event but

[3:28:56] the fees were waved. So it really was

[3:28:59] only Eric that that we paid for and he

[3:29:02] was fantastic to work with.

[3:29:04] >> Part of it you know the question is is

[3:29:05] like how grassroots do you want it? you

[3:29:08] know, because it sounds like we've got

[3:29:09] some pretty amazing local talent, you

[3:29:11] know, so maybe, you know, it could be

[3:29:14] done for much less for, you know, people

[3:29:18] who would like to get up.

[3:29:19] >> Well, Jack, what if the what if the art

[3:29:21] board put out a call for local talent

[3:29:24] that that wants to do this that that

[3:29:27] would be willing to do a concert at the

[3:29:29] gazebo

[3:29:31] like we do for other things?

[3:29:33] >> Instead of visual art, have it be like

[3:29:35] >> Yeah. I mean, performing arts are arts,

[3:29:37] too.

[3:29:37] >> What do you think, Nile? Would that fit

[3:29:39] within our?

[3:29:46] » Yes. I think if the art review board

[3:29:48] wanted to branch out into performing

[3:29:50] arts, that would be something they could

[3:29:52] do.

[3:29:56] I also think maybe the community health

[3:29:59] coalition which is

[3:30:02] maybe going to be called something

[3:30:04] different in the future but we're

[3:30:05] working on that another word smithing

[3:30:07] activity um maybe because it is bringing

[3:30:11] people together um that maybe the

[3:30:13] community

[3:30:16] recreation committee might have some

[3:30:19] potential energy in that same direction.

[3:30:22] We don't have a budget. Just saying.

[3:30:24] Don't come after my money.

[3:30:28] Um, well, if you come up with some ideas

[3:30:31] and we could we could ask for the

[3:30:34] budget, you know, ask for the funds and

[3:30:36] see if we have them, if we can find

[3:30:38] them.

[3:30:39] >> Yeah.

[3:30:39] >> At least it sounds like we're open to

[3:30:41] the idea of exploring it.

[3:30:45] >> Great. Um, I am not sure with the new

[3:30:48] policy if I should ask, but I thought

[3:30:50] that the information that, um, um,

[3:30:55] Superintendent Brady Ba had on the

[3:30:57] screen today was very informative and I

[3:30:58] would like that to be in the packet

[3:31:01] material

[3:31:03] or if that kind of presentation just

[3:31:04] automat.

[3:31:05] >> You're talking about the mosquito

[3:31:06] presentation.

[3:31:07] >> No,

[3:31:08] >> Brady Ba the spending authority

[3:31:10] >> spending but maybe the mosquito

[3:31:13] information.

[3:31:13] >> I thought you said omit. I'm sorry. No,

[3:31:15] sorry. Brady bought and and and while

[3:31:17] we're at it, let's just add the mosquito

[3:31:19] stuff, too, because

[3:31:20] >> it's fascinating.

[3:31:21] >> It it really is specific Springdale

[3:31:24] data. And I don't know if that's like

[3:31:26] redundant of me to say it, but I know we

[3:31:28] just kind of talked about when we want

[3:31:31] things added into the minutes and when

[3:31:33] we don't.

[3:31:34] >> Um, the chart that that Jeff Brady Bos

[3:31:36] showed was

[3:31:38] not something that would be easily

[3:31:41] understood to just see it without an

[3:31:43] explanation.

[3:31:45] But it does demonstrate how little of

[3:31:47] the money that is collected at the gate

[3:31:50] goes to the park. So what do you think,

[3:31:51] Jeff?

[3:31:55] » I I mean I thought at the very bottom of

[3:31:57] it that was pretty telling of how much

[3:32:01] you know of the entrance fee, what's

[3:32:04] left over from it for park priorities.

[3:32:06] >> We could put it in and you know there's

[3:32:09] nothing. It's not going to hurt to have

[3:32:11] it in there. If someone doesn't

[3:32:13] understand it, then they know what they

[3:32:15] know already, right? So,

[3:32:16] >> well, and if they're listening to the

[3:32:19] maybe the visuals are there if they're

[3:32:21] on YouTube, that's the part I always

[3:32:23] Yeah, that's not my thing.

[3:32:25] >> Um, if they're just listening to then

[3:32:28] maybe they would want to go back and

[3:32:30] see. So, anyway, okay. I move that we

[3:32:34] adjourn.

[3:32:36] >> Motion by Kyla, second by Paty.

[3:32:40] >> Barbara.

[3:32:42] I

[3:32:42] >> acts like he's ready to leave.

[3:32:47] » Is this the our longest

[3:32:54] » Randy? And I

05/13/2026 Town Council Special Meeting

Transcript