[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