[0:12] >> common council, the,

[0:18] september 20

[0:21] call for

[0:24] the

[0:26] invocation. Pastor carlson roski.

[0:27] doesn't match

[0:30] my script. Give us the invocation

[0:33] if you would, please.

[0:34] >> let

[0:36] us pray. Dear lord, thank you for

[0:37] this meeting

[0:39] and all who are

[0:41] gathered here. We thank you for the

[0:42] opportunity to serve

[0:45] the people of our community. We humbly

[0:47] seek your guidance and wisdom. May

[0:48] our hearts

[0:51] be opened and our minds clear. We

[0:52] pray that

[0:53] our discussions are respectful and

[0:55] kind and

[0:58] that

[0:59] we value one another's contributions.

[1:01] unite us as

[1:04] one body, working together to

[1:05] make our community a better place

[1:07] for all. Remind us that

[1:10] we are stewards of your

[1:13] authority and we pray

[1:14] that your blessings, grace, and peace

[1:16] be upon us in

[1:19] your name, amen.

[1:25] >> amen.

[1:26] >> I pledge allegiance to the flag of

[1:28] the united states of america,

[1:29] and to the republic for which it stands,

[1:31] one nation,

[1:34] under god,

[1:35] indivisible, with liberty and justice

[1:40] for all.

[1:49] >>

[1:50] megan, will you give us the roll call

[1:51] please?

[1:52] >> let the record reflect

[1:53] that

[1:54] all councilmembers are present. [

[1:55] inaudible ]

[1:56] >>

[1:58] okay.

[2:01] thank you. Item a, call to

[2:07] the public. I'm not going to read the

[2:10] whole epistle. I'm sure everyone

[2:11] is familiar. Call to the public will

[2:13] be matters that pertain to the business

[2:14] of

[2:15] payson. We cannot respond to questions.

[2:16] we

[2:19] cannot answer questions. You'll have

[2:22] three minutes to

[2:25] speak

[2:28] and if you have not submitted a

[2:30] speaker request form, at the end I'll

[2:31] ask you to raise your hand if

[2:32] you have comments and we will dispense

[2:34] with any further

[2:37] commotion and start

[2:40] with call to the public. At the

[2:43] end, zoom meeting, anyone on

[2:46] zoom will also be asked

[2:49] to respond to the call

[2:51] to the public if they care to do so.

[2:52] so first one

[2:55] on the list is

[3:01] linda england.

[3:02] >> I'd like

[3:06] to go first and [ inaudible ] second.

[3:10] >> okay. >> [

[3:13] inaudible ]

[3:14] >>

[3:16] we

[3:19] have an extra?

[3:20] >> I do, actually. >> nevermind, thank

[3:22] you. You have an extra,

[3:25] somebody? Okay.

[3:31] >> sorry. >> please. >> good evening

[3:32] mayor, city

[3:33] council members, city manager and

[3:34] fellow residents. It is is pointing

[3:35] that we must come

[3:37] before

[3:38] you again. On december 23rd --this

[3:40] is a reminder --2024,

[3:42] the owner built a six-foot post on

[3:43] his seven foot

[3:46] high fence, looked directly at

[3:49] us and said

[3:51] merry christmas. I'm going to take

[3:52] away the rest

[3:55] of your view. On

[3:57] april 16th code enforcement notice

[3:58] ce 24 0146 required removal of

[3:59] both the welded extensions of the

[4:01] master shape plot which hangs

[4:04] nearly 6 feet wide,

[4:07] 14 feet high and 60 feet long

[4:09] hanging vertically. While the extension

[4:16] removed remains , later without

[4:17] our knowledge or inputs, after the

[4:18] neighbor brought in his attorney,

[4:19] the town attorney

[4:22] reclassified this violation

[4:25] as ambiguous mere dispute. That one-sided

[4:28] decision is

[4:29] only empowered the neighbor to escalate

[4:31] further. He has now hung

[4:33] a second metal from tree to tree,

[4:40] sprayed paint sprayed with spray paint

[4:41] private property

[4:42] in 18 inch letters on these tarps

[4:45] and raised the signs and the signs

[4:46] that were there, raised them 15 feet

[4:49] high per dose five more signs were

[4:50] added to the front of our yard in

[4:52] a 10 foot span so now we've got seven

[4:55] in a 10 foot span. This

[4:58] is

[5:00] not a shade [ inaudible ] it's harassment.

[5:01] we raised our fence to the legal

[5:03] height and blocked the worst of it

[5:04] but the damage is clear. He

[5:07] retaliated. He painted on the tarps,

[5:08] raised the

[5:10] signs up above our fence.

[5:12] we were on vacation. We returned home

[5:13] that night, we found all

[5:19] of these

[5:22] --we found all these

[5:24] --you see the pictures that I sent

[5:25] you. There's two emails plus one from

[5:27] a real estate person. We were on vacation.

[5:28] we returned home. We found all

[5:31] this

[5:34] stuff done . We walked

[5:36] out on our back porch to see the new

[5:37] fence and extensions we had

[5:40] put in, $3800 later.

[5:42] we installed --the neighbor look at

[5:43] us, started laughing and turned up

[5:46] his music.

[5:49] photos we provided show that

[5:51] our property and the entire neighborhood

[5:52] were being devalued.

[5:58] we asked that this matter be revisited

[5:59] and treated as

[6:00] a clear code violation. Without enforcement

[6:01] our property remains

[6:03] worthless. Will our view is destroyed

[6:04] and the

[6:10] neighbors free to continue --the neighbor

[6:11] is free

[6:12] to escalating. So we come to you with

[6:13] help on this.

[6:16] once again, thank

[6:22] you.

[6:23] >>

[6:40] >> linda

[6:44] england?

[6:45] >> good

[6:50] evening, mayor,

[6:53] city manager,

[6:54] city councilmembers, and community

[6:55] members. My name is linda england.

[6:56] I'm a fairly new

[6:57] resident of payson. My husband and

[6:59] I purchased our home in

[7:01] may 2024 and for more than a year

[7:02] we've been

[7:03] escalating intolerable situation with

[7:04] neighboring property owner, despite

[7:05] repeated efforts

[7:08] to

[7:09] seek help from city offices, police

[7:10] and his council, the problem remains unsolved

[7:11] .

[7:13] we are asking the city to enforce

[7:14] the codes

[7:17] and protect us as residents

[7:21] and taxpayers . The neighbor, you've already

[7:22] heard, has installed shade with numerous

[7:23] signs and you

[7:25] already here it's six foot by 60 feet

[7:26] long and 14

[7:31] feet high. It is a disgrace. It looks

[7:32] like a

[7:33] trashbin in our yard. And they have

[7:35] stickers at the top

[7:38] that says do not

[7:44] california, arizona

[7:48] all around our property line. It's become

[7:50] a wall of hostility.

[7:51] this is not a normal use of a shade

[7:52] cloth or any signage. This is the

[7:53] problem

[7:55] here for us. It gets worse. A local

[7:56] realtor, respected local realtor has

[7:57] inspected

[7:59] our

[8:01] property and provided a letter which

[8:02] we

[8:04] did email your board and the mayor,

[8:05] stating that due to this situation,

[8:06] she would not be able to even show our

[8:08] home. This means our entire retirement

[8:09] investment

[8:10] we put all our money in it, is worthless,

[8:11] so it

[8:14] gets worse. This matter cannot be

[8:17] dismissed as a neighbor dispute,

[8:18] which the attorney now has said it's

[8:19] just a neighbor dispute. We've experienced

[8:26] harassment, surveillance,

[8:28] and even a rock this size thrown at

[8:29] us at the back porch.

[8:30] sorry, these are threatening and unsafe

[8:32] act. We filed

[8:38] police reports

[8:41] intended for council

[8:42] meetings and contacted code compliance

[8:43] office multiple times. Instead of

[8:44] investigating or viewing the

[8:45] property firsthand from our side,

[8:46] the city reclassified this matter

[8:47] as a simple

[8:49] neighbor dispute, asking us to negotiate

[8:50] with someone that's

[8:51] repeatedly harassed us is unreasonable

[8:54] and quite dangerous. We respectfully

[8:56] request that the

[8:59] city, one, reclassify this matter

[9:00] as a code violation, rather than a

[9:08] neighbor dispute , two,

[9:09] enforce the city's existing ordinances.

[9:10] there is something I wrote about,

[9:11] 131.03, disruptive property, and

[9:14] 131.09, an enforcement action,

[9:15] dispatch a code compliance officer,

[9:16] number three, to directly inspect

[9:17] the property

[9:19] and document the violations. Number four,

[9:20] coordinate with law enforcement

[9:21] regarding the ongoing harassment and

[9:27] safety concerns . We are law-abiding

[9:28] senior citizens who contribute to

[9:29] this community. We should

[9:31] not be left without protection while

[9:32] our property,

[9:35] safety, peace of mind

[9:38] are destroyed. If the city fails to

[9:39] act,

[9:40] we have no choice but to seek remedies

[9:41] beyond this jurisdiction. Thank you so

[9:42] much

[9:43] for your time and attention. We are

[9:44] prepared to provide you

[9:48] more photographs or the realtor's

[9:50] letter and any other documentation

[9:51] that

[9:53] require. Thank you so much.

[9:54] >>

[9:59] thank you.

[10:11] walk

[10:16] that property and it is ridiculous what's

[10:17] going on

[10:18] there. I think it's beyond a neighborly

[10:20] dispute, something we need to look

[10:21] into.

[10:22] >> room number we

[10:23] can't respond, council, if you want

[10:24] us to look into it --

[10:25] >> I'm

[10:26] telling you [ inaudible ] I want this

[10:27] looked into seriously.

[10:28] >> just

[10:29] to remind you, so we have been working

[10:30] and I will provide you with an

[10:32] up date shortly.

[10:33] >> thank

[10:35] you.

[10:36] >> [ inaudible

[10:41] ] comments?

[10:43] >> my name is paul from all. I've

[10:44] been in payson for almost

[10:45] 12 years now. Mr. Mayor, town manager

[10:47] and counselors,

[10:49] I want to thank you for doing something

[10:50] right

[10:55] this time . Allowing the citizens

[10:56] of payson an opportunity to vote yes

[10:57] or

[10:59] no on the upcoming bond in november,

[11:02] to increase our property

[11:05] taxes for the aquatic center. This year

[11:06] you

[11:08] did it right. Last year

[11:11] they tried to shove a

[11:12] $70 million bond down our throats

[11:14] with the emergency

[11:16] declarations. I personally believe

[11:17] that refurbishing gator pool

[11:18] is a other option than anything I've

[11:20] seen

[11:23] so far, that

[11:24] they projected for malibu. I believe

[11:26] their cost estimates are

[11:32] very low . I think

[11:34] they're probably low on both of them

[11:35] but I believe taylor poole is the

[11:37] best choice. It's closer to the schools,

[11:38] kids can walk from the schools after

[11:41] school

[11:44] to practice

[11:46] , their swimming, it's just a better

[11:47] fit for the town. If

[11:49] you have to do something with the

[11:50] property that was purchased last year

[11:53] for another project that is now

[11:56] defunct, me

[11:59] maybe

[12:01] so it. Use it for some of the housing

[12:02] that we are all looking for. At

[12:04] least this $60 million bond has given

[12:05] us a choice to vote where

[12:07] last year the $70 million bond we

[12:08] did not have a choice so that, I want

[12:10] to thank you all for doing it the

[12:11] correct way and

[12:14] not like last year.

[12:20] thank you.

[12:29] >>

[12:32] eric walberg.

[12:41] >> afternoon.

[12:47] I'm here to

[12:49] speak about and give you some rhetorical

[12:50] questions on this structure hardening

[12:54] code. I'm an ex-contractor

[12:58] that moved here to payson from california,

[13:00] so you know that I know a

[13:01] lot about fires, fire wising and the

[13:09] lack thereof. This whole thing

[13:10] kind of smacks of things that happened

[13:12] in cities and

[13:14] municipalities in california, where

[13:15] I

[13:18] came from. Typically

[13:21] northern

[13:25] california. --[ inaudible ]

[13:26] >> can

[13:27] you raise your mike just a

[13:32] little?

[13:33] >> person being tall, is that

[13:34] what

[13:35] it is? I guess the only thing that

[13:36] I have an issue with on

[13:37] this thing that interests me, and believe

[13:39] me, I believe that fire safety

[13:41] is an enormous thing. Charlie, you

[13:45] know that.

[13:46] you've spoken to my wife numerous

[13:48] times

[13:53] about it, don't run from her whenever you

[13:54] see her at the gym,

[13:55] but I guess my thing is, from what

[13:59] I understand, I only heard about this

[14:00] yesterday and I'm kind of

[14:01] wondering why this wasn't put out

[14:02] more sternly to the public to let

[14:06] us have some sort of

[14:09] a time period to study what is

[14:12] happening

[14:13] here. This could be an exceptionally

[14:15] expensive thing for people in

[14:18] this town who want to remodel

[14:22] their homes, who are looking to build

[14:24] a new home. I mean, when

[14:25] we built our house here, six years

[14:27] ago, we got hit with

[14:33] somebody big

[14:35] pretty big surprises that no one knew

[14:36] were coming. One of

[14:37] them was a 3% increase in sales tax.

[14:38] that cost us $12,000 and people just

[14:39] shrugged their

[14:40] shoulders. Well, it's too bad. It

[14:42] was too

[14:44] bad because you know there wasn't

[14:45] $12,000 in

[14:48] the budget so

[14:50] it hurt. It hurt a lot and is still

[14:51] hurting

[14:53] because our mortgage is $12,000 higher

[14:56] than it should be. Which is a lot

[14:57] of money

[15:02] per month for somebody that's on a

[15:03] fixed income, which by the

[15:04] way, we are. So what I'm asking is

[15:06] your indulgence to hold off

[15:09] on any kind of a vote on this.

[15:10] I'm not saying it's right or it's

[15:12] wrong. I'm saying give us some time

[15:13] to

[15:14] look at this thing and digest it before

[15:15] there's any kind of an

[15:18] absolute vote on this

[15:24] process. Because for myself and

[15:27] my wife, the thought isn't working.

[15:30] so for myself and

[15:33] my wife, we -- when we moved here

[15:35] we were given an awful lot of pie

[15:36] in the sky dreams

[15:39] that, from a city manager,

[15:42] that none of it came true. So we

[15:45] are here

[15:48] virtually under erroneous circumstances.

[15:49] so

[15:50] I sure would like to have a little

[15:51] bit of time

[15:54] to read this whole thing and see where

[15:55] it's

[15:58] coming from, and how much it's going

[16:00] to hurt our contractors in town, and

[16:01] how

[16:03] much it's going to hurt the general

[16:04] public and raise the price of housing

[16:06] in this town?

[16:07] >> thank you, you're

[16:09] out of time.

[16:10] >> thanks. >>

[16:15] jonathan jackson?

[16:26] >> I'm jonathan jackson. I've lived

[16:27] here for

[16:32] 8 years , worked in the construction

[16:33] business the whole time.

[16:35] I'm actually following eric's up on

[16:36] the same bill, the

[16:39] hardening

[16:40] code requirements. In the 10 years

[16:42] that

[16:43] I've been in framing and building

[16:45] homes,

[16:47] we have significantly improved the

[16:48] fire

[16:51] safety in

[16:54] that so as he had mentioned, we had

[16:55] only

[16:57] just gotten this

[16:59] so I haven't been able to look over the

[17:00] whole thing, but it does

[17:02] seem like it's going to drastically

[17:03] change and increase

[17:06] the cost

[17:09] for remodels and for

[17:12] new homes. So that

[17:15] was my short three minutes.

[17:16] >>

[17:18] thank you.

[17:19] >> thank

[17:24] you.

[17:25] >> dena

[17:30] will caught.

[17:31] >> is he

[17:33] on zoom?

[17:39] if not

[17:45] , because supposedly there's

[17:47] a request with my name on it, but it

[17:48] was on behalf of gino,

[17:50] if he wasn't on zoom. So if he's not

[17:51] on zoom I can read those

[17:54] comments.

[17:55] >> okay. >> all

[17:57] right.

[17:58] >> reading for gino? >> yeah,

[17:59] these

[18:00] are gino's words, not mine. He just

[18:01] asked if I would share this

[18:03] information. On your marks, get

[18:06] set, go to I'm okay to

[18:08] speak from here? I don't have to go

[18:09] down

[18:11] here? Yeah, there we go. All right.

[18:15] I'm writing --

[18:17] so this is gino will conley, he's

[18:18] a contractor in town for gun rights

[18:20] and as a long-term resident and a

[18:21] professional in the building industry

[18:22] for over

[18:27] 30 years.

[18:36] I care deeply about the

[18:37] safety and future of our community.

[18:39] I believe this code would cause more

[18:40] harm than good.

[18:41] here are my concerns. Added costs.

[18:42] the new requirements will drive up

[18:43] the price of construction

[18:44] and remodeling, making housing less

[18:45] affordable for families in our town.

[18:46] no insurance relief.

[18:47] these measures won't fix the insurance

[18:48] crisis. Homeowners will still face

[18:49] the same problem finding

[18:50] and keeping coverage. Department funding

[18:51] versus community benefit. Many of

[18:58] us worried this push is more

[18:59] about improving fire department ratings

[19:00] to capture extra state and federal

[19:01] dollars than actually

[19:02] helping residents. Existing fire wise

[19:04] rules are enough. If payson enforced

[19:07] the fire wise policies already

[19:09] in place, we could reduce risk across

[19:10] the board

[19:13] without adding costs -- costly

[19:16] new codes. Enforcement of fire

[19:19] wise and being sure that no

[19:20] one has combustibles within the prescribed

[19:22] distances of their home

[19:24] would help everyone in the community,

[19:25] not

[19:28] just the homes that will

[19:30] apply for permits going forward. Equity

[19:31] concerns. The fire department

[19:34] is taking equity from new

[19:40] homes by

[19:42] trying to implement the structure

[19:43] hardening code.

[19:44] this code shifts the burden onto new

[19:45] homeowners, stripping equity from

[19:46] homeowners while only benefiting

[19:47] the fire department. It will discourage

[19:48] improvements and make it harder for

[19:49] families

[19:52] to upgrade their homes, since many

[19:53] cannot afford the

[19:56] added cost the new checklist would

[19:58] require.

[20:00] uneven protection. This only applies

[20:04] to new builds and remodels

[20:08] going forward , not existing structures.

[20:10] it could take 50 to 100 years

[20:11] before the community as a whole sees

[20:13] any real benefit,

[20:14] while the vast majority of the existing

[20:16] homes will never meet the new code

[20:18] criteria or be able to be brought

[20:19] up

[20:21] to code, to the new code criteria.

[20:22] lack

[20:25] of

[20:28] local input. Based on the fact

[20:29] that this proposal is being pushed

[20:30] onto the community without widespread

[20:31] awareness, I

[20:32] feel compelled to speak up. Nearly

[20:33] every homeowner I've spoken with has

[20:34] no idea that

[20:37] this new code is coming to

[20:39] a vote, nor that their homes could

[20:40] soon be subject

[20:43] to these

[20:44] new rules and the potential problems

[20:45] they bring. What's especially concerning

[20:46] is that

[20:48] there has been no balanced discussion

[20:49] and open dialogue about

[20:51] both the benefits and the drawbacks.

[20:52] from

[20:55] where I stand,

[20:57] the only clear beneficiary appears

[20:58] to be the fire department,

[20:59] not the community as a whole. The

[21:01] lack of local input

[21:04] stems from a lack of

[21:07] understanding resident's simply do

[21:08] not realize the full ramifications this

[21:10] code could have on them as

[21:13] homeowners. I'll

[21:16] and there.

[21:19] >> don't applaud

[21:21] me. Applauded gino.

[21:22] >> listen to mike.

[21:23] >>

[21:28] stacy frederick?

[21:36] >> I want to make sure I'm able to

[21:43] be heard. Thank you for

[21:44] reading that letter from gino. He

[21:46] is also my boss and he is

[21:47] the only reason that I'm even aware

[21:48] that this code hardening has been

[21:49] going on. Every

[21:52] other homeowner that

[21:55] I've talked to

[21:56] is not aware of this. This is something

[21:58] that I think needs to be brought

[21:59] to the attention of the public and

[22:01] the whole, like eric said, put some

[22:02] time, take some time, not vote on

[22:04] this today so that we can take the

[22:05] time

[22:06] to make sure everyone is aware of

[22:07] what is going on. I'd also like

[22:08] to read the end of gino's letter.

[22:10] in short, this ordinance is

[22:13] the wrong approach. We should strengthen

[22:14] and

[22:16] enforce the policies we

[22:19] already have so that all

[22:20] homes old and new are better protected.

[22:22] that would give us the real results

[22:23] now,

[22:25] not generations

[22:27] from now. I earnestly urge you to

[22:28] oppose this ordinance and instead

[22:29] focus

[22:31] on solutions that are fair,

[22:34] effective, and rooted in what makes

[22:35] payson strong --common sense, community,

[22:37] and looking out for one another. Thank

[22:38] you this

[22:39] time. Again, that's the end of gino's

[22:40] letter but as a homeowner,

[22:43] when I

[22:45] look at, if I was to improve my home

[22:46] and do a lot of

[22:47] remodeling, that this could cost hundreds

[22:48] of thousands of dollars more, based

[22:49] on the

[22:51] information that gino is providing

[22:52] me with the roof and

[22:55] the siding and all these extra fire

[22:57] wising things and it would only affect

[23:04] the specific homes

[23:05] that are being permitted now. Picture

[23:07] just little dots all over the

[23:08] place within our community, that it's

[23:09] helping. If we push with the fire

[23:10] wise, the codes that we

[23:12] already have, and making sure that

[23:13] every property is fire wise in the

[23:15] way it should be would help our entire

[23:16] community across the board, not just

[23:17] these

[23:19] little pockets of homes. Thank you.

[23:20] >>

[23:22] thank

[23:28] you.

[23:29] >>

[23:34] lori parmenter.

[23:43] >> good evening, mr.

[23:49] mayor, council members and town staff,

[23:50] my

[23:51] name is lori parmenter. I've been

[23:52] a proud resident of payson

[23:54] for two years, so not very long. I

[23:55] also want to thank you for

[23:57] the opportunity to vote on the bond

[23:58] for the

[24:00] pool bond. It was the right choice

[24:01] to let the people

[24:03] choose, and tonight I want to urge

[24:04] everyone in our

[24:07] community to vote yes on it because

[24:09] the bond is not just about building

[24:10] a pool at the malibu site. It's

[24:13] about making a smart, future

[24:14] ready investment in our town's health,

[24:16] recreation, and

[24:19] infrastructure. A yes vote

[24:21] means we move forward with the funded,

[24:22] shovel

[24:25] ready plan. A no vote halts construction

[24:28] and leaves payson without a

[24:31] public pool. Some residents are advocating

[24:32] for a renovation

[24:34] of taylor

[24:36] pool instead but let's be clear, a no

[24:37] vote does not

[24:43] guarantee taylor pool will be rebuilt.

[24:44] in fact it

[24:45] makes the outcome far less likely.

[24:46] here's why. Funding. Taylor's renovation would

[24:47] rely

[24:49] on the general fund, not

[24:52] a bond

[24:54] . While some claim it would cost $5

[24:55] million, the council's own commission

[24:57] study estimated $11 million for an

[24:58] uncovered pool, well beyond what the general

[24:59] fund can

[25:03] support. Code compliance. A separate

[25:05] $20,000 evaluation revealed

[25:08] additional

[25:11] costs to bring taylor up to

[25:12] 2025 standards. These would be substantial

[25:14] and unavoidable. The

[25:17] cover cost. If a cover is

[25:20] added

[25:21] later, taylor's would cost $200,000

[25:23] more than malibu's. A

[25:26] covered taylor pool would

[25:27] be a total of about $14.2 million

[25:29] and still require a bond.

[25:32] the timeline. Malibu is ready

[25:35] to go

[25:37] . If the bond fails, taylor's process

[25:39] must start from scratch, likely triggering

[25:40] another bond election and years of

[25:41] delays. Future

[25:44] growth. Malibu offers space for

[25:49] future athletic center, basketball

[25:50] courts, multi-sports

[25:51] facilities and attic parking. Taylor

[25:53] does not.

[25:56] in fact, taylor's parking

[25:58] limitations may require satellite lots just

[25:59] to

[26:05] meet code

[26:07] . In short, taylor is not a viable

[26:08] alternative. It's a costly, complicated

[26:09] path with no clear funding and no

[26:10] guarantee of success. Voting no doesn't

[26:11] bring back

[26:14] taylor pool.

[26:16] voting no means payson has no pool.

[26:17] I hope that

[26:20] we choose progress. Let's choose a

[26:21] facility that serves our families,

[26:24] our seniors, our athletes, and our

[26:26] future. Thank you.

[26:27] >>

[26:29] thank you.

[26:32] >> michael

[26:38] r fox.

[26:41] >> mr.

[26:42] mayor and council members, thank you

[26:43] for letting me talk. I feel almost

[26:44] embarrassed to bring my

[26:47] issues up after this

[26:50] first two

[26:51] people that came up here. Oh my gosh.

[26:53] my heart just bleeds for them. I'm

[26:56] a citizen

[26:58] of payson. I pay property taxes and

[26:59] I'm a proponent

[27:02] of a new pool. First

[27:05] of all it will make the town of

[27:07] payson a much better place to live.

[27:08] it will raise our

[27:14] property values

[27:15] . Big, beautiful pool like chino valley,

[27:17] when I lived there, they had

[27:19] a new pool. Wow, it makes the whole

[27:20] town go to chino

[27:21] valley and again it will put us on

[27:23] the map. For $75

[27:24] a year for the next 20 years, for

[27:26] something like that I

[27:29] don't think is much

[27:32] to pay.

[27:35] the only other thing I had

[27:41] is I parked

[27:43] my chair most nights down at green valley

[27:46] park and we are still waiting all

[27:47] summer and

[27:50] all fall for the

[27:53] police department

[27:56] to get their act

[27:57] together, to send some patrolmen down

[27:59] there to patrol it. I'm not asking

[28:00] they arrest

[28:01] everybody there. Just come down and

[28:02] drive-through once in a while. That's

[28:03] all I'm

[28:05] asking.

[28:08] thank you.

[28:11] >> mr.

[28:14] town manager, can we

[28:15] had some extra patrols? I know that we've

[28:17] done that. Can

[28:22] we ask to look into it?

[28:23] >> yeah. >>

[28:24] thank you. Sorry. My bad

[28:26] choice of words.

[28:27] >>

[28:29] tom benning.

[28:35] >> hi, I'm tom

[28:36] dunning. I'm a 21 year resident of

[28:41] payson and a couple of weeks

[28:44] ago I took a shower and

[28:47] got dressed

[28:53] nicely, and came over here for a

[28:55] town council meeting. And the kind folks

[28:56] in the office told me there's no

[28:58] town council meeting. Well two weeks

[29:02] before that I did the same and

[29:05] came over, and the kind

[29:08] folks at the office told

[29:11] me there's

[29:14] no town council meeting. I noticed

[29:15] that

[29:16] there is an item on the agenda today

[29:17] that is

[29:19] all about whether the town council

[29:20] should or should

[29:23] not

[29:25] meet with --if there's no items on

[29:32] the agenda. Well all I can do is tell

[29:33] you that

[29:35] it's important to me

[29:38] to come here and see

[29:41] the officials of our town doing

[29:44] their jobs and acting on measures

[29:47] that need to

[29:50] be discussed and evaluated, and

[29:55] voted on, and if you want my opinion

[29:56] about all

[29:59] of

[30:01] this, and I imagine a lot of other

[30:02] people in payson,

[30:05] it is that town

[30:08] council should be meeting on a regular

[30:09] basis

[30:11] to serve

[30:14] the people of payson. If there's

[30:17] not an item on the agenda, well

[30:20] then ask us what we

[30:22] would like to talk about. We are here

[30:23] and we'll tell you. So

[30:26] I urge you to consider that if

[30:29] you don't have an agenda item, you

[30:30] should still

[30:32] be here for the public to let

[30:35] you know what they are

[30:38] interested in

[30:41] having happen in payson. Thank you.

[30:42] >>

[30:47] thank you.

[30:48] >>

[30:50] calvin

[30:53] h smedley.

[31:05] >> good afternoon.

[31:08] I'm cal smedley, five year

[31:11] resident

[31:14] of payson. Mr. Mayor, mr. Council,

[31:17] this is

[31:20] regarding

[31:23] the pool and the bond

[31:26] that they wish to

[31:29] refurbish. 1954, during the army mccarthy

[31:30] hearings,

[31:34] a lawyer named joseph welsh stood

[31:35] up to senator joseph mccarthy, who

[31:39] had spent

[31:42] years destroying

[31:44] lives with smears and fear. I remember

[31:45] well on tv.

[31:48] welsh asked him, have you

[31:49] no sense of decency, sir? At long

[31:51] last, have you left no sense

[31:53] of decency? At that moment broke the

[31:54] spell

[31:56] of mccarthyism. The american people

[31:57] finally

[32:00] saw the damage done by

[32:02] reckless attacks, by leaders more

[32:03] concerned with pandering to

[32:05] their base than serving the common

[32:08] good in decency. The simple recognition

[32:09] of

[32:12] truth and fairness and community

[32:15] responsibility became the

[32:17] turning point. Now here in our town

[32:18] we are

[32:21] not facing

[32:24] a national witchhunt that

[32:25] we are facing a similar, meaner version

[32:27] of the same spirit. Three of our councilmembers

[32:29] are trying to defeat for a community

[32:32] swimming pool, not because it's bad

[32:33] for

[32:36] the town, not because it's

[32:38] fiscally reckless, because they want

[32:39] to appease a narrow

[32:41] slice of ideological extremism, the

[32:42] local

[32:45] tea party. This pool is

[32:48] not a luxury. It's a community

[32:49] investment, an investment in our children

[32:51] who need a safe place

[32:57] to learn to swim and our seniors

[32:58] who need a place for low-impact exercise,

[32:59] and in our families who deserve the

[33:00] shared

[33:02] space that promotes health, safety,

[33:03] and

[33:04] togetherness. It is a project that

[33:05] strengthens the very fabric of our

[33:06] community. So I

[33:07] ask those councilmembers directly,

[33:09] have you

[33:10] no decency, have you no respect for

[33:11] the broader community you were elected

[33:14] to serve, to sacrifice well-being

[33:15] of thousands

[33:18] so you can score points with

[33:20] a faction that is the very opposite

[33:24] of leadership. It is a political

[33:25] theater at the expense of public good.

[33:27] we must

[33:30] not let history repeat itself, even

[33:33] in small ways. Decency

[33:34] demands courage. Decency demands that

[33:36] we put aside fear mongering and

[33:38] do what is right for the people we

[33:39] represent. Decency demands that

[33:44] we invest in our future, for the sake

[33:45] of our

[33:47] children, for the health of our community,

[33:48] and for true

[33:50] public service, I urge every citizen

[33:51] here

[33:57] to remember

[33:58] welsh's words, to stand up and insist

[33:59] that our council finds its decency

[34:00] by supporting the pool bond. Thank

[34:03] you.

[34:30] >> my name is jack eder. I've been

[34:31] a

[34:32] resident of payson since 1989. My

[34:33] dad was here in

[34:39] the early

[34:41] '80s. He had a place here. He has

[34:42] the same name as me. Started

[34:45] coming up here in the mid '50 so I've

[34:46] been

[34:47] here longer than most of you guys

[34:48] know, okay? At least

[34:50] 60-plus years. I've seen this town

[34:51] go

[34:54] to lately. It's getting so much

[34:57] influx from the phoenix, from california,

[34:58] from

[34:59] other places, and they want to try

[35:00] to come in here and change the

[35:03] town.

[35:06] I know

[35:09] we had to change and move and everything. We have

[35:12] to make this

[35:15] place better.

[35:17] if you've been here long enough you

[35:18] probably realize that we like

[35:21] it the way that it is, at least

[35:23] I do. I've just been seeing too many

[35:24] people come up

[35:26] and we're expanding to 60, keep people

[35:27] from dying

[35:32] over there by the preacher canyon

[35:33] in that area. I don't

[35:39] understand it. We are dealing with

[35:40] the influx

[35:42] of california and phoenix.

[35:45] the park on mud springs is not even

[35:47] finished yet, is it? So why are we looking

[35:48] at

[35:54] a new? How are

[35:56] we going to get water to all the people

[35:57] that are coming in here? You

[35:59] know we have this cc cragin deal but

[36:00] still that

[36:02] ain't going to be enough. We've been

[36:03] in the drought for I don't know

[36:05] how long, 10 years or so, so I say

[36:06] let's fix what

[36:09] we have, you

[36:11] know, and then go on from there. But

[36:12] a lot of the people

[36:15] that haven't

[36:17] been here, some of them have been

[36:18] here two or three years or whatever,

[36:19] they

[36:20] don't know what goes on in this town

[36:21] like I do and like some

[36:23] of the people. I don't know if there's

[36:24] anybody here that's been here longer

[36:25] than me.

[36:26] I may kiss gino off because I don't

[36:27] care too much for the

[36:30] extra construction but that's

[36:33] his job, you know? I had a restaurant

[36:35] here for 10 years and I didn't see

[36:39] that much business, and it was locally

[36:40] from

[36:42] the locals and

[36:44] so we had to suffer through that for

[36:45] about 10 years,

[36:48] and finally we just kind of gave up

[36:49] because we

[36:50] couldn't get the support from the

[36:51] town. You know I say we stay with

[36:52] what

[36:54] we got and

[36:56] work on other stuff later. Let's rebuild

[36:57] a little bit and try

[37:00] and slow

[37:02] down the traffic that's coming into

[37:03] town. Already we've had a

[37:05] shooting at denny's, right? It's going

[37:06] to be like phoenix before you know

[37:07] it.

[37:09] thanks.

[37:10] >>

[37:12] thank you.

[37:22] >>

[37:27] >> by rantanen house, owner of the

[37:28] noble

[37:32] building and building houses and remodels

[37:33] appear for 20-plus years. Wanted to

[37:34] address the

[37:37] hardening

[37:38] code. I feel like I want to reiterate

[37:39] everything that everybody already

[37:41] said but also add to that. I feel

[37:43] like we are missing

[37:45] a step. While I understand that hardening

[37:46] a

[37:47] home can be beneficial, it's not the

[37:49] one step and what

[37:52] we should do is we

[37:57] should enforce our defensible space

[37:58] around

[37:59] the homes, and I would implore you to

[38:01] make it so that every time a

[38:04] building permit is pulled, that

[38:05] that house is subject to being inspected

[38:07] and have to be brought up

[38:08] to code for fire wising. And I think

[38:10] that that

[38:11] would make 100 times more difference

[38:12] to our community than trying to harden,

[38:13] like

[38:16] you said before, speckled

[38:17] amount of homes around the community.

[38:20] I think we are putting the cart before

[38:22] the horse so if

[38:24] we could put our energy into fire

[38:26] wising and defensible space, and educate

[38:28] people in that, and then

[38:30] make hardening a home a secondary

[38:31] thing once

[38:34] we get number one

[38:40] step done . That's all I

[38:41] wanted to add to what everybody else

[38:42] has already put out there. Thank you.

[38:43] >>

[38:44] thank you.

[38:46] >>

[38:49] mike white.

[39:04] >> my name is mike white's.

[39:07] I've been in the phoenix --well

[39:08] payson, star valley area for about

[39:10] 15 years now, after being involved

[39:13] at

[39:16] the airport. I'd like to talk

[39:17] about two issues regarding hangers,

[39:19] one I guess we are very disappointed.

[39:20] we

[39:22] were told that the whole hangar rate

[39:23] issue would be on tonight's agenda.

[39:25] I was told that by public works several

[39:26] months

[39:27] ago. The problem still exists, first

[39:28] up, we've

[39:31] made numerous presentations and formal

[39:32] requests, both in writing and verbally,

[39:34] to address this issue. The

[39:37] first part, we have

[39:38] problem with the lease itself and

[39:40] also

[39:42] the rate. Our hangers are 11% smaller

[39:43] than the newer hangers but we charge

[39:45] the same rate and the newer hangers

[39:46] are by

[39:49] definition

[39:52] newer and nicer but we are still

[39:53] being charged the same rate. Now throw

[39:55] on top of that, when the airport commissioner

[39:58] made his presentation may 14th,

[40:01] in his council decision request attachment a,

[40:02] he

[40:04] did all the math and economic

[40:06] justification showing the town of

[40:07] pain electricity instead

[40:10] of pho occupants paying

[40:13] for it so that would be my

[40:15] triple dip here, so the rate for a

[40:16] should be

[40:19] $300, not

[40:20] 371 plus 15 for electricity. I have

[40:22] all the data to back that

[40:25] up for you. Another problem with

[40:28] treating

[40:29] us unequally, inequitably, is that

[40:31] you are in violation of some

[40:37] faa grant

[40:38] , they specifically prohibit that

[40:39] and there are two mechanisms for reporting

[40:40] the problem so it's

[40:41] just a matter of time until somebody

[40:43] raises that issue and the town is

[40:44] at risk for getting more and keeping

[40:46] grant money. We brought that up before,

[40:48] too. Second problem or issue is the

[40:51] leases themselves are very coercive.

[40:52] we

[40:55] were given less than a week's notice

[40:56] to

[40:58] sign the leases as is or the

[41:00] evicted and they're terrible and I

[41:01] presented

[41:03] the retails details of why that is

[41:04] so,

[41:09] numerous times. Very coarse. One thing,

[41:10] we are told there would be

[41:12] a yearly lease and they are just month

[41:13] to month. There is a late penalty

[41:16] of 20% in their and that

[41:19] violates ars ordinances. In

[41:22] fact it's ars title 33-1414,

[41:25] paragraph a, sets a

[41:26] maximum of five dollars a day fee

[41:28] if you

[41:33] are late. Hours far exceeds that.

[41:34] another problem, the hanger use restrictions

[41:35] are

[41:39] extremely restrictive in time here

[41:40] and I will give

[41:42] you numerous reasons why that is so, just

[41:43] completely and

[41:46] reasonably so.

[41:48] it doesn't allow an llc or partners

[41:49] to own an airplane. It's crazy. Almost

[41:50] all

[41:51] airplanes around by an llc or partnership. So

[41:52] if I die my partner loses

[41:55] the hanger. You

[41:57] know that's crazy, or the aero club

[41:58] will lose its hanger as soon as we

[41:59] elect a new president. It's crazy.

[42:01] in fact, when I brought up several

[42:02] months ago

[42:04] the town attorney

[42:07] gave me

[42:10] a [ inaudible ] that he was going

[42:11] to fix

[42:12] that. Still waiting. And lastly they're

[42:13] calling us a commercial enterprise

[42:14] and that is

[42:16] not the case.

[42:17] >> thank you. >>

[42:22] excuse me, christina, mr.

[42:23] town manager, can we just get an update

[42:25] on this at some

[42:26] point, where we are with this? Because I know we've

[42:28] had a lot

[42:30] of changes on all areas that touch

[42:31] that

[42:34] subject, if you'd just get

[42:37] an up

[42:40] date in the future it would

[42:42] be great.

[42:43] >> if we could do that sooner

[42:44] than later, because I know it

[42:45] was requested in a previous council

[42:46] meeting.

[42:47] >> not your call. >> no.

[42:48] I

[42:49] think it's done.

[42:50] >> greg

[42:52] triple horn?

[42:55] >>

[42:58] tripped in?

[43:01] oh, trey flint? Is it triple in?

[43:02] >>

[43:04] trip on.

[43:05] >> oh,

[43:07] trip on .

[43:08] >> yes, hello. We are just

[43:10] asking to change the name of nugget

[43:11] street

[43:12] to gordon's way. Nugget is a small

[43:13] street that cuts through

[43:16] the sawmill crossing. We are asking

[43:17] to do that in

[43:18] memory of mr. Gordon white, who passed

[43:19] away earlier

[43:22] this year. That's it. Thank you.

[43:23] >>

[43:29] thank you.

[43:30] >> again, mr.

[43:34] town manager.

[43:35] >> it's on your agenda.

[43:36] >> you're the best.

[43:38] >>

[43:41] tom west.

[43:42] >> which subject

[43:44] matter

[43:47] is this

[43:48] ? --

[43:49] >> subject matter on this one

[43:50] because I put in two different subjects.

[43:51] >> you can choose whichever you like.

[43:53] >> I'll do

[43:54] hanger rent. First off, I appreciate

[43:56] the fact that you'll take a

[43:59] real beating on this call to

[44:01] the public. That takes thick skin.

[44:03] that's tough so I do appreciate that.

[44:04] regarding that, I'll talk about the

[44:05] hanger rent

[44:06] that mike just spoke about. I'm representing

[44:11] the payson aero club

[44:12] because we rent a hanger for that

[44:13] and also two rentals so indirectly

[44:20] I rent

[44:23] three hangers at what we

[44:24] call pho, payson hanger one. As you

[44:25] remember originally there were condos.

[44:26] there were 10

[44:28] members and they had a lease. Originally

[44:29] went to eight members because

[44:30] two members died and they gave their

[44:31] membership to the association, and

[44:32] the ground

[44:33] lease was 14 dest 20 and five, you

[44:35] divide that by eight, there

[44:41] is $178 per person but then of course

[44:42] there was insurance, electricity,

[44:43] things like that. Ended up being about

[44:44] an assessment of $230

[44:45] for each person to be in those hangers

[44:46] and then the additional revenue of

[44:47] two rentals

[44:50] because the owners

[44:53] had died

[44:59] . In july as

[45:01] you know, the town took over and of

[45:02] course doing a horrible

[45:03] job, this was recommended, we have

[45:04] not been charged correctly for the rent

[45:05] yet. We got charged

[45:06] today $2100 for one month of rent.

[45:07] we had to sleep with dennis. They

[45:08] can't even

[45:09] charge us the rent correctly. It's

[45:10] really irritating. And of course dennis

[45:11] is the airport

[45:12] coordinator, just arbitrarily made

[45:14] the rent 371 plus 15, 386

[45:16] a month. Our hanger is 118 square

[45:17] feet

[45:19] less, our cherokee has to go a little

[45:20] sideways to get around the wing, to

[45:21] get to the cockpit. Not so on the

[45:23] t hangers that are by the

[45:24] fuel pit that you charge the same

[45:25] amount for. Our hangers are nothing

[45:27] like the hangers at the fuel pit and

[45:29] as he mentioned, I think

[45:35] that violates the fa grant

[45:36] insurance. Its unequal treatment of

[45:37] us. Your charting is way more per

[45:38] square foot

[45:39] for a hanger that's not nearly as

[45:40] nice and it's unfair, unequal treatment

[45:41] of

[45:42] us in those hangers. The other thing

[45:44] I want to mention is you know

[45:50] the airport

[46:03] has no maintenance plan. Eventually

[46:04] the eight exterior light bulbs burned out,

[46:05] regular light

[46:06] bulbs on the north side of the hanger.

[46:08] I mentioned it to dennis because now

[46:09] they

[46:10] take over. He said the absence of

[46:11] a licensed, bonded, insured person

[46:12] to change those

[46:13] lightbulbs, I took a letter, I changed

[46:14] one lightbulb, I got caught, busted.

[46:15] he goes,

[46:16] you can do that, I do dennis, I hold

[46:17] the ladder, you go up and

[46:18] change the lightbulb, it's a screw-in

[46:20] bulb, no we don't change light bulbs.

[46:21] there

[46:22] is no maintenance program for payson

[46:23] airport for anything except for getting

[46:24] grants. It's insane.

[46:25] you have to look into getting a maintenance

[46:26] program for general maintenance at

[46:27] the airport,

[46:28] like changing light bulbs. That's

[46:29] all I have to say. Thank you.

[46:32] >> speaker request?

[46:35] speaker to

[46:38] speak twice or do

[46:40] we get one bite at the apple?

[46:41] >> typically

[46:42] if you're called to the public

[46:44] then

[46:47] you're just speaking on

[46:48] your call to the public agenda item.

[46:49] you're not necessarily supposed to

[46:50] be speaking more

[46:51] than once at a council meeting.

[46:52] >>

[46:53] [ inaudible ] traffic circle

[46:56] [ inaudible ]

[46:59] putting up.

[47:01] >> how much time do you have left?

[47:02] spin didn't he

[47:08] have 30

[47:10] seconds?

[47:11] >> if he can speak in that

[47:12] 30 seconds point

[47:13] >> you can

[47:14] finish the rest of the

[47:16] three minutes.

[47:17] >> it's not that adversarial.

[47:18] >>

[47:23] yeah right .

[47:24] >> now

[47:25] I'm representing ea. I'm the president

[47:26] of ea. We are trying to put the

[47:29] aircraft display on the traffic

[47:31] circle. We started three years ago.

[47:32] identical to the public, voted on

[47:33] the

[47:34] agenda, you approved it. It got stalled

[47:35] for about a year because the town

[47:36] attorney dennis

[47:38] dupre, christine smith and

[47:41] rob buchanan

[47:47] , you hired as a consultant, all

[47:48] realized there was a liability risk. I

[47:50] tried to say that there's no liability

[47:51] risk,

[47:52] it's a.'s traffic circle, adot issues

[47:53] traffic permit, took about a year,

[47:54] finally got it

[47:55] insult. The town agreed it was not

[47:56] a liability issue. We went ahead and

[47:57] filed the encroachment permit with

[47:59] a.and it was denied because rob buchanan,

[48:00] your consultant, got

[48:02] into it and he

[48:04] said that you didn't want to be in the

[48:05] same situation,

[48:06] he really didn't want it and you didn't want

[48:08] the liability of. Again, that liability

[48:09] --

[48:10] >>

[48:11] we are over the three minutes now.

[48:12] >> thank you. >> I would like

[48:14] to continue.

[48:15] >> you can talk.

[48:17] >> look out

[48:20] tonight again.

[48:21] >> are there any

[48:23] more speakers? One on zoom.

[48:26] let's

[48:29] take zoom.

[48:32] >> we see him

[48:35] back there.

[48:44] >> can you hear me?

[48:47] thank you for this opportunity to

[48:48] speak,

[48:50] town manager, town

[48:51] council, westermeier. I would also

[48:53] like to speak about

[48:56] the unfair

[49:02] rental amounts

[49:04] for the -- we'll call them the pho

[49:05] hangers even though they are not anymore. The

[49:06] town

[49:07] has always used a per square footage

[49:08] for the

[49:11] charges and for some reason we

[49:14] are being overcharged. Our base

[49:20] rate is $371. That's the same exact

[49:21] rate for the t

[49:23] hangers that are by the fuel pit.

[49:24] the fuel pit, as

[49:26] you've already heard, the fuel pit

[49:27] t

[49:28] hangers are newer, nicer, and bigger.

[49:30] and we don't

[49:33] feel that 371 base rate

[49:36] for our hangars is

[49:39] fair based on

[49:44] those facts , and we are being charged

[49:45] an additional $15

[49:46] for electricity. So we are actually

[49:48] being

[49:50] charged $386. The rate should be closer

[49:51] to

[49:53] $300, which I don't believe would

[49:57] be fair. Want to switch

[50:00] gears and talk

[50:03] about the malibu

[50:08] pool project, and I would just like

[50:09] to say I would like

[50:11] to ask that the town not spend another

[50:12] dollar on the proposed

[50:15] malibu pool project until after

[50:17] the bond election. I just feel like

[50:18] it's irresponsible to

[50:21] spend additional money when we

[50:24] don't know how the town is going

[50:28] to grow, one way or the other. So

[50:30] that's all I had to say. Thank

[50:33] you very much.

[50:34] >> thank you.

[50:36] >>

[50:39] mike quinn.

[50:42] >> my name is mike quinn. I'd

[50:47] just like to speak about the pool

[50:48] situation for a minute.

[50:49] I was doing some calculations. I think

[50:51] there's $75 a year is not

[50:54] much. I tried to

[50:57] figure out,

[50:58] my house has been appreciating every

[51:00] year. It's way more than

[51:05] $75. This business of squabbling over

[51:06] a small sum of money

[51:07] like that is ridiculous. $75 a year,

[51:09] that comes out to like six or seven

[51:10] bucks

[51:11] a month. That's a beer, that's a hamburger.

[51:12] not only that, if you

[51:15] do build this --if this is

[51:18] defeated and you

[51:19] go back to the old site, people are

[51:21] still going to have

[51:24] to pay two or three bucks a month

[51:25] so squabbling over this small sum

[51:26] of money is ridiculous and making

[51:27] an issue out of

[51:28] it to appease one group of people

[51:33] in town and ignore the

[51:34] other property owners, I guess the

[51:36] thing I'd like to say

[51:38] is I guarantee you, if we go with

[51:39] the malibu site

[51:40] and we build a nice recreation facility,

[51:42] my house

[51:44] appreciation will more than cover

[51:45] it. That's

[51:48] only $750 in 10 years. I'm

[51:49] not sure I'm going to live 10 years

[51:51] but it's well worth it

[51:54] to me and this squabbling over

[52:00] nickel and

[52:02] dimes is ridiculous. The other thing

[52:03] is the property values, letter a,

[52:04] are going

[52:05] to go up and down. That's going to

[52:06] help cover it. And secondly,

[52:07] more people are coming to town so

[52:09] you're going to get more revenue and let's

[52:10] not

[52:11] forget when we make america great

[52:12] again we are all going to be

[52:15] rich.

[52:18] thank you.

[52:21] >> and about? I see

[52:27] a hand.

[52:33] >> mayor, town council, I just

[52:34] want to formally introduce myself.

[52:36] my name is

[52:37] jimmy lee and I recently accepted

[52:39] the position of the chamber of

[52:42] commerce based here in

[52:43] payson. We represent all the small

[52:44] businesses both here in payson and

[52:45] around gila

[52:47] county and I just want to say we look

[52:48] forward to working

[52:50] with you and look forward to our partnership

[52:51] together, so thank you

[52:54] very much.

[52:55] >> thank

[52:57] you.

[53:00] >> inga?

[53:03] >> good afternoon mayor,

[53:06] council,

[53:08] and staff. I'm totally unprepared.

[53:09] I was not going to

[53:12] speak today but I've made some

[53:15] observations that bother me.

[53:18] the group for

[53:20] malibu pool is really well represented

[53:21] and

[53:24] they have some very

[53:25] good arguments, however, I've been

[53:27] attending quite a few of the

[53:30] refurbished taylor pool

[53:33] meetings and I have found a lot of

[53:34] sensible things

[53:36] come out of that. First of all, to

[53:37] me,

[53:39] the town in the past

[53:42] few years has not been fiscally responsible.

[53:44] there are three councilmembers that

[53:45] ran on

[53:48] transparency and fiscal responsibility,

[53:51] which means, check the figures.

[53:54] now esther quinn just brought up some

[53:59] figures about $75 a year. If you all

[54:00] go to united

[54:02] payson's facebook page, there is a

[54:06] chart there that you can

[54:09] calculate what your property tax and

[54:10] your

[54:12] home will increase. So I also work

[54:13] with

[54:15] the roundup and they run a

[54:18] poll so the

[54:21] town in

[54:23] the past promised many pie in the

[54:24] sky projects which

[54:25] have not come through. So I really

[54:27] appreciate

[54:28] those councilmembers that have worked

[54:30] hard at investigating all these facts.

[54:31] so

[54:33] the poll that the roundup

[54:36] ran showed

[54:39] no pool, 29.1%,

[54:42] renovate taylor

[54:45] pool, 59.1%.

[54:48] no pool, 11.8%. Now these figures

[54:49] come from people

[54:51] who

[54:54] have lived here many years. I've

[54:56] only been here 13 but I feel like

[54:57] I've been here 30 years. I'm

[54:59] really involved with the town and

[55:00] I like to listen to all the facts

[55:01] and figures.

[55:03] and these are my observations so again,

[55:04] you know,

[55:06] we need to really basically put this

[55:09] on hold and get down to the bottom.

[55:10] also

[55:12] the one thing that I

[55:14] heard some during these meetings,

[55:15] that malibu would really basically

[55:21] just serve the college and we are not going

[55:22] to get

[55:23] people from mesa out here because

[55:24] they've got their own thing. We

[55:27] are looking for the kids.

[55:30] the taylor pool will

[55:32] add two lanes. That will give us competition,

[55:33] which means a better economy. People

[55:35] will come up here for the competition

[55:36] meets that will increase revenue that

[55:37] not only

[55:39] the hotels but also the restaurant.

[55:40] so I got

[55:42] a lot more

[55:44] to share but I only have 25 minutes

[55:45] and I don't want to go

[55:47] off on a tangent, so please do think

[55:48] about some of the points that I

[55:50] brought up. I appreciate all of you

[55:52] and all the hard work that you

[55:53] put into this, and your passion about

[55:56] this town, which matches my passion

[55:57] for this town. Thank you so much and

[56:00] thank you, mr. Manager, for again

[56:04] taking up the sword and working

[56:10] with us , and with

[56:11] your common sense decisions.

[56:12] >> thank

[56:13] you, inga.

[56:14] >> thank

[56:16] you.

[56:17] >>

[56:19] anymore speakers? With that

[56:22] we'll move to item b,

[56:25] consent

[56:28] agenda.

[56:29] all items listed under the consent agenda will

[56:31] be voted on

[56:37] with one motion. The consent agenda

[56:38] includes

[56:39] items that are routine, procedural,

[56:40] informational, self-explanatory

[56:44] and noncontroversial. If discussion

[56:45] is desired regarding any consent agenda

[56:46] item, that

[56:49] item will be removed from the

[56:51] consent agenda, proceed to vote, and

[56:52] remaining consent agenda items will

[56:55] then return to discuss

[56:58] and vote on removed items

[57:00] separately. So ask for a motion on

[57:01] the

[57:07] consent agenda.

[57:09] >> I moved to approve the consent

[57:10] agenda.

[57:13] >> second? >> second with

[57:16] charlie bell.

[57:19] call for

[57:25] the vote.

[57:43] >> [ inaudible ] >> my

[57:46] thing --[ inaudible ]

[57:47] >> motion

[57:52] passes 7-0.

[57:55] >> current events,

[57:57] presentation by town manager, mayor,

[58:04] and/or councilmembers,

[58:06] c 1. Darren?

[58:07] >> you guys have anything

[58:08] first?

[58:09] >> I don't. >>

[58:10] no, nothing from council? Okay. Just

[58:11] a couple

[58:13] of things that

[58:16] we are working on

[58:17] and I think that most people in the

[58:19] audience will approve this. It won't

[58:22] take that long but soon you'll

[58:24] be able to go to the city of payson

[58:28] website and town of payson

[58:31] website,

[58:33] and there will be a new tab there,

[58:34] and it

[58:39] says ask city hall so if you heard

[58:40] a rumor in

[58:43] town or you saw something on

[58:45] facebook, and you want to get what

[58:46] the true facts

[58:48] are from the city, you can click on

[58:49] that building or

[58:52] that button within a day or so, depending

[58:53] on

[58:55] whose department

[58:57] it is, we'll respond directly to you

[58:58] what the stance of

[59:00] the city's is. When that becomes available,

[59:01] I'll let

[59:04] you

[59:07] know. I don't want to talk about

[59:12] that. Today counselor hollands and

[59:13] I were

[59:16] talking about how

[59:18] do we make the town of payson a better

[59:19] place and how do

[59:22] we get past some

[59:27] of the heartaches that the city is

[59:28] faced in the last couple

[59:30] of years. So I did some calling around

[59:37] and did some talking to some

[59:38] people. I spoke to the gardening club

[59:40] and I meet with them next week, and

[59:41] I also spoke

[59:42] with jesse perry, and I meet with

[59:43] him next week.

[59:46] one thing I think we should

[59:48] think of, maybe in the spring, is

[59:49] doing payson beautification

[59:52] day. We'll do it on

[59:54] a saturday. The city of payson can pay

[59:55] for our hot

[59:58] dogs and

[1:00:00] chili and people who participate,

[1:00:01] t-shirts, we'll have rakes ready for

[1:00:04] them, we'll have

[1:00:07] flowers, we'll

[1:00:08] have everything. We'll spend one day.

[1:00:10] the city crew can go out and pick

[1:00:11] up

[1:00:12] garbage, if it's something too big

[1:00:13] that you can't get we'll go and get

[1:00:15] it for them and we'll see if we can't

[1:00:16] make

[1:00:19] payson prettier. Just something

[1:00:21] that I'm thinking about as I meet

[1:00:22] with those people. I'll let

[1:00:25] you know.

[1:00:27] we'll shoot for something in the spring like

[1:00:28] that, that we can

[1:00:31] get the whole community behind something.

[1:00:32] I

[1:00:34] want you all to

[1:00:37] know, too that the

[1:00:40] 845,603 $33

[1:00:43] for the public safety retirement has

[1:00:45] been paid this year. No penalties

[1:00:46] for this

[1:00:51] year so we also meet with a crew that

[1:00:52] is

[1:00:55] called pars. Dana and I will meet

[1:00:58] with them in october and it's an

[1:01:01] investment firm that basically is

[1:01:02] for strictly

[1:01:04] for

[1:01:05] emergency services, retirement. Dana

[1:01:07] and I will also meet with an investment

[1:01:08] firm

[1:01:10] that does

[1:01:13] the purchasing of

[1:01:16] public bonds, public cds. You have

[1:01:17] all your

[1:01:18] money currently in basically one account. We

[1:01:19] are going to diversify that account

[1:01:20] so that we

[1:01:22] don't get ourselves tied up in a

[1:01:25] bad

[1:01:28] spot. Now

[1:01:30] I will give you a little update on

[1:01:32] the pool. This is going

[1:01:33] to be pretty short and sweet because

[1:01:37] our contractor has been sick and he

[1:01:38] also has

[1:01:41] been in africa fishing for

[1:01:47] bass so

[1:01:49] he gave us some numbers. I want to stress

[1:01:50] to everybody that these numbers are

[1:01:53] off of a 40% plan

[1:01:57] so they're not your final numbers.

[1:01:59] they're a 40%

[1:02:02] plan that

[1:02:04] we feel is reasonable to come up with

[1:02:05] the numbers

[1:02:08] but currently at

[1:02:11] a 40%

[1:02:14] cost estimate,

[1:02:17] rob feels that the

[1:02:18] pool can be done for $12.4 million

[1:02:20] excluding the cover. The pool

[1:02:23] can be

[1:02:25] done for $16 million with a cover.

[1:02:26] now

[1:02:29] I want to stress,

[1:02:31] you know, and everybody knows I just

[1:02:35] want to reiterate that

[1:02:38] that's 40% plans and I

[1:02:39] know that contractors feel pretty

[1:02:41] good about that but

[1:02:44] I just want to make sure that

[1:02:46] that's clear. But those are the numbers.

[1:02:47] he did

[1:02:50] cut some things out of it that

[1:02:52] you guys may have asked for so we

[1:02:56] are down to the nuts

[1:02:59] and bolts, you might say.

[1:03:02] I know I can't remember which one of you, what

[1:03:04] do you that asked for operating? Was

[1:03:05] it you

[1:03:08] that asked for operating,

[1:03:10] scott? And this is an estimate of

[1:03:11] communities

[1:03:13] around us, and then an estimate that

[1:03:14] rod

[1:03:17] put together, an estimate

[1:03:20] for

[1:03:26] expenses, $482,240. An estimate

[1:03:29] of revenues, $170,200. On

[1:03:32] the

[1:03:33] revenues, that all depends on what

[1:03:35] you guys want to do. If you want 12

[1:03:38] and under free, that's going to

[1:03:41] change that. If you want your senior

[1:03:44] citizens

[1:03:47] for free. And so, depending

[1:03:48] on the estimated expenses, you really

[1:03:49] can't forecast any project until it's

[1:03:50] been

[1:03:53] a year, until you know what

[1:03:54] your water costs are, what your chlorine

[1:03:56] costs are, what your power

[1:03:59] bill is, what

[1:04:01] your --but everybody around here says

[1:04:02] anywhere

[1:04:05] from

[1:04:06] 350 to 600,000 depending on what you

[1:04:11] got so you're looking at around

[1:04:14] $309,000 lost. That is a

[1:04:17] 36% return. Most people said

[1:04:19] that you can expect any place from

[1:04:23] 25% to

[1:04:26] 40%

[1:04:32] return so I

[1:04:33] want everybody to know, especially

[1:04:34] in the audience, that on september

[1:04:35] 30th the information pamphlet

[1:04:38] will come out that will have all

[1:04:43] the figures, also the city website

[1:04:44] that we put together

[1:04:45] will become available on that same

[1:04:47] day. Those are all

[1:04:49] just past figures that the council

[1:04:50] has

[1:04:53] been presented.

[1:04:56] nothing new.

[1:04:59] I guess

[1:05:02] that's it.

[1:05:15] >> I guess I'm disappointed that this

[1:05:16] information is being presented today.

[1:05:17] we are six

[1:05:18] weeks --

[1:05:19] >> mayor and council, I'm

[1:05:20] so sorry, we're not really supposed

[1:05:21] to have any discussion

[1:05:22] on how manager updates?

[1:05:23] >> we can't

[1:05:24] have discussion on it that we can

[1:05:25] have

[1:05:26] these numbers presented in favor,

[1:05:27] which could be in favor of

[1:05:28] the pool.

[1:05:29] >> mayor and council, as

[1:05:30] I have previously reminded as

[1:05:31] well as I am now, so they current

[1:05:32] events

[1:05:34] summary under open meeting laws is

[1:05:35] a one-way.

[1:05:36] it's only the town manager being able

[1:05:38] to provide an update on multiple topics

[1:05:39] and because

[1:05:40] it's multiple topics, the law basically

[1:05:41] states that it has to be

[1:05:44] one way, because there back and forth

[1:05:47] discussion. So you don't want to violate

[1:05:48] the open

[1:05:50] meeting law.

[1:05:51] >> then could

[1:05:52] I ask for maybe this to be put on

[1:05:53] the agenda

[1:05:54] next week, then, and I could make

[1:05:56] a presentation regarding

[1:05:59] the pool

[1:06:01] and the numbers?

[1:06:02] >> I think I share

[1:06:03] your concern about advocacy.

[1:06:04] obviously I gave a presentation right

[1:06:05] after we did the referral. For the

[1:06:08] bond. And certainly I would

[1:06:11] not

[1:06:14] recommend that the town be in a position where we

[1:06:15] are going to have

[1:06:16] more presentations about the pool until

[1:06:17] after the outcome of the election.

[1:06:18] >>

[1:06:19] then yeah, then I would think that

[1:06:20] we shouldn't be talking about

[1:06:23] any numbers in a council meeting regarding

[1:06:29] the bond.

[1:06:30] >> staff, you're out of

[1:06:31] order, either remove

[1:06:32] your self --remove yourself or

[1:06:37] be quiet . You're out of order. You're

[1:06:38] out of order.

[1:06:39] >> you're out

[1:06:41] of order.

[1:06:42] >> mayor and council,

[1:06:44] I would just again, because open

[1:06:47] meeting law issues, I would just --

[1:06:48] if we

[1:06:49] could maybe stop this discussion and

[1:06:50] just

[1:06:56] move on.

[1:06:57] >> that's all I have.

[1:07:02] >> okay. >> no other great news?

[1:07:07] >> no. >> on a brighter note, I want

[1:07:08] to thank our town manager

[1:07:10] for sending some of our leased vehicles

[1:07:11] that we didn't need back to

[1:07:13] their homes and saving the town of

[1:07:17] payson money.

[1:07:18] >> thank

[1:07:23] you.

[1:07:24] >>

[1:07:26] darren,

[1:07:28] what vehicle were you given to drive

[1:07:29] when you came here?

[1:07:30] >> I wasn't

[1:07:31] given one.

[1:07:32] >> I thought you had a

[1:07:33] 2019 car to drive.

[1:07:34] >> oh, you

[1:07:35] didn't offer that. But I

[1:07:37] think there's one new and that, that

[1:07:38] I'd rather like.

[1:07:45] >> okay. >> you told me you

[1:07:46] had a 2019 vehicle and it had less

[1:07:48] than 10,000 miles on it.

[1:07:49] >> yes

[1:07:50] there is one out there and there's

[1:07:51] actually one with --I

[1:07:55] don't know, dana is rocking it on

[1:07:57] this. She's going through and we

[1:07:58] discussed it again today but there's

[1:08:00] one out there that has less than

[1:08:01] 6000 miles on it, yeah.

[1:08:02] >> I think

[1:08:03] we're just going

[1:08:04] to keep because it's cheaper just

[1:08:06] to buy it than to

[1:08:07] send it back with that few of miles

[1:08:09] on it.

[1:08:10] >> thank you

[1:08:11] for taking the bull by the horns and

[1:08:12] getting some of those

[1:08:18] vehicles home

[1:08:22] because we didn't need the recurring

[1:08:23] expense and thank you to him.

[1:08:24] >> yes,

[1:08:25] thank you. Those are good things.

[1:08:26] >> those are good things. I forgot

[1:08:27] that we

[1:08:30] had anything under

[1:08:33] ceremonial announcements?

[1:08:36] cnn

[1:08:38] healing mom, hearings and appeals

[1:08:42] are not, that brings us to

[1:08:45] item f1 under resolutions

[1:08:47] and ordinances, discussion, possible

[1:08:48] action

[1:08:51] regarding

[1:08:56] resolution 3462, approving and authorizing infrastructure

[1:08:57] development

[1:08:59] agreement between town of payson,

[1:09:00] arizona, and payson

[1:09:05] golf club, llc, related to the infrastructure

[1:09:07] development of certain property located

[1:09:14] in town.

[1:09:15] >> thank you, mayor and council.

[1:09:16] tonight for your consideration is

[1:09:18] the resolution 3462, which approves

[1:09:21] infrastructure

[1:09:24] development agreement

[1:09:26] 24-001 between the town of payson

[1:09:27] and the payson golf club

[1:09:29] llc. The application for this agreement

[1:09:30] was submitted

[1:09:31] by the developer and has gone through

[1:09:33] multiple rounds of

[1:09:35] review. It's gone departments of legal

[1:09:36] council

[1:09:37] and the applicant's team including

[1:09:39] their attorney and engineer . In

[1:09:42] addition this proposal has

[1:09:45] been discussed in

[1:09:46] multiple council work sessions, which

[1:09:47] is giving council members the opportunity

[1:09:48] to provide direction

[1:09:50] to staff and clarify any of those

[1:09:51] expectations before bringing it back

[1:09:53] before you tonight. Just briefly,

[1:09:54] I will kind

[1:09:57] of go over what it is. It

[1:09:58] is a development agreement. It relates

[1:10:00] to a proposed

[1:10:03] development for 125 residential condominium

[1:10:06] units on the payson

[1:10:09] golf club property. There's

[1:10:10] some key infrastructure commitments

[1:10:12] in the project so the

[1:10:14] developer is going to fund and construct

[1:10:20] laid way roadway improvements. That

[1:10:21] includes roadway improvements, doll

[1:10:22] baby

[1:10:23] ranch road. We've got reconstruction

[1:10:24] of vista road, reconstruction on

[1:10:27] country club

[1:10:30] drive, full reconstruction, safety

[1:10:31] upgrades, three-way intersection of

[1:10:33] those three raids. Developer

[1:10:36] will be required

[1:10:37] to upgrade drainage to town standards

[1:10:39] for this project, to reconstruct

[1:10:42] golf

[1:10:43] club driveways, residential driveways,

[1:10:44] dedicate right-of-way to the town for

[1:10:45] vista and

[1:10:48] country club, and there is a portion

[1:10:50] of the doll baby ranch road that is

[1:10:51] that forest service piece so if

[1:10:52] approvals are delayed during that

[1:10:54] the developers have

[1:10:57] a

[1:10:58] cash payment equivalent for construction which is

[1:11:00] in the agreement. There

[1:11:01] are private streets proposed within

[1:11:03] the development which

[1:11:04] would remain private and not maintained

[1:11:05] by the town of payson. So this agreement

[1:11:08] does not replace any of our standard

[1:11:09] processes. We

[1:11:12] still have a

[1:11:16] standard subdivision plat and process

[1:11:17] approval they will still have to go

[1:11:18] through. This ultimately

[1:11:20] memorializes those variances at their

[1:11:21] request to move forward

[1:11:24] and

[1:11:25] design. The town also required all

[1:11:27] of the town codes still apply for

[1:11:28] the development

[1:11:29] and the agreement does expire in three

[1:11:30] years if the platting conditions are

[1:11:34] not met. This agreement has been carefully

[1:11:36] reviewed

[1:11:39] and discussed in

[1:11:40] alliance with the general plan and

[1:11:41] assures needed infrastructure is delivered

[1:11:42] at no cost

[1:11:45] to the town. I can provide any more

[1:11:46] breakdown of those specific variances

[1:11:47] that they are requesting or any other

[1:11:48] questions

[1:11:50] you have and the applicant is also

[1:11:51] here if you

[1:11:54] have questions for them

[1:11:57] as well.

[1:11:58] >> I have a question regarding

[1:11:59] the doll baby ranch road portion west

[1:12:03] of vista because as

[1:12:06] I look at the property

[1:12:08] lines, it's a sawtooth affair with

[1:12:09] forest service land and then

[1:12:11] golf course land and then service

[1:12:12] land so what you're

[1:12:15] telling us is

[1:12:18] there's going

[1:12:24] to be [ inaudible ] up until the sawtooth

[1:12:26] and then there will be nothing where

[1:12:27] it's forest service and they have

[1:12:28] to start

[1:12:29] again.

[1:12:30] >> you are correct it is a

[1:12:31] very

[1:12:32] sawtooth section of her there. Part

[1:12:33] of the agreement requires them to

[1:12:34] start the

[1:12:35] process of getting that cleaned up,

[1:12:36] essentially. We will be a partner

[1:12:37] in cleaning that

[1:12:38] up so the town will support whatever

[1:12:39] we can in those efforts. If they're

[1:12:40] unable to, they provide the cash to

[1:12:42] us and we are able to do those

[1:12:45] improvements if we need to.

[1:12:47] >> vista up towards the cemetery,

[1:12:48] there

[1:12:54] is some forks in the

[1:12:56] property lines. Do we know who --

[1:12:57] >> it all gets cleaned up with this

[1:12:59] so you have proper right-of-way designation

[1:13:00] with this so then what's currently

[1:13:01] roadway now

[1:13:02] is actually private property, so all

[1:13:03] of that actually gets dedicated for

[1:13:06] the town to continue

[1:13:08] to maintain.

[1:13:09] >> and payson golf course

[1:13:10] owns vista?

[1:13:11] >> correct. >>

[1:13:14] forest service owns much of doll baby

[1:13:15] ranch road?

[1:13:16] >> just a

[1:13:17] couple of those pieces you saw in

[1:13:18] that sawtooth so there's some breakups

[1:13:19] here.

[1:13:20] >> how

[1:13:21] much of the total business is that?

[1:13:23] >> how much of the forest service

[1:13:24] is owned?

[1:13:25] >> how

[1:13:27] much of --I saw in

[1:13:30] the presentation, how many feet, linear

[1:13:31] feet is going

[1:13:33] to take there, and

[1:13:35] I just wondered how much is forest

[1:13:36] service as a

[1:13:42] percentage or any

[1:13:44] --

[1:13:45] >> I don't have the breakdown unless

[1:13:46] the engineer -- do you have

[1:13:47] any breakdown?

[1:13:48] >> okay, yeah, just

[1:13:49] the doll

[1:13:51] baby side. The doll baby ranch road,

[1:13:52] the

[1:13:54] whole distance is 1575 feet so not

[1:13:55] all

[1:13:57] of

[1:14:01] that.

[1:14:02] >> and they

[1:14:03] put curb and gutter just on the golf

[1:14:04] course side, is that correct?

[1:14:05] >>

[1:14:07] of course side,

[1:14:08] which --

[1:14:09] >> the development side for

[1:14:10] the condos. They're not doing sides

[1:14:11] of the road.

[1:14:13] >> both sides. >> both

[1:14:16] sides, okay.

[1:14:19] >> that's my question.

[1:14:22] >> I think I know the answers to

[1:14:23] these but I got some questions on

[1:14:25] facebook

[1:14:28] about this specific project

[1:14:30] and I'm curious how long ago did the

[1:14:31] property zoning

[1:14:34] change

[1:14:35] for this because apparently nobody

[1:14:36] knows when the zoning changes were

[1:14:37] made, how or

[1:14:40] when, so I'm just

[1:14:41] curious.

[1:14:42] >> the zoning has not changed

[1:14:43] and it did not need to change. This

[1:14:44] is

[1:14:46] by right use for this parcel.

[1:14:49] it is zoned r 3 so

[1:14:50] they can do the condos without this

[1:14:51] development agreement, essentially

[1:14:52] pull

[1:14:55] a

[1:14:56] permit tomorrow for condos. The development

[1:14:57] agreement is to ask for those variances

[1:14:58] in

[1:15:01] the

[1:15:02] roadway standards for the three raids we

[1:15:03] mentioned.

[1:15:04] >> it was owned appropriately

[1:15:05] when the

[1:15:06] current owner purchased the golf course.

[1:15:07] okay. Is

[1:15:10] the current developer or

[1:15:11] owner receiving special considerations

[1:15:12] regarding street size or set backs?

[1:15:16] >> no. >> and

[1:15:19] has there been any traffic

[1:15:20] study consideration regarding the

[1:15:22] traffic that will be

[1:15:25] increased at green

[1:15:28] valley park?

[1:15:29] >> green

[1:15:30] valley park, I think the traffic study

[1:15:31] was designed for this specific site,

[1:15:33] for the golf course area, so that

[1:15:34] traffic

[1:15:36] study was done to determine if a left

[1:15:37] turn lane was

[1:15:38] essentially warranted on vista, which

[1:15:40] it

[1:15:42] was found not to be.

[1:15:43] >> nothing specifically

[1:15:44] to

[1:15:45] the increase of traffic that will

[1:15:46] be going by the park with

[1:15:52] the additional

[1:15:55] [ inaudible ] at the golf

[1:15:56] course?

[1:15:57] >> it didn't go that, no --

[1:15:58] >> in this situation the zoning that's

[1:15:59] already set up for that.

[1:16:00] >> typically

[1:16:01] your traffic study is going to review

[1:16:02] the

[1:16:03] impact of the traffic for that specific

[1:16:04] setting.

[1:16:07] >> awesome.

[1:16:10] appreciate

[1:16:13] it.

[1:16:14] >> just john hit

[1:16:16] some of it but a

[1:16:17] little more clarification for some

[1:16:19] of

[1:16:25] these threads.

[1:16:26] this is a public you municipal golf

[1:16:27] course or a public/private golf course?

[1:16:28] I know

[1:16:29] the answer.

[1:16:30] >> public/private. Is

[1:16:31] not a municipal golf course.

[1:16:32] >> this

[1:16:34] is not the town

[1:16:35] selling off half of its golf course

[1:16:37] and things of

[1:16:39] that nature.

[1:16:40] >> private property.

[1:16:41] >> this is somebody

[1:16:42] who privately owns the property and

[1:16:43] they're using their property within

[1:16:44] the

[1:16:46] zoning codes.

[1:16:47] >> yes, correct.

[1:16:52] >> okay. >> okay. >> show me

[1:16:54] that the answer will be yes on this

[1:16:55] but is the

[1:16:59] property owner happy with the result

[1:17:01] of what's going on here?

[1:17:02] >>

[1:17:04] we'll have to ask him and

[1:17:07] probably ask specifically why

[1:17:08] you are asking if he's happy about

[1:17:09] that.

[1:17:10] >> are you happy with all of

[1:17:11] this?

[1:17:12] is this going the way you want it

[1:17:15] to go?

[1:17:16] >> and you come and speak at

[1:17:17] the mike if you're --

[1:17:21] thank you

[1:17:22] >> can't see specifically

[1:17:23] if

[1:17:25] I'm happy or not but I can

[1:17:28] say that recently the

[1:17:31] town has been

[1:17:34] responsive in terms of getting this on

[1:17:35] the

[1:17:37] agenda and we

[1:17:40] have approved the

[1:17:43] infrastructure agreement and

[1:17:45] are pleased that we are moving forward.

[1:17:46] so yes, I

[1:17:51] am pleased.

[1:17:52] >> we'll change the word

[1:17:53] happy to pleased.

[1:17:54] >> okay. Any

[1:17:58] other questions?

[1:17:59] >> thank you.

[1:18:01] >> welcome.

[1:18:04] >>

[1:18:07] so am I --is there anyone else?

[1:18:10] so if mr. Jackson is well

[1:18:13] within his zoning rights, he and

[1:18:16] his company, sorry,

[1:18:19] doni, he

[1:18:22] and his company,

[1:18:25] they own -- they

[1:18:26] have ownership of the property and so

[1:18:28] I know that there are some who are

[1:18:31] definitely not

[1:18:33] in favor and some, this is always

[1:18:36] the case, not everybody is ever happy.

[1:18:37] there are some that are

[1:18:39] absolute it and we need the housing,

[1:18:40] and it

[1:18:43] will improve the golf course by

[1:18:46] some individuals case that

[1:18:49] they've made, but what this does come

[1:18:52] down to in my opinion

[1:18:54] is his personal or his privately owned

[1:18:58] ownership rights, so as long as he's

[1:18:59] done and

[1:19:01] will complete everything in the development

[1:19:04] agreement, and do you

[1:19:07] see any

[1:19:10] --foresee, and

[1:19:12] I'm not asking you to have a crystal

[1:19:13] ball, but I guess I kind of

[1:19:16] did, do you

[1:19:19] feel comfortable with this development

[1:19:20] agreement moving

[1:19:21] forward?

[1:19:22] >> staff can support the

[1:19:23] development agreement.

[1:19:24] >> all right.

[1:19:25] thank you.

[1:19:26] >> any other

[1:19:28] comments from council? As for a motion

[1:19:29] ?

[1:19:30] >>

[1:19:31] thanks,

[1:19:34] doni.

[1:19:35] >>

[1:19:40] I guess

[1:19:44] I have

[1:19:46] --

[1:19:47] >> you're on mission. >> you've got

[1:19:48] to state it.

[1:19:49] >>

[1:19:50] approval of resolution 3462, the infrastructure

[1:19:51] development

[1:19:53] agreement for the payson golf

[1:19:59] club llc. The second?

[1:20:02] >> I second. >>

[1:20:05] call for a vote?

[1:20:11] >> my [ inaudible ] >>

[1:20:14] I had to close out and

[1:20:16] go back in so swipe up, go out of

[1:20:17] it, close

[1:20:18] it and go back in, or both, whatever

[1:20:20] you want.

[1:20:29] >> for some reason it

[1:20:30] was in connection.

[1:20:31] >> is not happy

[1:20:32] with us today.

[1:20:33] >> motion

[1:20:38] passes 7-0.

[1:20:41] item #

[1:20:46] f 2, regarding ordinance 970 amending

[1:20:48] the town of payson code of ordinances by

[1:20:50] adopting

[1:20:53] title 15,

[1:20:56] chapter 150, section

[1:20:59] 150.31, wildfire structure

[1:21:00] hardening code pertaining to building

[1:21:02] standards to mitigate the spread

[1:21:05] of fire,

[1:21:06] including severability, revealing

[1:21:07] conflicting ordinances, setting forth

[1:21:08] penalty and establishing

[1:21:14] effective

[1:21:17] date. Okay. Already

[1:21:20] been two

[1:21:21] public hearings regarding this ordinance

[1:21:23] on

[1:21:25] may 14th, 2025. Council tabled this

[1:21:26] ordinance and directed staff

[1:21:28] to engage in additional outreach with

[1:21:29] the development

[1:21:30] and construction communities to refine

[1:21:32] the

[1:21:38] ordinance without making

[1:21:39] it too weak to carry weight, and then

[1:21:40] bring it back before the council.

[1:21:41] vice

[1:21:42] mayor tubbs requested the staff report,

[1:21:43] how many builders participated in the

[1:21:47] discussion, and kevin, you don't look

[1:21:50] like

[1:21:52] chief staab. If you're going to present,

[1:21:53] please present.

[1:21:54] >>

[1:21:55] just real quick in your very first

[1:21:59] statement,

[1:22:00] this is not the first time we've heard

[1:22:02] of this.

[1:22:03] >> not the first time.

[1:22:04] >> it's been mentioned a bunch that

[1:22:05] this was sprung on us and it's not

[1:22:08] new.

[1:22:09] >> may 14th, to

[1:22:10] be exact, yes.

[1:22:11] >> mr. Mayor, yes I'm

[1:22:12] the one on

[1:22:14] the agenda but

[1:22:15] the reality is chief mcculley has

[1:22:16] been carrying this week all the way

[1:22:17] through

[1:22:19] and so it is honor to send it to the

[1:22:24] council

[1:22:25] >> would you like to make

[1:22:26] an announcement about chief mcculley?

[1:22:27] >> the other

[1:22:28] part of this is battalion chief mcculley,

[1:22:29] as of monday, is now assistant chief

[1:22:32] mcculley and will be

[1:22:35] running operations [ inaudible ]

[1:22:38] >> congratulations. >> that's

[1:22:41] outstanding

[1:22:43] news, congratulations.

[1:22:44] >> enjoyed

[1:22:45] working with him and the fire

[1:22:49] department went as we figure out how

[1:22:50] to lead a public safety initiative.

[1:22:51] it

[1:22:53] will be a lot

[1:22:56] of fun

[1:22:58] , along with commander d's.

[1:22:59] >> well-deserved,

[1:23:00] congratulations.

[1:23:01] >> well-deserved. Thank

[1:23:02] you

[1:23:03] very much. It's my honor. Mr. Mayor,

[1:23:04] embers of the town council,

[1:23:05] mr. Manager, thank you for having

[1:23:06] me here to talk to you about this.

[1:23:10] I believe I did have a powerpoint

[1:23:11] so this kind of

[1:23:13] throws me off a little bit but ultimately

[1:23:17] my job here is to give you

[1:23:19] as much facts and information necessary to

[1:23:20] make a good

[1:23:23] decision on this item,

[1:23:26] this ordinance. Between

[1:23:29] chief staab and myself we have probably

[1:23:32] over 78 years of

[1:23:36] experience five we are members of

[1:23:37] a national group of firefighters that

[1:23:44] at this

[1:23:45] problem throughout the united states.

[1:23:47] we are also involved in

[1:23:48] efforts to look at the insurance problem

[1:23:50] across the

[1:23:53] united states, especially in the west, so

[1:23:54] we

[1:23:56] don't

[1:23:57] present this information out of a

[1:23:59] vacuum. This is our job for you and

[1:24:02] the town to come up with this information

[1:24:05] and these recommendations.

[1:24:08] so in

[1:24:10] the powerpoint I broke it up into

[1:24:11] kind of three different

[1:24:14] sections. The

[1:24:17] first section was

[1:24:19] a report, synopsis of what we had

[1:24:20] with the meeting, with the

[1:24:23] holders.

[1:24:26] we asked

[1:24:27] community development to publicize

[1:24:29] this meeting to the best of their

[1:24:30] abilities,

[1:24:32] including emails, advertising

[1:24:35] it on

[1:24:38] the paper. To my knowledge, they

[1:24:40] did that, they went forward and advertised it

[1:24:41] to the best that they could.

[1:24:44] we had seven contractors

[1:24:47] show up for the meeting and in

[1:24:53] that meeting the principal issues

[1:24:54] in

[1:24:56] that meeting --

[1:24:58] and this is going off the top of my

[1:24:59] head, so we were talking

[1:25:02] about

[1:25:05] the eaves, protection of the eaves being

[1:25:08] expensive, protection of

[1:25:11] the docs so in the ordinance, what

[1:25:14] it requires is if you have open

[1:25:17] eaves you have

[1:25:20] ignition

[1:25:27] resistant plywood for the part

[1:25:28] of the event overhangs the wall, if

[1:25:30] that makes sense, so

[1:25:32] right now what happens is that particular

[1:25:35] plywood has to be a special exterior

[1:25:39] grade plywood anyway, so

[1:25:40] that's why, when you look at homes

[1:25:42] that are

[1:25:44] being built, that there is like a

[1:25:45] little

[1:25:46] strip around the eaves, if they are

[1:25:47] open eaves. That's a special type

[1:25:48] of plywood

[1:25:51] called cd

[1:25:54] x. So we researched

[1:25:57] the cost. You can readily get

[1:26:00] the

[1:26:01] fire resistant plywood that meets

[1:26:03] that same

[1:26:06] standard and if we

[1:26:08] consider a house that's probably 2600

[1:26:15] square feet , the difference off the

[1:26:16] top of my head, it was somewhere around

[1:26:21] $560 difference in

[1:26:24] the

[1:26:25] past, the fire rated plywood and the

[1:26:27] normal cd x that you would normally

[1:26:28] have

[1:26:29] to use. That's considering that it

[1:26:33] takes 25 four by eight sheets of

[1:26:36] that plywood to

[1:26:39] do that, that eve

[1:26:41] protection. So the second part of

[1:26:42] that

[1:26:45] was the decks. So in

[1:26:46] this ordinance we require that the

[1:26:48] structure of

[1:26:51] the deck the initial resistant

[1:26:54] or noncombustible and that the

[1:26:57] deck surface can still be wood but

[1:26:58] with quarter inch gaps between the

[1:27:00] wood. That's based

[1:27:03] on some ib hs

[1:27:06] studies that they tested

[1:27:07] different deck structures and they

[1:27:09] found that if

[1:27:12] you had ignition resistant

[1:27:14] structure underneath, that it was

[1:27:15] less likely to catch

[1:27:18] fire from the embers so looking

[1:27:24] at that, there's 2 by 12,

[1:27:29] I believe, 16 foot structural supports for

[1:27:30] the

[1:27:35] deck and those would have to be treated

[1:27:36] in this

[1:27:39] code, and that was about $700 difference

[1:27:42] between the

[1:27:45] normal nontreated wood and the

[1:27:48] treated wood. That's considering

[1:27:51] the 25 two by 12 by

[1:27:54] 16 foot in the

[1:27:55] council package there was the quote

[1:27:57] that we got from the

[1:28:00] building supply indicating

[1:28:06] those costs.

[1:28:09] this items were probably the top

[1:28:12] two concerns of

[1:28:15] the

[1:28:16] contractors. First contractors --

[1:28:18] one other concern that

[1:28:21] there probably shared

[1:28:22] concern was the siding on a structure.

[1:28:24] so

[1:28:28] the normal ignition resistant siding

[1:28:30] is actually less

[1:28:32] expensive than regular siding or other

[1:28:33] types

[1:28:36] of siding. If you want to go with

[1:28:37] the wood

[1:28:39] kind of look. If you

[1:28:42] get

[1:28:43] real wood siding, which a couple of

[1:28:45] our developments require, that

[1:28:47] is about 37% more expensive for the

[1:28:51] treated wood. That wood has to be

[1:28:52] special

[1:28:53] ordered and is treated at the factory.

[1:28:54] it's not something you

[1:28:57] can just treat in the

[1:29:00] field but

[1:29:03] from my research it's about 37%

[1:29:09] more expensive. I wish I had my powerpoint.

[1:29:11] it was a little bit better organized.

[1:29:12] so

[1:29:15] from those top three concerns, some

[1:29:17] of the contractors voiced concerns

[1:29:18] that

[1:29:21] the rule

[1:29:23] wasn't necessary. We didn't need another

[1:29:24] room to

[1:29:27] comply with and I think one of the

[1:29:29] contractors told me outside of the

[1:29:33] meeting that they

[1:29:34] basically didn't want more rules to

[1:29:36] have to worry about

[1:29:37] building when they're building a house.

[1:29:41] I understand there's a lot of rules

[1:29:42] that they have to comply with. I think

[1:29:45] that's pretty much the

[1:29:48] nutshell of the main

[1:29:51] contractor concerns.

[1:29:52] >> can I

[1:29:54] ask a question?

[1:29:55] >>

[1:29:56] yes sir.

[1:29:57] >> do we have any minutes

[1:30:00] or anything to see what the

[1:30:02] discussions were and how they responded to

[1:30:03] all

[1:30:06] of this? Because I didn't see anything

[1:30:07] published

[1:30:11] anywhere and I've been reading the

[1:30:12] roundup for the past

[1:30:15] 10 years, and there might be

[1:30:18] a few roundups I didn't see but

[1:30:21] I

[1:30:22] didn't see any advertisement anywhere

[1:30:24] on this. Maybe

[1:30:27] someone can correct me on this,

[1:30:30] when the advertisements happen.

[1:30:31] >>

[1:30:32] it's on the

[1:30:33] town facebook.

[1:30:34] >> on the town facebook

[1:30:35] so it

[1:30:36] was just the

[1:30:39] town facebook.

[1:30:40] >> some people do

[1:30:41] not --someone sent me a screenshot

[1:30:42] asking me about this and I sent

[1:30:43] it to different contractors that I

[1:30:45] knew, that by the time I'd seen it

[1:30:48] and it was sent to me, they had like

[1:30:51] 48 hour --they would've

[1:30:53] had 48 hour notice. So I think that

[1:30:54] the timing of this

[1:30:57] meeting and the notification, like

[1:30:58] putting it

[1:31:00] out on the town website probably wasn't

[1:31:03] the best way to do it. It would've

[1:31:04] been

[1:31:06] really help if we had that information,

[1:31:07] too, since

[1:31:09] we are the ones that kind of have

[1:31:10] received the

[1:31:12] phone calls and the nasty grams it

[1:31:13] would've

[1:31:16] been really helpful to have

[1:31:18] that because if I would've had a little

[1:31:19] bit more time,

[1:31:20] maybe one of us would've been there.

[1:31:22] >> I was going

[1:31:23] to ask, was any councilmember invited to

[1:31:25] any of these meetings or to

[1:31:28] that effect or anything

[1:31:31] at

[1:31:32] all?

[1:31:33] >> so mr. Mayor, councilmember

[1:31:34] bell,

[1:31:36] I believe tracy, if I'm not mistaken,

[1:31:37] it was advertised in

[1:31:40] the

[1:31:43] roundup adjust

[1:31:46] paper advertisement we

[1:31:47] ran, so it was advertisement around

[1:31:48] it. It was put on social media. It

[1:31:49] was put

[1:31:50] on the website. As far as the council

[1:31:52] being invited, the short answer

[1:31:55] is no because

[1:31:57] we weren't trying to make it a council

[1:31:58] meeting. We were trying

[1:31:59] to have a staff meeting with the contractors.

[1:32:00] we understand the direction from council

[1:32:01] to

[1:32:02] meet was you wanted us to go back

[1:32:04] and meet with the contractors

[1:32:05] and that's what we did was we met

[1:32:06] with the contractors but we did try

[1:32:10] --the other part

[1:32:11] of that is I believe community development

[1:32:13] put out word to

[1:32:14] several of the contractor so we tried

[1:32:15] a number of different ways to get contractors

[1:32:16] and

[1:32:19] we had six, seven days, so the

[1:32:22] other part that I will also remind council is

[1:32:25] this code recommendation has been

[1:32:28] through the council's building

[1:32:29] advisory board, which has contractors

[1:32:34] on it, before we even brought

[1:32:36] it to council the first time . So

[1:32:37] it has had

[1:32:38] a number of public will chappy product.

[1:32:40] it's not been trying to

[1:32:46] detect product

[1:32:48] in any way but there's only so many

[1:32:49] ways

[1:32:50] we have to communicate out to the

[1:32:51] public and different people, as you

[1:32:52] mentioned,

[1:32:53] have different ways of reading and

[1:32:55] we tried to do as many as we could.

[1:32:56] >> I'm not accusing. I'm just -->> covering

[1:32:58] our end and your end.

[1:32:59] >>

[1:33:00] just asking. I haven't seen anything.

[1:33:01] >> it's just

[1:33:04] me,

[1:33:07] I'm sure. I'm not a real social

[1:33:09] media guru.

[1:33:10] >> mr. Farris, go ahead.

[1:33:11] >>

[1:33:13] this call --this code, what it

[1:33:16] adds, we already have a

[1:33:19] code.

[1:33:21] you're talking about the 2600 square foot

[1:33:22] home, which is a pretty

[1:33:25] good-sized home that

[1:33:27] you believe that the contractors may

[1:33:31] have discussed would

[1:33:32] be added onto that 2600 square foot

[1:33:34] home today with this

[1:33:37] new code? Doing

[1:33:40] the plus

[1:33:43] and minuses?

[1:33:44] >> if you

[1:33:45] were to have the home that you're

[1:33:46] just looking at the deck, the fire

[1:33:50] resistant nests of the deck and the

[1:33:52] eaves I believe is

[1:33:55] about

[1:33:58] $1200 roughly.

[1:34:01] I

[1:34:02] had the powerpoint but it's hard to

[1:34:04] go off the top of my head. It's

[1:34:05] right around $1200.

[1:34:06] >> in that $1200

[1:34:07] represents what, maybe 75% of the

[1:34:10] added cost that

[1:34:13] the new ordinance

[1:34:15] puts into, creates?

[1:34:16] >> probably, so

[1:34:17] the ordinance

[1:34:19] is designed so that you can

[1:34:20] build your house pretty much any way

[1:34:22] you want. There is no limitations

[1:34:23] on how

[1:34:25] you build

[1:34:28] it so you

[1:34:29] have houses that look identical to

[1:34:30] what they do today. It's just that

[1:34:31] if

[1:34:34] you decide to have open eaves

[1:34:37] or you decide, excuse me,

[1:34:40] to have a deck, then

[1:34:42] there are procedures that you need

[1:34:43] to follow to

[1:34:46] protect those.

[1:34:47] >> that siding

[1:34:48] would be a huge figure if they decide

[1:34:49] to have

[1:34:52] wood and it has to be treated. I mean

[1:34:53] that's

[1:34:55] got to add I

[1:34:58] think --

[1:34:59] >> about

[1:35:01] 37%.

[1:35:02] >> what that

[1:35:04] 37% represents [ inaudible

[1:35:10] ] dollars .

[1:35:12] >> that's part of the reason I did

[1:35:13] it that way, because it's hard to

[1:35:14] quantify that exactly, how much wood

[1:35:16] do you put on the house and how

[1:35:19] big is the house. So the best way

[1:35:20] to

[1:35:22] quantify that would've

[1:35:23] been the percentage.

[1:35:24] >> would it be

[1:35:25] fair to say on an average home,

[1:35:28] your cost

[1:35:31] is substantially less than $5000 more

[1:35:34] with this

[1:35:37] new code than

[1:35:40] the existing?

[1:35:41] >>

[1:35:43] it's hard to quantify that, honestly,

[1:35:48] because there's so many different

[1:35:49] ways to build a house.

[1:35:50] >> I was just thinking, you build

[1:35:52] a house this way and this one

[1:35:55] is built a little

[1:35:56] different we, generally, you would

[1:35:58] think

[1:36:00] that generally there would be a number

[1:36:01] that you

[1:36:04] can say, on average it's going

[1:36:07] to add $3500 to

[1:36:13] the structure.

[1:36:16] >> mr.

[1:36:21] mayor, maybe I can help council understand the

[1:36:22] direction the fire

[1:36:25] department went in

[1:36:26] drafting the code, based on the direction

[1:36:27] from the building advisory board,

[1:36:28] was they wanted a very

[1:36:31] open code that

[1:36:34] didn't make

[1:36:40] cookie-cutter houses, didn't make everything

[1:36:41] cement, a lot of options.'s that was the

[1:36:43] direction we went based

[1:36:44] upon the science, so it's a little difficult

[1:36:46] to kind of put your point in because we

[1:36:47] all must

[1:36:48] have to take a building package for

[1:36:49] the house today and then try to get

[1:36:50] a

[1:36:51] building package, is it $5000? Some

[1:36:52] houses might be $5000. Some may

[1:36:54] be more. Not very many less but we

[1:36:55] also have a

[1:36:58] number of builders already that are

[1:36:59] building with the

[1:37:01] materials to code

[1:37:06] already so that's part of the challenge

[1:37:07] with this is we made it

[1:37:09] very open on the building advisory

[1:37:10] board so it's not

[1:37:13] --it's performance, not prescriptive.

[1:37:16] >> [

[1:37:19] inaudible ], correct?

[1:37:20] >> that's correct.

[1:37:21] >>

[1:37:22] so that's ecstatic please and but

[1:37:23] you

[1:37:24] can go to a roofing store and get

[1:37:25] synthetic looking roofing

[1:37:28] that looks --

[1:37:29] >> you can get tile

[1:37:32] roof that is like a shake

[1:37:33] shingle roof, correct.

[1:37:34] >> and its

[1:37:35] way cheaper than

[1:37:36] the shake roofs are, the natural shake

[1:37:38] roofs and it

[1:37:41] meets code. I

[1:37:43] was recently looking for siding because

[1:37:44] somebody in their

[1:37:46] infinite wisdom sided my house with

[1:37:47] plastic

[1:37:50] and I'm not

[1:37:52] thrilled but some of the composites

[1:37:53] that are

[1:37:56] out there with amazing fire

[1:37:58] ratings are cheaper than natural wood

[1:37:59] by

[1:38:02] far so

[1:38:05] given the trade-offs and

[1:38:06] the improvements in the synthetic

[1:38:08] materials

[1:38:11] each year, there may

[1:38:14] be an increase now for

[1:38:17] things like decks but I think going

[1:38:20] forward the cost

[1:38:21] of a hardened code is going to get

[1:38:23] less every year or

[1:38:25] the increase is going to be less as

[1:38:26] other

[1:38:29] materials raised in price.

[1:38:31] the synthetic siding was very, very

[1:38:32] reasonable and

[1:38:35] had a very good fire

[1:38:36] rating.

[1:38:37] >> I believe you're correct,

[1:38:38] mr. Mayor. We

[1:38:41] actually had 1800 square

[1:38:44] foot house plan bid out normally

[1:38:48] and with fire resistant siding it

[1:38:50] actually came out less expensive than

[1:38:53] typical and

[1:38:54] the reason for that was the siding

[1:38:56] was so much less

[1:38:59] expensive so I'm seeing that

[1:39:01] because I'm trying to make you understand

[1:39:05] that there's a wide variety

[1:39:07] of that and really we want it that

[1:39:08] way so the

[1:39:11] contractor has that

[1:39:13] ability and the homeowner, the builder,

[1:39:14] they have that ability to build

[1:39:17] it the way they want so

[1:39:18] we're trying to leave that open but

[1:39:20] we are still trying

[1:39:23] to make the

[1:39:26] necessary protections that

[1:39:28] will count. So I vhs is a company

[1:39:29] that is studies

[1:39:32] on how houses burn

[1:39:35] in conflagrations and

[1:39:36] wildland fires. They have come up

[1:39:38] with standards that

[1:39:39] depict what the insurance companies

[1:39:41] listen to as

[1:39:44] far as rating their

[1:39:50] risk and I'm not a specialist

[1:39:51] in insurance but I understand insurance

[1:39:53] has a

[1:39:54] wide matrix of different things that

[1:39:56] go

[1:39:58] in to determining that risk so it's

[1:39:59] not just

[1:40:05] here in arizona that we are

[1:40:06] having this issue. Obviously california

[1:40:08] is having that,

[1:40:10] colorado, a lot of different states

[1:40:11] are having this

[1:40:13] insurance issue and ultimately the

[1:40:14] insurance companies, they want to

[1:40:15] make

[1:40:17] money so they make money by

[1:40:20] ensuring houses but they have to limit

[1:40:23] their risks so one

[1:40:25] of the recognized ways to limit that

[1:40:26] risk is following the I vhs

[1:40:29] standard. So with

[1:40:32] that, what we came up with is in

[1:40:35] that meeting the

[1:40:38] contractors ask to take out the eve

[1:40:41] protection in

[1:40:43] the deck protection and really we

[1:40:44] found out that if we

[1:40:47] do that it waters down

[1:40:49] the code so much that it would be

[1:40:50] an

[1:40:53] effective code and obviously the insurance

[1:40:55] companies wouldn't see that as reducing

[1:40:58] the risk so there's a couple different

[1:40:59] items that

[1:41:02] are here that are

[1:41:05] obviously ultimately, if we hardening the

[1:41:08] structures it's an

[1:41:10] important part of the [ inaudible

[1:41:11] ] code and the vegetation code that

[1:41:13] we already have but to harden the

[1:41:14] structures, what that does

[1:41:17] is reduce the chance of

[1:41:20] conflagrations so you look at

[1:41:23] these fires, like the marshall

[1:41:25] fire in colorado, that was only a

[1:41:26] 6000 acre fire and they

[1:41:31] lost over 1000 structures. I think

[1:41:32] it was in the billions of dollars

[1:41:35] that it cost but that was a structure

[1:41:38] to structure

[1:41:41] ignition and I vhs

[1:41:43] has found that if you harden the structures

[1:41:44] they are resistant

[1:41:47] to that. It might not complete the

[1:41:50] stop that from happening but the

[1:41:53] way it kind of works is once structure

[1:41:54] starts and it's

[1:41:56] kind of like a plan

[1:41:58] to gain, it will go from structure to

[1:41:59] structure so if you can keep

[1:42:00] that first structure from starting

[1:42:02] or

[1:42:03] reduce the second structure, the chances

[1:42:05] the second structure starts, that

[1:42:06] reduces

[1:42:08] your risks all

[1:42:11] the structures

[1:42:14] get damaged.

[1:42:20] >> I used my computer. >>

[1:42:23] go ahead.

[1:42:24] >> so kevin, I appreciate all

[1:42:26] the work that you've done on

[1:42:31] this and I am an extremist when it

[1:42:32] comes to fire wise. My

[1:42:35] big issue is

[1:42:38] a cost for the consumer. No

[1:42:41] matter what, it's going to continue

[1:42:44] to increase in cost 40 consumer.

[1:42:47] we had 60% increase

[1:42:51] since david for building materials

[1:42:53] and then we are adding this, and it's

[1:42:54] not about

[1:42:56] what the contract --

[1:42:58] contractor wants, it's about what's

[1:42:59] really best for the consumer

[1:43:02] here and so we've had as far as

[1:43:05] a town, and

[1:43:08] this is some very key

[1:43:11] things that kind of

[1:43:14] made sense is that we have increased

[1:43:15] our

[1:43:17] sales

[1:43:19] tax, which costs more to build here.

[1:43:20] you want to live

[1:43:23] here and play here, you've got

[1:43:26] to pay to live here and play

[1:43:29] here, but in all reality, I do have

[1:43:30] a question

[1:43:33] and I'm not really

[1:43:36] trying to be picky against you,

[1:43:41] I just need to know these things for

[1:43:42] myself and my own

[1:43:43] education. The cost estimate that

[1:43:45] was

[1:43:48] done, was this done and

[1:43:51] created by a

[1:43:52] rim country contractor who did the

[1:43:54] cost estimates

[1:43:56] package, and where those --and if

[1:43:57] not, where

[1:43:58] at least those estimates, where they

[1:44:00] from a

[1:44:03] local

[1:44:05] business here like the r and k or

[1:44:06] what used

[1:44:09] to be the r

[1:44:11] and k? Because I know that our prices

[1:44:12] here are a lot

[1:44:15] different than other cities,

[1:44:18] towns, states. We

[1:44:19] already pay a little bit of premium

[1:44:21] so

[1:44:24] I will tell you

[1:44:27] that yes,

[1:44:29] the insurance, in talking to some

[1:44:31] insurance agents, this is not going

[1:44:33] to be

[1:44:36] our fix all

[1:44:37] for our homeowners insurance. Our

[1:44:39] biggest issue that we have

[1:44:42] is our brush and being

[1:44:45] actually our defensible

[1:44:48] space as,

[1:44:50] was it gino pointed out in his letter,

[1:44:51] that is a

[1:44:54] true fact

[1:44:57] so again, you know

[1:44:59] we have to --I feel like we have to

[1:45:00] be

[1:45:03] wise about this and if this

[1:45:09] is the to know what I

[1:45:12] don't

[1:45:13] see maybe and maybe I'm wrong, I'm not

[1:45:15] a builder. I don't

[1:45:18] do that but the labor in the

[1:45:19] eaves have to be in additional cost

[1:45:24] to this, if I'm not mistaken.

[1:45:27] okay. So did we factor that in?

[1:45:29] those are other things that I think

[1:45:33] are key things to think

[1:45:36] about. I just am not --I'm not

[1:45:39] comfortable with this because

[1:45:42] I feel like the consumer

[1:45:45] is continually

[1:45:47] chased and bid at for every dollar,

[1:45:48] and

[1:45:51] when you are in the process of

[1:45:54] redoing

[1:45:55] your home, renovating, things like

[1:45:57] that,

[1:45:59] that is --maybe that's the issue.

[1:46:00] maybe that's where we look

[1:46:03] into it but I mean if we

[1:46:05] look at the number of homes that we

[1:46:06] have under construction, we

[1:46:09] are landlocked here. We only

[1:46:12] have so many

[1:46:14] to go. Wet is the benefits going to

[1:46:15] outweigh? We

[1:46:16] don't want to give any reason to chase

[1:46:18] off

[1:46:21] taxpayers because we priced

[1:46:23] ourselves we put ourselves into a

[1:46:24] position, I

[1:46:27] should say, to price them out our market.

[1:46:30] we are already --we

[1:46:32] have that issue with our low income,

[1:46:33] our people on

[1:46:36] fixed incomes, so I just sensitive

[1:46:37] to

[1:46:39] that, that I --it's --

[1:46:42] I'm sorry, the builders, they

[1:46:45] are going to pass it on. They're

[1:46:48] not

[1:46:49] going to make anything on it. They're

[1:46:51] going to pass it on and ultimately

[1:46:52] it's

[1:46:53] going to be the consumer's pocket, so

[1:46:54] I just --unless

[1:46:56] I absolutely we saw those numbers,

[1:46:57] I would also

[1:47:00] have been a little

[1:47:02] bit more -- maybe it's just being a

[1:47:03] control freak but I

[1:47:06] would've liked to have

[1:47:09] some more information about that meeting

[1:47:10] that

[1:47:12] they had as

[1:47:15] well but at this time I can't

[1:47:18] support this. I can't vote on

[1:47:21] this.

[1:47:22] >> you bring up some excellent

[1:47:24] points and

[1:47:29] some that I would appreciate the chance to address,

[1:47:30] if you don't

[1:47:33] mind.

[1:47:34] >> absolutely, please, please,

[1:47:35] because I had surgery the day before

[1:47:36] and was not --I appreciate that so

[1:47:39] thank you.

[1:47:40] >> so we did use

[1:47:41] arizona building supply here in town

[1:47:42] to get these prices.

[1:47:45] we did talk to their wholesale folks

[1:47:48] in phoenix about the

[1:47:51] availability of that material specifically,

[1:47:57] the treated 2 by 12 by 16 and

[1:48:00] the plywood, and as far

[1:48:03] as more costly to use a

[1:48:06] different type

[1:48:09] of plywood, it's just

[1:48:12] the same --it's

[1:48:15] the same procedure. Still that eave

[1:48:16] has

[1:48:18] to have the different type

[1:48:21] of plywood

[1:48:23] on it for the extra rating. All this

[1:48:24] is

[1:48:27] adding the plywood would be fire

[1:48:30] resistant so the cost in

[1:48:33] manual labor to do that,

[1:48:36] I question that. I think you

[1:48:39] talk about, so the

[1:48:41] manufactured homes, I spoke to clayton

[1:48:45] holmes and they're actually

[1:48:46] in goodyear, I believe. They said

[1:48:48] their package

[1:48:51] is $1800. That adds to the cost

[1:48:54] of a manufactured home.

[1:48:57] the national manufactured home

[1:49:00] association said that's not a

[1:49:01] problem to build homes, manufactured

[1:49:03] home like that. They build homes

[1:49:06] in oberdick and

[1:49:08] withstand hurricanes, and so it's

[1:49:14] not unusual to have different requirements in

[1:49:15] different areas of the

[1:49:18] country. I would also --two more

[1:49:21] things that I would submit for you

[1:49:22] to consider

[1:49:24] is that if

[1:49:30] homeowners insurance somehow

[1:49:33] isn't controlled

[1:49:36] or mitigated, and I have seen

[1:49:39] this personally

[1:49:41] within payson already, people losing

[1:49:42] their homeowners insurance or having

[1:49:43] their insurance

[1:49:45] go up astronomically, so

[1:49:48] if you consider a homeowners

[1:49:52] insurance going from $1500 a

[1:49:55] year to 6000 dollars a year,

[1:49:57] you know that's almost another $500

[1:50:01] a month in your mortgage payment

[1:50:04] to make that

[1:50:07] insurance

[1:50:10] payment. So I'm not guaranteeing

[1:50:13] that this -- I can't guarantee

[1:50:14] all the insurance companies would

[1:50:15] look at this as being something that

[1:50:16] mitigated

[1:50:17] their risk because I can't speak for

[1:50:22] them and they all have their

[1:50:23] own matrix and ways that they figured

[1:50:25] out that risk but

[1:50:27] I bhs is who they listen to and they

[1:50:28] have

[1:50:29] recommended this is a way to reduce

[1:50:31] their risks so

[1:50:35] I would think that. Another thing

[1:50:36] that I had in my slideshow that I

[1:50:40] think is --

[1:50:41] >> where was your

[1:50:45] slideshow? Kevin?

[1:50:46] >> I know, flying

[1:50:48] by the seat of my pants here so in

[1:50:49] the hawaii,

[1:50:52] the lahaina fire, it wasn't a

[1:50:55] large fire, similar to

[1:50:58] the marshall fire in colorado,

[1:51:00] but it did billions of dollars worth

[1:51:01] of damage to

[1:51:02] those homes, and is to be homes, if

[1:51:04] you've ever been to maui, they

[1:51:07] all

[1:51:08] had shake shingle roofs. They really

[1:51:09] weren't built for fires. Interesting

[1:51:13] part of that

[1:51:16] whole thing

[1:51:17] , insurance companies wanted to go

[1:51:19] individually against the state

[1:51:22] and the county and

[1:51:26] electric companies, and what do they

[1:51:28] call it when they go after

[1:51:34] their insurance --subrogate.

[1:51:35] they were trying to individually subrogate

[1:51:37] against the county,

[1:51:40] the state, the power

[1:51:42] companies on each person's behalf

[1:51:43] and they

[1:51:46] took it to I think the hawaii

[1:51:49] supreme court, and they

[1:51:51] said no, that's unreasonable. But

[1:51:52] out

[1:51:54] of that, there was a settlement, I

[1:51:55] think a $4

[1:51:56] million settlement against the state

[1:51:58] of hawaii, the

[1:52:01] county of maui, and

[1:52:04] the electrical companies. So you

[1:52:07] look at the palisades fire

[1:52:10] in

[1:52:11] l.a., they're going to have lawsuits

[1:52:13] similar to that and

[1:52:16] that fire as

[1:52:18] well, against the county and the state,

[1:52:19] which is, as far as

[1:52:22] I know, fairly unique and kind of

[1:52:23] a

[1:52:25] new term in the fire

[1:52:28] damage and recovery of

[1:52:31] that

[1:52:34] cost. So

[1:52:36] how much does that reduce our income

[1:52:37] to

[1:52:43] the town ? How much?

[1:52:46] I'm not a lawyer, either. How much

[1:52:49] liability could that cause for

[1:52:52] the town if we had

[1:52:53] a fire? Part of my presentation also

[1:52:55] was that these fires were not

[1:52:58] huge fires that people think

[1:53:01] of as

[1:53:07] swelling up [ inaudible ]

[1:53:08] point they're smaller fires and we get those all

[1:53:10] the time in payson, that are the same

[1:53:12] magnitude as these fires. The argument

[1:53:13] that this will never

[1:53:16] happen here is not a

[1:53:19] good argument

[1:53:22] . You get fires if you've been up

[1:53:23] and down

[1:53:24] 87. You see fires on the roadside.

[1:53:25] there's multiple, multiple starts

[1:53:26] in our area. Fortunately

[1:53:28] we have very good

[1:53:30] response to those starts and they're

[1:53:31] able to put them

[1:53:37] out early

[1:53:39] . But the conditions just like they

[1:53:40] were in lahaina or at the

[1:53:41] marshall fire, conditions are right, we

[1:53:43] could be in trouble.

[1:53:46] hopefully

[1:53:48] I can --those, to me, are important

[1:53:49] facts in deciding

[1:53:52] this.

[1:53:53] >>

[1:53:55] where you failed at our vegetation

[1:53:58] removal requirement for

[1:54:00] what we have, do you have enough teeth

[1:54:01] for that to make

[1:54:07] an impact?

[1:54:08] >> the teeth

[1:54:10] are there.

[1:54:13] the teeth are there.

[1:54:16] it

[1:54:19] takes -- honestly I'm just --he takes

[1:54:20] people

[1:54:22] to enforce

[1:54:24] that and time, staff time to enforce

[1:54:25] that.

[1:54:30] I think the ordinance that we have

[1:54:31] as far as vegetation

[1:54:33] management is very good and the teeth

[1:54:34] are there

[1:54:37] for that.

[1:54:38] >>

[1:54:40] thank

[1:54:43] you.

[1:54:44] >>

[1:54:45] from what I understand, this is the

[1:54:46] first reading of the ordinance.

[1:54:47] >> no,

[1:54:48] this is the third time we brought

[1:54:49] it up in council.

[1:54:52] >> because of the space

[1:54:55] of time, one thing that I think the

[1:54:56] contractor

[1:54:58] said about fire wise is what a huge

[1:55:01] impact that could be and I think

[1:55:04] that's where we need to

[1:55:09] really focus. I'm not saying this

[1:55:10] shouldn't

[1:55:13] be approved. I probably will prove

[1:55:14] it. One

[1:55:19] reason, too ,

[1:55:21] is we're going to probably get some

[1:55:22] developments that we could have a

[1:55:23] whole bunch of manufactured homes

[1:55:25] come in and they're all in one area,

[1:55:26] and I think it

[1:55:28] would be done if all

[1:55:29] those homes where according to the

[1:55:31] hardening code.

[1:55:34] that's all

[1:55:37] I got.

[1:55:38] >>

[1:55:39] susie covered what I kind of want

[1:55:40] to

[1:55:43] talk about. Are you seeing any improvement

[1:55:44] in the

[1:55:46] town for

[1:55:49] fire wising and is

[1:55:52] there anything the town can do

[1:55:55] to promote more fire wising

[1:56:01] or doing --do we need a code officer

[1:56:04] going out, looking more

[1:56:07] frequently into

[1:56:10] fire wise,

[1:56:12] what needs to be done in the town?

[1:56:13] it seems like if we are

[1:56:15] going to pass this that the town has

[1:56:20] to be

[1:56:21] fire wising everything itself in order

[1:56:23] to be effective because you're

[1:56:27] talking about from the beginning,

[1:56:29] a small population of

[1:56:31] the new homes versus all the old homes

[1:56:32] that

[1:56:33] are here in town, and if the older

[1:56:35] homes have

[1:56:37] fire wising problems, what's the benefit?

[1:56:38] that's

[1:56:39] rhetorical. But I'm interested in

[1:56:41] knowing

[1:56:43] what the community is doing for fire

[1:56:44] wising and

[1:56:47] what the town code

[1:56:50] officer is doing

[1:56:53] to --

[1:56:54] >> I think council

[1:56:55] lubell, I appreciate all the back

[1:56:56] and

[1:56:57] forth and everything but you have to

[1:57:00] start somewhere. If you never create

[1:57:02] an ordinance it's going to just

[1:57:05] continue you. So to go

[1:57:08] back and forth and argue

[1:57:10] about fire-wise, which we can appreciate

[1:57:11] and we can

[1:57:13] review that, but you know if you don't

[1:57:17] start somewhere, it's

[1:57:20] never going

[1:57:22] to improve.

[1:57:23] >> if I can, mr. Mayor,

[1:57:24] if I'm jumping

[1:57:26] on the

[1:57:27] manager's comment, I'd like to remind

[1:57:28] his council because I don't know if

[1:57:29] anyone

[1:57:30] on the council was here when we started

[1:57:32] this process.

[1:57:33] this process and the building, councilmember

[1:57:35] ferris was, when he was on the

[1:57:37] council previously. We brought forward

[1:57:38] a

[1:57:39] code that the council didn't want

[1:57:41] and we were

[1:57:42] asked to break it up and bring two

[1:57:44] products. We brought active

[1:57:45] fuels product which the council has

[1:57:47] adopted and directed reinforcing.

[1:57:48] we are going through our first work

[1:57:50] asexually

[1:57:52] right now with someone who was noncompliant

[1:57:53] for the

[1:57:56] for the most part we

[1:57:59] get compliance

[1:58:01] with [ inaudible ]. Most people want

[1:58:02] to. The second part

[1:58:03] of that was the building hardening

[1:58:05] code and that has gone through several

[1:58:06] iterations

[1:58:07] because the building advisory board

[1:58:08] took two years to finally decide we

[1:58:11] had a code they were okay

[1:58:14] with. I don't know if

[1:58:19] anybody remembered mr. Senesi, he

[1:58:20] was

[1:58:21] on that panel, he was a builder here

[1:58:22] in town and he took it upon himself

[1:58:23] to make

[1:58:24] sure that the code was with the town

[1:58:26] needed tell you that, and he beat

[1:58:28] us up pretty hard on that, and then

[1:58:29] you can do

[1:58:30] the counseling you asked us to go

[1:58:32] back. Let me

[1:58:35] back up. The decision was trying

[1:58:36] to figure out we just make it as part

[1:58:37] of the 2024 code adoption if you have

[1:58:38] that

[1:58:41] going on

[1:58:43] your own, the two meetings we went

[1:58:44] back to this meeting. This

[1:58:47] has

[1:58:49] been probably 10 using the making

[1:58:50] to get us

[1:58:51] to this point of coming to the council.

[1:58:53] it really is one of

[1:58:55] those things like the town manager

[1:58:56] said where you're at

[1:58:59] so the right. This doesn't flip a

[1:59:00] switch tomorrow and every house is

[1:59:01] hardened. That's not the point of

[1:59:02] it. The point

[1:59:03] is houses are built and is houses

[1:59:07] are rebuilt is houses are hardened

[1:59:08] and eventually because we

[1:59:11] are a landlocked community,

[1:59:12] infill will happen. Properties will

[1:59:14] be purchased,

[1:59:20] leveled, and

[1:59:22] houses built. That's what happens

[1:59:23] in every

[1:59:24] community that goes through that and

[1:59:25] eventually the community will be hardened.

[1:59:26] it will take us

[1:59:28] a number of years, like the town manager

[1:59:29] said, we don't start somewhere, where

[1:59:30] do we start? The fuels issue we could

[1:59:32] do continuously but that's a continuous

[1:59:33] effort

[1:59:34] also as people are finding out who

[1:59:35] got the grants, is

[1:59:37] that requires separately and we are

[1:59:38] focused on

[1:59:39] the effort. This is just the next

[1:59:40] step and really the question is from

[1:59:41] a policy decision. Vice

[1:59:42] mehmet oz brought it up, there's a

[1:59:44] cost that doesn't please cost some of

[1:59:45] the

[1:59:46] main we can scene it will increase

[1:59:47] costume houses what

[1:59:50] does the community want

[1:59:52] to bear. This in no way benefits the

[1:59:53] fire department other than I have

[1:59:59] safer buildings to stop fire. It doesn't do

[2:00:00] anything for us.

[2:00:01] this is for the community. What do

[2:00:02] the policymakers

[2:00:05] want the community to

[2:00:07] look like?

[2:00:08] >> one thing it looks to

[2:00:09] me, we just had

[2:00:10] a presentation on 100 some hothouses

[2:00:11] at the

[2:00:13] golf course. We've got timber ridge

[2:00:14] going

[2:00:16] in. It's going to be manufactured.

[2:00:17] rather than have the

[2:00:19] dots that have been discussed tonight,

[2:00:20] we have opportunities

[2:00:23] to put in hardened segments and

[2:00:26] this is an opportunity that once those

[2:00:27] developments

[2:00:29] are built, we are not going to have

[2:00:32] again for another 50 years so it seems

[2:00:35] to me that we need

[2:00:38] to adopt now because we have a huge

[2:00:39] concentration

[2:00:41] coming of new bills

[2:00:47] and if the house and going about the

[2:00:48] golf

[2:00:49] course, I don't anticipate those houses

[2:00:50] having 1000 square foot decks.

[2:00:52] they're going to be modest homes and

[2:00:58] the cost to build those homes are

[2:00:59] going to be more in line with

[2:01:01] what you said you got from the manufactured

[2:01:02] home

[2:01:04] builders so I think we have an opportunity,

[2:01:05] and like the

[2:01:06] town manager said, we've got to start

[2:01:08] somewhere and I'm ready to

[2:01:11] start today.

[2:01:14] >> appreciate it. First

[2:01:17] I want to echo what susie

[2:01:18] said. You've put a little work in

[2:01:20] this. There has been

[2:01:23] several

[2:01:24] years, the entire fire department

[2:01:25] going into this, I don't think anybody

[2:01:26] questions the need as a

[2:01:29] community to be conscious of wildfire

[2:01:30] risk,

[2:01:31] be conscious of things that we are

[2:01:32] doing to fight against wildfire risk

[2:01:33] but

[2:01:35] as it pertains specifically to

[2:01:37] this code, I have a hard time getting

[2:01:38] behind the

[2:01:41] idea that this is going

[2:01:44] to drastically or even really at all

[2:01:45] really lower

[2:01:47] payson's wildfire risk. I

[2:01:50] think we have so many bigger

[2:01:55] problems that if this town is going

[2:01:56] to go up in flames, I personally do

[2:01:58] not think that these fire hardening

[2:01:59] measures are going to stop that from

[2:02:01] happening. We got so much fuel around

[2:02:02] us. We have so many houses that are

[2:02:05] not fire -wise properly. The trees

[2:02:07] next to the house are what's going

[2:02:09] to go up in flames and it's not

[2:02:11] going to matter what wood you have

[2:02:12] on the eave.

[2:02:13] the house is going to go up so that's

[2:02:15] my personal opinion.

[2:02:17] insurance, I'm not in this seat an

[2:02:18] insurance professional but I

[2:02:19] do know a little bit about insurance.

[2:02:21] so I have never had

[2:02:27] insurance declined

[2:02:36] based on the materials I used on

[2:02:37] the house. I have had them declined

[2:02:38] on how close the trees are to the

[2:02:39] house.

[2:02:40] I've had them declined on what the

[2:02:41] next-door neighbor's property looks

[2:02:42] like. I've had

[2:02:43] them declined on the tree limbs overhanging

[2:02:44] the house. People may pay more for

[2:02:45] insurance

[2:02:46] if they choose to use material a versus

[2:02:47] material b but that's something I

[2:02:48] believe

[2:02:49] the contractors should be proactively

[2:02:50] talking to them about as they are

[2:02:51] the

[2:02:52] ones that are looking out for the

[2:02:53] client when they're building those.

[2:02:54] so it's the slope

[2:02:55] of the property, the surrounding areas,

[2:02:56] that's what the insurance companies

[2:02:57] are looking at. Personally

[2:02:58] I don't even think insurance companies

[2:02:59] are really worried about the wildfire

[2:03:00] risk. There's so

[2:03:01] many other ways they get hit from

[2:03:03] the insurance perspective

[2:03:04] on roofs, on water, floods, things

[2:03:06] like that. My

[2:03:09] personal opinion, it's

[2:03:10] to say we don't want to do business

[2:03:12] appear when you have rain and

[2:03:13] you have snow and you have hail, you

[2:03:15] have a lot of roof planes and

[2:03:19] insurance companies use a ton of money

[2:03:21] on roof claims so I don't think

[2:03:22] this is going to fix the problem.

[2:03:24] I stand behind what I said at

[2:03:26] the first meeting. If you get the

[2:03:27] contractors on board

[2:03:28] you will get me on board. I don't believe we've

[2:03:30] done that to this

[2:03:32] point. $5000, $10,000, that's a lot

[2:03:33] of money to a

[2:03:34] lot of people and it may not break

[2:03:36] the bank for some people but

[2:03:37] that could completely stop somebody

[2:03:38] from adding on a bedroom, adding whatever

[2:03:39] that threshold

[2:03:40] is, I forget the specific.

[2:03:41] >> [ inaudible

[2:03:42] ]

[2:03:43] >> are you doing

[2:03:44] the deck? It can move the needle there

[2:03:45] to not allow

[2:03:47] that project to be done and it's expensive

[2:03:54] to build . I think everybody is aware

[2:03:55] of, I'm adding onto my house, if I

[2:03:57] had more money I would have a

[2:03:58] contractor out there doing it and

[2:04:00] be done six months ago.

[2:04:01] >>

[2:04:03] no permit?

[2:04:04] >> no permit. It's expensive

[2:04:06] and I --

[2:04:07] >>

[2:04:08] I'm sorry.

[2:04:09] >> $1200 for a difference

[2:04:10] I believe

[2:04:12] would be dramatically more than that

[2:04:13] so

[2:04:14] I am not in favor of this. I do appreciate

[2:04:15] the hard work you

[2:04:18] put into this. I echo what

[2:04:19] the rest of the council has said.

[2:04:21] there's a lot of other places that

[2:04:22] we

[2:04:23] need to put a lot more energy and

[2:04:24] community to make it

[2:04:25] safer.

[2:04:26] >> my request button is not

[2:04:27] working.

[2:04:28] sorry. I want to thank you two for

[2:04:30] the work.

[2:04:33] my hope, when the

[2:04:36] last time we

[2:04:37] discussed this, sending it back and

[2:04:39] having a discussion with contractors,

[2:04:42] that there would be some kind of compromise.

[2:04:44] I don't agree with the assertions

[2:04:48] that this has been just

[2:04:51] thrown on us all of the sudden. This

[2:04:54] has been a bear from

[2:04:57] may 14th. People knew

[2:05:02] about it. It got seven contractors

[2:05:03] to come. I wouldn't have

[2:05:04] expected that many, so I appreciated

[2:05:06] that, that you had that many, and

[2:05:09] talk about hopefully what

[2:05:12] can we tweak. So that brings

[2:05:15] me to

[2:05:18] my questions. Was anything changed

[2:05:21] from that ordinance

[2:05:24] that we talked about on may 14th

[2:05:26] until now? And this ordinance, did

[2:05:27] you take anything?

[2:05:32] you tweak anything?

[2:05:33] >> no sir. >>

[2:05:34] okay. Than my other

[2:05:36] question was eaves

[2:05:38] and decks. What percentage of the

[2:05:42] whole code do eaves

[2:05:45] and decks

[2:05:46] represent? Because it sounds like

[2:05:48] that is a major concern

[2:05:51] for contractors, that maybe if we

[2:05:53] took those out, does that leave a

[2:06:00] meaningful code?

[2:06:03] >> I

[2:06:04] believe that was where the contractors

[2:06:06] would've liked to have seen that

[2:06:09] taken out and in my opinion,

[2:06:14] and chief, help me with this also.

[2:06:15] I'm not a lone ranger

[2:06:18] in this. In looking at other people

[2:06:20] that are looking at the same thing,

[2:06:21] adopting these codes, that, taking

[2:06:24] that out would've watered it down

[2:06:25] to where it

[2:06:27] wouldn't have been a useful

[2:06:30] code and part of

[2:06:33] the reason, when we go to the

[2:06:35] building advisory board, that code

[2:06:39] had morphed quite a bit from

[2:06:42] the point that we

[2:06:44] first went to the building advisory

[2:06:45] board, to the point where we

[2:06:48] brought it to you. So a lot of

[2:06:50] the contractors, you know, had this

[2:06:51] debate in

[2:06:53] those meetings. The contractors that

[2:06:54] were

[2:06:57] on that spoke about this

[2:07:00] and how we can

[2:07:03] modify

[2:07:05] this and part of the presentation,

[2:07:06] it shows you the

[2:07:09] difference between put in our checklist

[2:07:10] for this

[2:07:12] code and the

[2:07:15] differences between

[2:07:18] the code which is part of the building

[2:07:19] code,

[2:07:21] the fire code, and the I.d. Hs

[2:07:24] code so there

[2:07:27] was two different iterations

[2:07:30] of that, those, so

[2:07:32] we are already --the point of that

[2:07:33] was to show you that are already amount

[2:07:35] of type this code to a point where

[2:07:36] it

[2:07:39] was still workable and it still

[2:07:42] would meet

[2:07:43] the requirements, and address the

[2:07:46] concerns that ibhs brings forward,

[2:07:48] but it

[2:07:50] would work better with the contractors

[2:07:51] here in payson as well so

[2:07:54] what you're looking

[2:07:57] at wasn't --we are not bringing you

[2:07:58] the

[2:08:00] code or the ibhs standard so we

[2:08:07] had already

[2:08:08] mitigated some of those concerns and

[2:08:09] changed that code, if that takes sense.

[2:08:13] >> the eaves

[2:08:14] and decks are the majority of what

[2:08:16] makes the same meaning

[2:08:20] will code? There's nothing else --

[2:08:22] not enough --that's what

[2:08:25] I'm

[2:08:26] struggling is it seems like --and

[2:08:28] the ordinance does have

[2:08:31] some meaning and usefulness

[2:08:34] without that

[2:08:37] component. I'm hearing you

[2:08:40] say no.

[2:08:41] >> if

[2:08:42] I can, maybe I'll take a stab at this

[2:08:45] for you, councilmember nossek. The

[2:08:46] code has

[2:08:49] some effect without eaves and

[2:08:52] the decks. However, here

[2:08:55] is the way we look at it, and

[2:08:56] quite frankly, the way your building

[2:08:58] advisory board looked at

[2:08:59] it was without those two components, the

[2:09:01] increased cost wasn't

[2:09:03] worth the benefit because eaves and

[2:09:04] decks are

[2:09:07] primary gait

[2:09:08] is for fire to get into houses. So

[2:09:10] if we don't mitigate that

[2:09:11] risk, if everything else we do is

[2:09:12] money that's essentially, councilmember

[2:09:15] haws point, doesn't do any good so

[2:09:19] our view and frankly this

[2:09:20] was the view of other experts we engaged

[2:09:22] to find out their views

[2:09:23] on this is we don't get the decks

[2:09:26] and eaves, everything else is just

[2:09:28] a waste of money because

[2:09:30] the house is going to burn anyway,

[2:09:31] because the deck allows

[2:09:32] fire to get in the house, or eaves

[2:09:36] allow it. Does that kind of answer

[2:09:37] your question? Everything else

[2:09:38] works --

[2:09:39] >> [ inaudible ] it sounds

[2:09:40] like you

[2:09:41] >> it's a

[2:09:45] system but decks and eaves, if you

[2:09:46] don't treat

[2:09:47] those and of mitigate that risk, along

[2:09:48] with other fuels, that's not this

[2:09:49] part of the code,

[2:09:50] really is for not then because the

[2:09:52] house has a high probability of burning

[2:09:53] anyway,

[2:09:54] even though it increased the cost

[2:09:55] of building the house. So if you do

[2:09:58] everything else [

[2:09:59] inaudible ] I'm sorry.

[2:10:00] >> with other

[2:10:01] mitigating building materials.

[2:10:04] >> right.

[2:10:05] those building materials alone will

[2:10:06] not mitigate the risk that the decks

[2:10:12] and eaves caused to the house.

[2:10:13] >>

[2:10:14] it's all about the decks and

[2:10:15] eaves.

[2:10:16] >> not all about the decks

[2:10:17] and eaves, no. Everything works together

[2:10:18] but if

[2:10:19] you don't

[2:10:20] take the decks and eaves then really

[2:10:22] all we're doing is asking our customers

[2:10:23] to

[2:10:24] pay money that doesn't do them any

[2:10:25] good. So I guess our professional

[2:10:26] opinion is

[2:10:27] if you don't want to do x and eaves,

[2:10:28] and quite frankly, please don't adopt

[2:10:31] the code because all you

[2:10:32] are doing is causing people to pay

[2:10:34] money that doesn't cause

[2:10:40] any benefit

[2:10:43] . In the whole system that allows

[2:10:44] hardening and

[2:10:45] allows the building to hopefully withstand

[2:10:46] a fire with everything. If we just,

[2:10:47] back

[2:10:48] to your point, another way to look

[2:10:49] at it councilmember nelson is decks

[2:10:50] and eaves, that

[2:10:51] would worth the diagram. It's the

[2:10:54] whole system. We take in as much out

[2:10:55] of it as

[2:10:56] we can to make it as cost-effective

[2:10:58] for the customer as we can. If

[2:10:59] that cost is still too much, as I

[2:11:01] said before, it's a policy decision for

[2:11:02] you

[2:11:03] all to tell us and then we walk away

[2:11:04] from this dissection and it doesn't

[2:11:05] come back to us until somebody asked

[2:11:07] us to bring it back. But if

[2:11:09] you're thinking about we'll take out

[2:11:10] decks and eaves

[2:11:11] to appease the contractors, then I

[2:11:13] would really submit to

[2:11:16] the council, I would rather you not

[2:11:17] at

[2:11:18] any cost to the consumer because their

[2:11:19] house is likely going to burn

[2:11:20] anyway and all we did was add cost

[2:11:22] to it. Does

[2:11:25] that help kind of understand it? It's

[2:11:26] not all

[2:11:27] about decks and eaves because they'll do

[2:11:28] everything else [ inaudible ]. It's

[2:11:29] a

[2:11:30] system. It's just a major part of

[2:11:31] the system.

[2:11:32] >>

[2:11:37] thank you.

[2:11:39] >> we want emotion? >> I would like

[2:11:40] a motion to accept ordinance 970.

[2:11:41] do

[2:11:43] I hear

[2:11:46] a motion?

[2:11:49] >> I'll make a motion to accept

[2:11:50] ordinance 970 while the fire structure

[2:11:55] and code.

[2:11:56] >> in

[2:11:58] the second?

[2:11:59] >>

[2:12:01] [ inaudible

[2:12:03] ]

[2:12:04] >> pardon. >> it's still showing

[2:12:05] scott. I

[2:12:07] closed out. I killed it

[2:12:10] and came

[2:12:16] back. Will

[2:12:18] I don't know. It's been really naughty

[2:12:19] all night.

[2:12:20] >>

[2:12:22] [ inaudible ]

[2:12:23] >> he wanted

[2:12:25] to speak during this part?

[2:12:26] >>

[2:12:28] that's what I signed up.

[2:12:29] >> I didn't

[2:12:31] see it.

[2:12:32] >> you guys got me up [ inaudible

[2:12:34] ]

[2:12:37] >> he didn't

[2:12:42] speak, okay.

[2:12:43] >> we got to get a second.

[2:12:44] >> it's going to die because

[2:12:46] of a lack of a second

[2:12:49] anyway.

[2:12:50] >> melvin speak, or no? >>

[2:12:51] you

[2:12:52] already spoke during call to the public,

[2:12:53] though, correct?

[2:12:54] >> you guys

[2:12:55] called me up. [ inaudible

[2:12:58] ]

[2:13:03] now and I only need one of my three

[2:13:04] minutes.

[2:13:05] >>

[2:13:06] and he use them --can we give him

[2:13:07] another minute? May

[2:13:12] as well.

[2:13:13] >> mayor and council, just

[2:13:14] as a reminder, right, time, place

[2:13:19] and manner restrictions are because

[2:13:20] we want

[2:13:21] to make sure everyone is treated the

[2:13:22] same, so that we are not giving

[2:13:23] favoritism to one person over another.

[2:13:25] everyone has their three minutes to

[2:13:26] speak on whatever

[2:13:28] they're going to

[2:13:31] talk about, but within the jurisdiction

[2:13:32] of payson,

[2:13:33] but that's their three minutes. So

[2:13:34] if someone has spoken for their

[2:13:37] three minutes --

[2:13:38] >> but he did not

[2:13:39] speak for 3 minutes.

[2:13:40] >> if he hasn't

[2:13:41] done call to the public.

[2:13:42] >> he did

[2:13:43] call to the public but it was one

[2:13:44] minute.

[2:13:45] >> okay. Well typically, the,

[2:13:46] we are not parsing this

[2:13:49] out, right? So if you want to give

[2:13:50] him

[2:13:52] --if that's your decision, but we

[2:13:53] really

[2:13:54] need to be really clear in the future that

[2:13:55] when people come

[2:13:59] up, we're not going to sit

[2:14:02] here and

[2:14:06] parse out your time. If you're here,

[2:14:08] call to the public, you've

[2:14:09] spoken and then you sit down, so everybody

[2:14:10] gets their time, their opportunity.

[2:14:11] if they

[2:14:12] walk away early then they walked away

[2:14:13] early so we just need to kind of keep

[2:14:15] that in mind in the future.

[2:14:16] >> okay.

[2:14:17] >> one minute. >> you have

[2:14:19] a motion on the floor.

[2:14:20] >> let's deal

[2:14:21] with the motion.

[2:14:22] >> you should probably

[2:14:23] deal with the motion. Right now if

[2:14:24] there's

[2:14:25] no second, it's going to die and we

[2:14:26] move on to f 3 so

[2:14:32] I would like three or four seconds.

[2:14:33] it's not a second, the item dies,

[2:14:35] we move on.

[2:14:36] >> and can I second

[2:14:38] 2 as mayor?

[2:14:39] >> yeah. >>

[2:14:41] I second. I call for

[2:14:47] a vote.

[2:15:07] >> motion passes 5-2. >> kevin, good

[2:15:11] job. We know it's

[2:15:13] not an easy --

[2:15:14] >> that's my job. >>

[2:15:15] I know,

[2:15:17] and you do it with a smile.

[2:15:20] really good.

[2:15:21] >> okay.

[2:15:26] item f 3.

[2:15:27] >> you guys again? >> what's that?

[2:15:28] >> this should be less controversial

[2:15:29] although it's going to pick up more

[2:15:30] people

[2:15:32] than the last

[2:15:33] one, frankly, we don't have a lot

[2:15:35] of options. How is that? How about

[2:15:36] I preface that for you, mr. Mayor?

[2:15:38] >> bring it on, f

[2:15:41] 3, first hearing regarding ordinance

[2:15:42] 972, amending the town of payson code

[2:15:44] of ordinances,

[2:15:48] title 13, chapter 130, section 130.20,

[2:15:50] noyce pertaining to summertime

[2:15:53] hours of construction including severability,

[2:15:54] repealing

[2:15:55] conflicting ordinances and establishing

[2:15:56] an

[2:16:02] effective date .

[2:16:03] open to public hearing.

[2:16:04] >> mr. Mayor,

[2:16:05] members of the council, members of

[2:16:06] the public, this comes before you

[2:16:07] because our noise ordinance currently

[2:16:08] has a start and

[2:16:11] stop time

[2:16:12] the changes for summer and winter and

[2:16:13] our current summertime is between

[2:16:14] june and september,

[2:16:17] and our start time is 6:00 a.m.

[2:16:20] for all activities. The last

[2:16:21] legislative session, the legislature

[2:16:23] decided that there is a risk

[2:16:26] to contractors in

[2:16:28] working during the heat of the day,

[2:16:29] and therefore they created a

[2:16:30] state law that said all ordinances

[2:16:32] must

[2:16:34] do this. So this is what we've built

[2:16:35] into the ordinance that we

[2:16:36] are asking the council to approve.

[2:16:37] the timeframe is no longer june through

[2:16:38] september.

[2:16:41] it's made 1 through

[2:16:44] october 15th. The start

[2:16:45] time during that period of time --

[2:16:47] and it does say on permitted

[2:16:50] buildings but obviously if

[2:16:53] it's not permitted

[2:16:54] we're going to stop work because it's

[2:16:55] not permitted, it has nothing to do

[2:16:56] with the time,

[2:16:57] is between 5:00 a.m. And 10:00 p.m.

[2:16:58] it allows pouring the concrete to

[2:16:59] start one hour

[2:17:00] earlier. So essentially work and start

[2:17:02] as long as it's concrete at 4:00 a.m.

[2:17:03] in

[2:17:05] the morning between may 1 and

[2:17:08] october 15th. That is

[2:17:09] the proposal that we are bringing

[2:17:10] before you, because that is compliant

[2:17:11] with

[2:17:15] state law.

[2:17:16] >> state law supersedes

[2:17:17] us anyway, is that correct?

[2:17:18] >> really all

[2:17:19] that council has a choice to do is

[2:17:20] --the attorney can help me

[2:17:23] out here. We can make the summer

[2:17:24] hours longer. We can allow them to

[2:17:26] start earlier.

[2:17:31] but this --but what we had before

[2:17:32] is not compliant. This

[2:17:33] is compliant.

[2:17:34] >> we are just conforming

[2:17:35] the code to the current state law

[2:17:36] is

[2:17:38] the emergency

[2:17:39] clause was adopted for that legislation

[2:17:41] so it's already in effect.

[2:17:42] >> the

[2:17:43] council

[2:17:44] does have some prerogative but the

[2:17:45] prerogative says within these hours,

[2:17:46] this is the minimum

[2:17:47] .

[2:17:48] >> you can go year-round if you wanted

[2:17:49] to.

[2:17:50] >> correct. >> and

[2:17:51] so we need to ask if

[2:17:53] there's public comments. This is a

[2:17:54] public

[2:17:55] hearing, correct?

[2:17:56] >> all the people

[2:17:57] that wanted to public comment

[2:17:59] all left.

[2:18:00] >> this is

[2:18:02] in

[2:18:04] their favor. This is in their favor.

[2:18:05] >> so hearing none, is there any

[2:18:08] on zoom? Hearing none, public

[2:18:11] hearing

[2:18:14] is closed.

[2:18:17] other than the fact

[2:18:19] that you don't look like nicole and nicole

[2:18:20] is in my

[2:18:22] notes here. It said nicole is going

[2:18:26] to present.

[2:18:27] >> you look

[2:18:28] just fine. You're okay.

[2:18:29] >> arnel set

[2:18:30] I was presenting. I would happily

[2:18:32] let

[2:18:34] present.

[2:18:35] >> so I was looking at that and

[2:18:36] I was confused. Like this

[2:18:37] isn't the one. I don't have a.

[2:18:38] >>

[2:18:39] we have

[2:18:41] council discussion but this is

[2:18:44] first public hearing so there's no

[2:18:45] vote.

[2:18:47] >> we wait 30 days. You'll see

[2:18:49] it again.

[2:18:50] >> see you in 30 days. >>

[2:18:55] unfinished business. There is no item

[2:18:56] in this section.

[2:18:59] new business. Letter

[2:19:02] h 1.

[2:19:03] >> mr. Mayor, I

[2:19:05] would ask that we postpone that one

[2:19:06] since we've

[2:19:07] already discussed that.

[2:19:08] >> I would

[2:19:09] agree

[2:19:11] with that.

[2:19:14] >>

[2:19:16] letter h 2.

[2:19:17] >> as I said earlier,

[2:19:18] I no

[2:19:23] longer going to give the reports for

[2:19:24] departments. I'll

[2:19:25] get it for myself, for what's going

[2:19:26] on, and then at meeting you are going

[2:19:29] to have a director that

[2:19:31] speaks about what's going on in their

[2:19:32] department. So the first

[2:19:35] guinea pig is going to be lynn. She

[2:19:36] actually raised her hand

[2:19:38] to do it, kind of. She was the

[2:19:41] first one --

[2:19:42] >> she was

[2:19:45] volland

[2:19:46] told. Welcome to the podium.

[2:19:47] >> hi

[2:19:48] mayor, council. Do we not have [

[2:19:50] inaudible ]? Do they have a copy of

[2:19:56] it? Okay. Okay. I don't have the powerpoint

[2:19:57] to

[2:19:59] put up but it sounds like you have

[2:20:00] a copy

[2:20:03] of it. I'm

[2:20:04] short. Thank you. I'm actually very excited

[2:20:06] to be here presenting this

[2:20:09] to you

[2:20:10] tonight. What we are working on right

[2:20:12] now in hr, which

[2:20:14] I think the common thought is that

[2:20:17] hr is not that fun, but I think it

[2:20:20] is and this is an employee wellness

[2:20:21] program so I'm

[2:20:22] very excited to bring it to you. It's

[2:20:24] been a long time coming. So based

[2:20:26] on feedback that we received from

[2:20:27] the employee engagement

[2:20:28] committee, indicating a strong interest

[2:20:30] in an employee

[2:20:33] wellness

[2:20:34] program that had some features that

[2:20:35] the program that we get with our benefits

[2:20:38] doesn't have. Some of the features

[2:20:39] that

[2:20:42] employees were looking for were

[2:20:45] incentivized, incentivized rams,

[2:20:48] some gifts for participating

[2:20:50] in activities. Some team-based or

[2:20:51] individual

[2:20:57] fitness challenges to kind of

[2:20:58] get a little competition going, friendly

[2:20:59] competition going, to get some more

[2:21:01] engagement. And then some recognition

[2:21:02] for participating in the wellness

[2:21:06] program

[2:21:09] and. And

[2:21:10] healthy choices for themed employee

[2:21:12] events, just kind of creating a culture

[2:21:13] of wellness for our employees, and

[2:21:14] having workshops or online resources

[2:21:15] to cover

[2:21:18] health topics. So the benefits

[2:21:20] in general of a wellness program when

[2:21:21] we

[2:21:24] did some research

[2:21:25] on it, and there's a lot of articles

[2:21:27] on it, the benefits for employees

[2:21:28] and organizations that have those

[2:21:30] employees working for

[2:21:32] them, improved physical and mental

[2:21:33] health among

[2:21:35] employees and potential for reduced

[2:21:36] health care

[2:21:39] cost, increased productivity, fostering

[2:21:40] a more

[2:21:42] positive workplace culture,

[2:21:45] decreasing absenteeism, it helps for

[2:21:46] retention

[2:21:47] and recruitment. It fosters teamwork

[2:21:51] among employees. The

[2:21:54] hr department, myself and

[2:21:57] our benefits specialist,

[2:22:00] we reviewed 17 different

[2:22:02] programs initially. We narrowed that

[2:22:03] down to four that

[2:22:06] he got

[2:22:08] demos on and pieced them out. We ended

[2:22:09] up with

[2:22:10] two quotes and the one that we ended

[2:22:12] up deciding on that was more

[2:22:13] cost-effective and delivered what

[2:22:15] we were looking for, for

[2:22:17] our employees, was well able. They

[2:22:24] have a holistic approach

[2:22:25] to wellness, which is that a lot of

[2:22:27] times when you think about wellness,

[2:22:28] you're

[2:22:29] thinking about like physical wellness,

[2:22:30] but this looks at it from a holistic

[2:22:31] approach where

[2:22:32] it is physical but it's emotional,

[2:22:33] it's financial wellness, it's social

[2:22:36] wellness, spiritual wellness, intellectual,

[2:22:37] it's

[2:22:38] a lot of different aspects of wellness.

[2:22:42] and with the well able program

[2:22:45] that we

[2:22:47] did select, it does include wellness

[2:22:48] challenges

[2:22:50] that aren't just fiscal. They could

[2:22:51] be about

[2:22:54] mental wellness. I took a note that

[2:22:57] one of them was

[2:22:59] on time management, organization,

[2:23:00] and productivity, so this

[2:23:01] contributes to the work that they're

[2:23:03] doing for the town as

[2:23:06] well. It is incentivized.

[2:23:11] the program --so if you do --the first

[2:23:12] thing that we're going to launch

[2:23:13] is a personal wellness assessment

[2:23:15] and then that will give them

[2:23:18] tailored wellness

[2:23:21] resources and then they might

[2:23:23] get a five dollar gift card for that

[2:23:24] or credit

[2:23:27] towards that so it's

[2:23:29] an incentivized program. It's called

[2:23:30] a rewards wallet and they have

[2:23:31] access to over 800 different red cards

[2:23:33] that they can

[2:23:37] participate in wellness programs,

[2:23:38] redeem for those credit cards. This

[2:23:39] app and

[2:23:41] device integrations. A lot of people

[2:23:42] have like fitness apps on their phone

[2:23:45] or they have a fit it

[2:23:48] for

[2:23:50] steps. There's a lot of devices that people

[2:23:51] are already using. That will integrate

[2:23:52] with

[2:23:53] the system and they can get their

[2:23:54] points that way for their steps or

[2:23:56] whatever it is they are doing. There

[2:23:57] is a community chat feature and

[2:23:58] this is really fun, because it allows

[2:24:05] employees --so we don't have these

[2:24:06] silos and departments.

[2:24:07] you can engage with somebody in the

[2:24:08] streets department that you don't

[2:24:09] actually ever

[2:24:11] see what now you built this working relationship

[2:24:12] with them in this fun way through

[2:24:13] this

[2:24:15] wellness program and now maybe

[2:24:17] you have something, town issue that

[2:24:18] you have to

[2:24:19] discuss with them where you already

[2:24:21] kind of built a rapport so it has

[2:24:22] that benefit as well. There is health

[2:24:24] content through

[2:24:27] the website

[2:24:29] in the way of webinars. There's on-demand

[2:24:30] classes.

[2:24:34] there's meditation. There's recipes.

[2:24:35] there's all sorts of different things

[2:24:36] that it's not

[2:24:39] like one-size-fits-all. There's

[2:24:42] clinical event verification, so when

[2:24:45] we have our flu clinic, which

[2:24:47] is coming up in october, this would

[2:24:51] integrate with --we can verify

[2:24:53] you went and got your flu shot if

[2:24:54] that was a recommendation

[2:24:57] for you and you

[2:24:58] can get some points in the wellness

[2:25:00] program for that purpose of really

[2:25:01] incentivizing that preventative

[2:25:03] care to keep our

[2:25:06] employees healthier, benefits navigation.

[2:25:07] we have a

[2:25:08] lot of things that our benefit package

[2:25:09] offers to our employees. The problem

[2:25:10] is it

[2:25:11] comes in 10 different flyers and everybody

[2:25:12] doesn't have all in one spot. They

[2:25:14] will host all of our benefits on the platform

[2:25:19] for this. Employees will be directed

[2:25:21] to this because they want to get those

[2:25:22] incentivized activities done

[2:25:24] and they'll have links

[2:25:26] to all of our benefits on that page

[2:25:27] as

[2:25:30] well. And for us, so

[2:25:33] we can kind of see what's going

[2:25:35] on and gauge participation and how

[2:25:36] we have to change it,

[2:25:39] there's program

[2:25:42] analytics, and that is the recap of the wellness

[2:25:45] program. We are actively in

[2:25:46] the implementation stage right now

[2:25:48] and

[2:25:51] we're expecting employees on november

[2:25:52] 1st.

[2:25:53] >>

[2:25:55] thank you.

[2:25:56] >>

[2:25:57] any questions. We are very excited

[2:25:58] about it.

[2:26:01] >> yeah,

[2:26:03] very excited.

[2:26:04] >> thank you. >> you actually

[2:26:05] brought it

[2:26:06] to me and I was like, absolutely,

[2:26:07] this is great, great job.

[2:26:08] >>

[2:26:13] thank you.

[2:26:14] >> so we've

[2:26:15] got one more.

[2:26:16] >> one more, letter

[2:26:20] h 3, discussion and possible action

[2:26:22] regarding council

[2:26:24] meeting protocols. Meeting when there's no

[2:26:26] agenda items.

[2:26:27] >> that was brought

[2:26:28] to me from

[2:26:31] counselor bell. Currently the

[2:26:34] city clerk has the

[2:26:38] opportunity to cancel a meeting if

[2:26:39] there is nothing on the agenda. Your

[2:26:40] code

[2:26:43] says that so you

[2:26:46] know my

[2:26:47] attitude, for somebody who has meetings all

[2:26:52] day long, to have just another meeting

[2:26:55] because,

[2:26:56] and staff is having all these people

[2:26:58] here when you guys have nothing

[2:27:01] at all on your agenda, seems

[2:27:04] to be,

[2:27:07] you know, a waste of our

[2:27:08] time. Now I appreciate some of the

[2:27:10] comments that were made

[2:27:12] today about giving the people an opportunity

[2:27:16] to

[2:27:19] speak but it is a city

[2:27:22] council

[2:27:23] meeting. And I'm not trying to make

[2:27:24] anybody mad or anything there's a

[2:27:25] lot

[2:27:28] of communities,

[2:27:30] especially in arizona, who have discontinued

[2:27:34] the public hearing because

[2:27:36] of some of the animosity that comes

[2:27:37] from

[2:27:40] the podium,

[2:27:43] and so

[2:27:46] thinking you could just get rid of

[2:27:47] it, I'm not recommending that at all what

[2:27:49] I'm just saying is city

[2:27:50] council doesn't have to have a meeting

[2:27:55] just

[2:27:57] because. So the reason I brought that

[2:27:58] up

[2:28:01] for

[2:28:04] myself is

[2:28:07] I

[2:28:10] consider it

[2:28:12] public, part of the agenda, is that

[2:28:13] not part of

[2:28:16] the agenda or is that just off-the-cuff

[2:28:17] or

[2:28:18] something to that effect? Is it an

[2:28:19] agenda item

[2:28:22] or not an agenda item?

[2:28:23] >>

[2:28:24] it is.

[2:28:25] >> and then the other, I think

[2:28:26] the citizens have

[2:28:28] a

[2:28:29] right to express their viewpoints,

[2:28:31] and if we are not going

[2:28:34] to have

[2:28:37] a meeting, I think we're

[2:28:43] distancing's will ourselves from the citizens,

[2:28:45] in my personal opinion. And also based upon

[2:28:46] the town manager,

[2:28:49] he's saying that he's

[2:28:52] turning over to the department

[2:28:55] heads

[2:28:57] to give their presentation on what's

[2:28:58] happened from the

[2:29:01] last agenda to this agenda.

[2:29:07] >> vers

[2:29:10] is

[2:29:11] on what's going on in their department.

[2:29:13] >> what's going on in their department,

[2:29:14] so

[2:29:15] that's part of the agenda also, correct?

[2:29:16] >> well that's under new business.

[2:29:17] that

[2:29:18] doesn't have to be on there, no. You

[2:29:19] currently

[2:29:21] have the --public speaking has a public

[2:29:22] standing item on your agenda.

[2:29:23] >> under

[2:29:24] open eating law it's not required

[2:29:25] for meetings.

[2:29:26] >> I

[2:29:28] heard that. I

[2:29:29] understand. I just wanted to have

[2:29:30] a discussion because people were upset

[2:29:31] about that. We were

[2:29:34] gone for a time so

[2:29:37] I just wanted

[2:29:40] to get an opinion on what

[2:29:43] people thought. If they think it's

[2:29:44] relevant for

[2:29:46] the town to come and

[2:29:48] express themselves.

[2:29:49] >> a couple questions.

[2:29:50] one of the

[2:29:51] meetings was canceled because there

[2:29:52] was leaving

[2:29:55] cities, right.

[2:29:56] >> a lot of

[2:29:58] stuff was gone.

[2:29:59] >> or another

[2:30:00] training event.

[2:30:01] >> elections conference

[2:30:02] and it

[2:30:03] was a end of school year and lots

[2:30:07] of staff had been --we didn't

[2:30:10] have anything come up.

[2:30:13] >> and I

[2:30:15] get that. There was a lot of other

[2:30:16] things

[2:30:18] going on and there wasn't a lot for

[2:30:19] us

[2:30:21] to discuss to discuss so I understand

[2:30:22] why it

[2:30:25] was done. The last

[2:30:28] one might be

[2:30:31] an exception.

[2:30:34] prof my mind as well that even if

[2:30:36] they are not an agenda item, we do

[2:30:37] have a lot of things to

[2:30:39] discuss.

[2:30:40] >> or to beard about, I guess.

[2:30:41] may be for people like mr.

[2:30:43] dunning,

[2:30:45] who gets a shower and gets dressed,

[2:30:46] and comes

[2:30:47] here, I mean, people look forward

[2:30:49] to it.

[2:30:51] >> we've got to make sure that he's

[2:30:52] on the

[2:30:55] email list, as there's no sense.

[2:30:56] >>

[2:30:57] sorry

[2:30:58] about that, mr. Dunning...

[2:30:59] >> I just

[2:31:01] think that some people, and

[2:31:04] they think this is kind of their public

[2:31:07] foreign. They can blast us to some

[2:31:08] extent, and

[2:31:10] we all have emails

[2:31:13] that are on the town website,

[2:31:16] if they want to throw something at

[2:31:17] us

[2:31:19] they can

[2:31:22] do that. I'm not

[2:31:25] saying to eliminate its

[2:31:28] but I don't think we

[2:31:31] need to have a regular town meeting

[2:31:32] to allow

[2:31:34] that to

[2:31:36] happen. There were some meaningful

[2:31:37] presentations that could bring us

[2:31:41] up

[2:31:43] to date, to prepare us for some other things

[2:31:44] that were going to

[2:31:45] be coming on the agenda, then I think

[2:31:47] that would --

[2:31:48] >> is not going

[2:31:50] to happen very

[2:31:53] often, tracy. How often does it

[2:31:54] happen, once in five years, twice

[2:31:56] in five years?

[2:31:57] >> that was

[2:31:58] my comment, in my five years --

[2:31:59] >>

[2:32:00] this is

[2:32:01] a first time for me.

[2:32:02] >> a perfect

[2:32:03] storm that there was --

[2:32:04] people were gone and we had had league

[2:32:08] and elections training and

[2:32:13] just, yeah, she came in and said we

[2:32:14] don't have anything on the

[2:32:15] agenda.

[2:32:16] >> I just got comments. >>

[2:32:17] it's totally up

[2:32:20] to --

[2:32:21] >> staff will bring

[2:32:23] it

[2:32:26] up.

[2:32:27] >> read their emails and listen

[2:32:28] to what they say. I just thought it

[2:32:29] was appropriate.

[2:32:30] >> I think we continue to leave it

[2:32:32] up to

[2:32:35] our staff's discretion.

[2:32:36] >>

[2:32:38] I think

[2:32:39] just keep heading in the same direction.

[2:32:44] >> without the county

[2:32:46] commissioners or the elected officials,

[2:32:47] this is the

[2:32:53] first time

[2:32:54] it's everything, council, in my all-time.

[2:32:56] it's not going to happen that

[2:32:59] often , but like I said,

[2:33:00] if there is nothing, there's no reason

[2:33:02] to have a meeting.

[2:33:03] >> the

[2:33:05] town needs to

[2:33:10] show someone . We got people in place

[2:33:11] at

[2:33:12] the right time.

[2:33:13] >> not on fridays.

[2:33:14] the town is going ahead on friday.

[2:33:15] >> yes.

[2:33:17] don't call.

[2:33:18] >>

[2:33:20] don't call pd

[2:33:23] or

[2:33:26] fire.

[2:33:27] >> get a permit. >> get

[2:33:29] a permit.

[2:33:30] >> got it. >>

[2:33:32] that's it.

[2:33:33] >>

[2:33:36] my suggested motion is let's go home.

[2:33:38] we are adjourned.

[2:33:39] >> seconded.

Payson Town Council - Regular

Transcript