[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.