[4:09] Okay, welcome everybody to a city

[4:12] council meeting. Uh, it's April 14th,

[4:15] 2026.

[4:16] Um,

[4:18] I was going to say something stupid, but

[4:20] I won't.

[4:21] Hopefully, we'll get through this. I was

[4:23] going to say so

[4:25] >> I know every once in a while.

[4:28] I was going to say this is going to go

[4:29] by quickly and that was not going to

[4:31] happen.

[4:31] >> That's a curse.

[4:32] >> I just cursed the whole thing.

[4:34] >> Okay, we are going to start um with

[4:37] number one there for a work session.

[4:39] >> You should say who's here.

[4:42] >> Oh, thank you. Okay, so we have um

[4:46] council member John's Rhoden and Lunt

[4:49] here in the meeting and council member

[4:51] Hutchkins is online and council member

[4:54] Malovich is excused. Um she's got uh

[4:58] another event that she's working on that

[5:00] required her time this evening. Um so we

[5:05] will start with number one. Um resident

[5:07] request to amend city code 10-11-8.

[5:11] This is landscape features, fences,

[5:13] walls, driveways, and culverts to allow

[5:16] sound barrier fencing along 11200 South.

[5:20] Um

[5:23] do we have that individual here? We

[5:26] don't have Mr. Cabraw or his wife here

[5:29] or Mr. Vanassel.

[5:31] >> Uh they live along 11200 South. We know

[5:35] that 11200 South is becoming a main

[5:38] corridor. We also um know that uh Salem

[5:44] is going to allow a sound barrier wall

[5:47] on their portion of 11200 South that is

[5:50] in Salem. And so they were asking if

[5:53] they could have the same on their uh

[5:56] side of the property. They are willing

[5:58] to pay for it, not asking the city to do

[6:00] it.

[6:02] So uh this would go it would just be uh

[6:06] go through our planning commission. So

[6:08] it would have to have a public hearing.

[6:10] Um but the ordinance that's there is

[6:13] kind of some proposed language that

[6:14] could be possibly used.

[6:17] >> I didn't like the up to 10 ft.

[6:20] That's why it's called um opposed

[6:23] language.

[6:24] >> And I drove um well I worked in

[6:26] Mapleton, my Mapleton office today. And

[6:29] I drove along um the main road from

[6:33] Woodland Hills to Mapleton like from

[6:34] Spanish Fork where it has the two

[6:35] roundabouts under the freeway and then

[6:37] also on Main Street, Spanish Fork. And I

[6:40] would say that those streets have about

[6:42] as much traffic as 11200 would have or

[6:45] more, probably a lot more. And none of

[6:48] them have a eight or 10 foot sound

[6:51] barrier wall. Any of them.

[6:53] >> Have you seen what's coming down? Have

[6:55] you seen that one they put down there on

[6:56] that development of Wood Nails Drive?

[6:59] You know, that new development just off

[7:01] to the right.

[7:02] >> Uhhuh.

[7:02] >> That's what Salem that development

[7:04] coming around the roundabout's going to

[7:05] have and then down here. So,

[7:07] >> how tall is that one?

[7:09] >> What's that?

[7:09] >> How tall is that one?

[7:10] >> I don't know. I haven't measured.

[7:11] >> Steve, do you know

[7:12] >> six feet exist? I'm okay with six, but I don't think I'm good with eight or 10.

[7:21] » And like are we talking like Don

[7:23] Vantasel's

[7:24] spot right there on 200? So some of the

[7:27] homes are actually down below grade

[7:29] right of the street. So 8 ft might

[7:32] actually be 6 ft at street grade. So

[7:35] that would be interesting to see. Um or

[7:37] I don't know if when they do the new

[7:40] road if they're going to try I don't

[7:42] know with offsets and you know right

[7:45] ride rightways etc how far it'll be on

[7:47] their property.

[7:48] >> So have to be on the property line

[7:51] change from what it is.

[7:53] >> Okay.

[7:53] >> They're going to reconfigure the road a

[7:55] little bit but they've got most all the

[7:56] right away.

[7:57] >> Okay.

[7:57] >> Uh that development that's happening on

[7:59] the corner there of the roundabout. I

[8:01] guess be the north and west corner.

[8:02] >> Mhm. So that they that developer right

[8:05] now is is finalizing his plans with

[8:07] Salem and he he gave enough right away.

[8:09] That was the only part they were lacking

[8:11] some width of rightway they needed.

[8:12] >> Okay.

[8:13] >> So he gave that right away there and I

[8:15] think what they were saying is they're

[8:16] going to continue a fence around there

[8:18] and then come down past where the

[8:21] possible future

[8:25] worshiing center will be.

[8:26] >> Mhm.

[8:27] Um,

[8:30] and then down where the county kind of

[8:32] picks up these houses down here below

[8:34] the state center. Um, kind of well that

[8:37] one house has that sound fence. So I

[8:40] think that's what I ask. They just kind

[8:41] of want to continue along there. Now I I

[8:43] don't know. My thought would be match

[8:45] whatever is done along there. Just it

[8:47] all looks, you know,

[8:49] >> right? And like all the ones on Mapleton

[8:51] and that they were all six, they had the

[8:53] sound wall, but they were all the

[8:54] sixfooters. And maybe we can look at see

[8:56] what that developer is doing along the

[8:59] corner there that would basically tie in

[9:01] to where Vanasel is and the guy across

[9:03] the street that wants to do it. See what

[9:06] their plan is for a height and just kind

[9:07] of match that same level across there. I

[9:09] think that would look uniform then.

[9:12] Yeah. I've been having since I saw this,

[9:14] I've been having conversations with

[9:16] Salem um with their uh building

[9:19] department and then I called and talked

[9:21] to Brady Wild today, their engineer, one

[9:23] of their engineers. So, theirs is not

[9:26] considered a sound barrier fence. Um

[9:31] theirs is has has safety factors to it

[9:34] and it's very specific. It's not even

[9:35] just masonary. Um, in some of their

[9:39] places they they do allow the the SIMC

[9:42] style fence. Um, but on Woodland Hills

[9:45] Drive and 11200 and and a couple other

[9:49] uh corridors, they require a a more

[9:52] significant foundation and um and it's

[9:56] masonary.

[9:58] Um,

[9:59] >> is it masonary or pre-cast concrete,

[10:01] Brian? Because

[10:01] >> either either way, I mean pre-cast is

[10:03] fine. He would just he just said

[10:05] masonary. Yeah, but that's what he was

[10:07] referring to.

[10:08] >> Um, so my recommendation after talking

[10:11] to them, um, and I think we

[10:14] >> and and Brady agrees we should probably

[10:16] get Elk Ridge involved as well, um, and

[10:20] at least talk to them and about what's

[10:22] happening. So, they've been working with

[10:24] the county quite a bit. If you, if you

[10:25] notice, the fences on on Woodland Hills

[10:28] Drive are not just any fence. Um,

[10:31] there's requirements. They actually had

[10:33] a contractor put up the fence and it was

[10:35] wrong and they made the contractor

[10:37] remove it and replace it and and the

[10:40] contractor actually gave it to Salem and

[10:41] put it on another house. Um, but it's more than just sound. It is minimum

[10:47] of six feet. Um, now anything higher

[10:50] does require approvals and that would be

[10:53] based on on other things. My

[10:55] recommendation would be to get with to

[10:57] have have Ted and Wayne get with Salem

[11:01] and pro and probably get with uh

[11:03] Elkridge as well and see if we can't

[11:05] come together, come up with a uh a

[11:09] conforming standard that's going down

[11:11] 11200 along that that road and and work

[11:15] with the county that Salem has already

[11:16] worked with to try to flesh this out a

[11:19] little bit better. I'm not sure I'm I'm

[11:22] great with with uh some of the verbiage

[11:24] in this one. Um and I understand the

[11:28] need for higher fencing based on sound.

[11:32] Um but I don't know that that's you know

[11:35] would be would be necessary. But I

[11:38] really think that a collaboration with

[11:40] the three cities is a great way. and

[11:43] Brady agrees completely and would love

[11:45] to get uh together with everybody and

[11:48] sit down and come up with something

[11:49] that'll work for everybody.

[11:54] » Yeah, I mean reading the same thing.

[11:56] I've got kind of the same vision here,

[11:58] like turning that open area into what

[12:01] looks like a compound or a potential

[12:05] junkyard or something. Um,

[12:08] I I my thoughts immediately went to Park

[12:11] City area where I mean, no way, no how,

[12:15] even on the busiest State Road 224,

[12:19] you've got houses that are lining that

[12:21] divided highway. Um, and you know,

[12:25] you're talking one of the nicest

[12:27] communities in the in the country and

[12:30] it's, you know, there there's a road and

[12:32] there's cars, but there's not a

[12:33] soundwall.

[12:34] I I just worry that if we allow

[12:38] a fencing ordinance that that is not

[12:42] very intentional and just say it's broad

[12:44] along 112 1200 South and we're really

[12:47] limiting how we're controlling what that

[12:49] looks like going into the future. Um

[12:53] that's kind of my thoughts. I I think we

[12:56] need to be pretty intentional.

[12:57] >> Get kind of a uniform I mean there's

[13:00] going to be pre-cast fence there, right?

[13:02] Salem's that's they're putting it there

[13:03] with their developments

[13:05] and I think we just need to be uniform I

[13:07] agree with Brian I think we need to get

[13:08] with Salem and Elish let's be uniform

[13:10] along there so it looks intentional and

[13:12] we don't have different styles and

[13:13] different heights and it all looks just

[13:15] a hodge podge of

[13:17] >> don't want it to be an eyesore for sure

[13:19] >> yeah and make it look more uniform

[13:21] what's happening

[13:23] along there

[13:25] and I think what they've been putting up

[13:26] Olympus it's called Olympus pre-cast is

[13:28] who makes I think the ones they've been

[13:30] putting up um I've put quite a few of

[13:32] those spec out with UD do projects.

[13:35] That's what UD do uses too. Those

[13:36] pre-cast concrete. You have to those

[13:38] pillars actually or the supports

[13:40] actually go into the ground. It has

[13:41] quite big bases and rebar and all that

[13:43] stuff. And they do it not only for sound

[13:45] but for crash protection on their busy

[13:47] quarters.

[13:49] >> Yeah. Perfect.

[13:50] >> Okay. Anybody else have anything else

[13:52] they want to get in?

[13:53] >> Just uniformity. I I concur with all

[13:55] >> I agree as well. I like that input.

[13:57] >> I have a question.

[13:59] >> Sure. I'm just curious if their

[14:01] intention or their hope is more than

[14:04] sound barrier because

[14:07] the sound barrier works best if it's

[14:10] closest to the noise. So, you know,

[14:12] it'll be up close to the road. I'm just

[14:14] wondering if there's another reason for

[14:17] wanting.

[14:19] >> Safety generally is why they put those

[14:21] in when you get along busy corners.

[14:23] >> I meant the intention of the family's

[14:25] asking.

[14:26] >> No, I don't know.

[14:28] But perfect. Thank you.

[14:30] >> More privacy is probably

[14:32] >> I think when he came in and asked he's

[14:34] just worried about because that love 200

[14:35] is going to be part of what they're

[14:36] calling the evil beltway.

[14:38] >> Yeah.

[14:38] >> Right. That's going to become a major

[14:40] thoroughare between Highway 6 and I15.

[14:43] You know, this is probably 20 30 years

[14:44] down the road. But I think their concern

[14:46] is now is we better start kind of

[14:48] addressing this because they're worried

[14:50] about all the traffic there and

[14:52] potential for not for noise and safety

[14:54] reasons.

[14:56] >> And I think Salem's actually

[15:00] on one of

[15:03] >> there's a does the trail system is that

[15:05] also planned on that?

[15:07] >> Yes, on 200.

[15:08] >> Yeah.

[15:09] >> And it's on the north side.

[15:10] >> It's on the south I believe.

[15:12] >> Well, so that's a good question. Uh

[15:15] depends on who you talk to.

[15:16] >> Okay.

[15:16] >> It could be both.

[15:18] >> Okay.

[15:18] >> So, it's both county and Salem that are

[15:20] doing trail systems there and uh they've

[15:24] talked about doing it.

[15:27] So the the generally right now they're

[15:29] looking on the north side is where it

[15:30] would go. Um even though we've kind of

[15:33] got a partial one on the south, they're

[15:35] talking about putting it on the north.

[15:37] That's the Sman County talking about

[15:39] that.

[15:40] >> So the rightway there is owned by the

[15:41] county, right?

[15:42] >> Yes. It's a county road. Yes.

[15:45] >> So the question would be if eventually

[15:46] we develop down there, we want to do

[15:49] something, but it's a county right away.

[15:51] So it have to be coordinated if there is

[15:52] development with the county.

[15:55] >> Okay. Wonderful. Thank you. Okay, let's

[15:58] move to number two. Um, update on the

[16:00] mailboxes. Ted and Wayne.

[16:05] » So, I spoke to Wayne earlier today and

[16:07] so there was no update maybe at the next

[16:10] meeting.

[16:11] >> Okay. Do we have anything from the

[16:13] county? Uh, I did send the I did send

[16:16] the So, we got the 90% design roundabout

[16:19] design plans from the county's engineer

[16:22] and I sent those 90% plans to Three

[16:25] Bridges so they can start developing

[16:28] their site plan for the Mailbox.

[16:30] They've just kind of got that underway

[16:32] so there's no feedback from it yet.

[16:35] >> Perfect.

[16:36] >> It's in there.

[16:38] >> Kind Speaking of that, a quick question.

[16:40] Can do we know I've seen the signs out

[16:42] but on Monday next Monday when they

[16:44] start road construction do we know which

[16:46] section they're going to be working on?

[16:49] >> I think they're coming right up the road

[16:50] with the sewer is what they're bringing

[16:52] first. So there's a major sewer front

[16:54] line that's coming up with the hills

[16:55] right coming from Salem Canal Road.

[16:59] There's going to be a sewer line coming

[17:00] right up

[17:01] >> because I just thought that maybe on

[17:03] Sunday I should post something.

[17:05] >> So I got that message out last night

[17:08] from Jen, right? Um, just a link to

[17:11] Salem's site. She said that they'll have

[17:13] more information on Sunday. Okay. That

[17:16] she'll get and I'll send that over to

[17:17] you.

[17:18] >> Okay. I just thought that Yeah, we could

[17:19] make sure we get that posted. Okay.

[17:22] >> Wonderful. Okay. Uh, number three, uh,

[17:26] we're going to review sections 1 through

[17:28] six of the general plan. Um, so this

[17:31] document has already gone through the

[17:33] community development committee. Um, it

[17:35] has then gone to the planning

[17:36] commission. Um I received the notes and

[17:40] feedback and and requested changes from

[17:42] planning commission. So you are

[17:44] currently seeing in chapters 1 through

[17:47] six. You are seeing the notes from

[17:51] uh or the original of community

[17:53] development with red and then crossed

[17:56] out in red um any additions or deletions

[18:00] from the planning commission. Okay. um

[18:04] to make sure this part of the

[18:07] work session actually can run smoothly,

[18:09] I'm going to request that we keep it to

[18:11] just the council um and staff on this

[18:14] one. Um but let's uh

[18:19] how do you best want to tackle this? You

[18:21] want to just start and go?

[18:22] >> Uh I have something on page six, but if

[18:24] somebody has something before then go

[18:26] first.

[18:29] » Start with page six.

[18:31] >> Okay. just and this is a problem on

[18:33] several of the pages, but that graphic

[18:35] is blurry.

[18:36] >> Mhm.

[18:36] >> And hard to read. So that

[18:38] >> that may be an exporting thing.

[18:40] >> So it's got to be crisped up because if

[18:43] uh people are going to try to print

[18:44] that.

[18:45] >> No, it is blurry. I can render it.

[18:48] >> Okay. There's a few of those. So

[18:50] >> is it the entire graphic or just the

[18:51] text?

[18:52] >> It's the entire graphic because you

[18:54] can't read the percentages on the

[18:55] graphic and then you can't read the key

[18:57] on this side.

[18:58] >> Okay.

[19:00] So I had a hard time.

[19:01] >> Is this built in word?

[19:03] >> No, this is built in um in design.

[19:06] >> In design. So just the alignment of

[19:08] those graphs also. I'm just maybe it's

[19:11] just made. They're all the same graph.

[19:13] They're pie charts. They should all line

[19:14] up and

[19:15] >> Yeah. And a lot of those types of

[19:18] adjustments I'll make um when I kind of

[19:22] finalize.

[19:23] >> Okay. I don't want to be too nitpicky

[19:25] with that kind of stuff. Um, also as

[19:26] we're going through this, if there's

[19:28] anything that is in red that has been

[19:32] removed or added that you, you know,

[19:35] >> have an issue with,

[19:37] >> let's address those as well.

[19:39] >> I've got Yep.

[19:40] >> Okay. Page seven. Who is that in the

[19:42] picture?

[19:43] >> That's We're going to have to remove

[19:44] that picture.

[19:45] >> That's you, Brian, and Ted. And

[19:48] Kirsten's there.

[19:50] >> And I think Slater's there. And

[19:55] >> um okay,

[19:56] >> can we pull it up so that we're

[19:59] following it or does every everybody

[20:02] >> I' I've got I've got a

[20:03] >> I just made for

[20:06] >> page page 13. Uh same thing. Hard to

[20:11] read in the upper right hand corner that

[20:14] graphic especially the smaller one.

[20:16] Figure two race ethnicity percentages.

[20:19] Can't read it.

[20:24] It's very blurry.

[20:29] » Yeah. Okay.

[20:32] I told you I read it and I made notes.

[20:35] So,

[20:36] >> perfect. Love it.

[20:37] >> And um a lot of it was really good. Um a

[20:40] lot of I got to see a lot of the survey

[20:44] results that I hadn't seen before. So, I

[20:46] thought that was interesting. Okay. page

[20:50] 22

[20:52] and anybody if you have something before

[20:54] me when I jump ahead just tell me. Um it

[20:58] was low density and now it says medium

[21:00] density. Why

[21:04] are we considered medium now?

[21:06] And then it says the city has elected to

[21:09] focus on large and then it says medium

[21:11] density lots

[21:14] in.

[21:15] >> Yes.

[21:16] I asked him to change it because R119 is

[21:20] a medium considered medium density.

[21:23] >> Okay.

[21:23] >> And the he what it should read there is

[21:29] low and medium

[21:33] um

[21:34] >> okay

[21:35] >> low being 1acre lots, medium being R119.

[21:38] >> The way it reads right now, low is

[21:40] crossed out and medium. And I just don't

[21:42] want it to look like we're focused on

[21:43] medium

[21:45] in our community. I'm not certainly.

[21:49] Um, and then further down it says

[21:52] elected to focus on large and large is

[21:54] crossed out and it says medium. So it

[21:56] should be can it be or instead of

[22:00] crossed out or or andor.

[22:03] >> Thanks Ben. Are you talking about? Oh,

[22:06] >> page 22, development patterns,

[22:14] chapter three. Yep.

[22:18] Right in there. See how low is crossed

[22:20] out and it says medium and red and then

[22:22] it

[22:22] >> I I I'm requesting that say andor

[22:28] >> promoting low and or medium.

[22:30] >> Yeah. Or something. I just

[22:35] I don't like the lows c I'm sorry if

[22:37] anybody disagrees with me go ahead and

[22:39] say so

[22:40] >> well are we low and medium

[22:44] >> so yeah I I don't think that there's any

[22:47] low density plan in any of our timelines

[22:52] in anywhere in Woodland Hills

[22:56] I think low is not a good term is medium

[22:59] or large in my opinion Um because our

[23:02] 1119 is the smallest. I mean we we've

[23:04] got some limited ones but there

[23:07] >> large density would be like an apartment

[23:09] complex.

[23:10] >> Yeah.

[23:12] Low density is a five acres. Two

[23:15] >> low or medium. Okay. I'm looking I'm

[23:17] thinking lower medium lot size. I wasn't

[23:19] looking at density.

[23:20] >> There's two places.

[23:22] >> Density component. Yeah.

[23:23] >> Yeah. Density. Lower medium. Okay. That

[23:26] makes sense. You're right.

[23:27] >> Yep.

[23:27] >> I don't think it hurts.

[23:29] >> Yeah, it doesn't.

[23:31] Yeah,

[23:32] >> I know it's just a grammatical thing,

[23:34] but I I was like, wait, uh-uh. That show

[23:37] was my response when I read that.

[23:41] So, if we could unstrike those

[23:45] and make them grammatically correct,

[23:48] that would be wonderful.

[23:49] >> Unstrike all of this

[23:50] >> just the large, medium,

[23:53] >> just to mitigate the impact of these

[23:56] constraints.

[23:57] >> Okay.

[23:57] >> Period.

[23:58] >> Right. Is the plan. different than the

[24:00] one I have.

[24:02] >> Okay.

[24:04] Right.

[24:04] >> Yeah. This this was actually an addition

[24:06] from I think your notes industry is

[24:08] considered low density.

[24:11] >> Yeah. But I mean the majority fires are

[24:14] 75 or more,

[24:15] >> right? I'm just saying we're

[24:19] >> overall.

[24:22] >> All right.

[24:22] >> Uh next. And then page 24

[24:26] is also blurry the graphic.

[24:30] >> Yeah, that's not going to change. I can

[24:32] do the key.

[24:33] >> Can you fix the key?

[24:34] >> I can replace I can edit the key and

[24:36] I'll talk with uh

[24:39] >> I'll see if I can't get

[24:41] >> Maybe my eyes are just blurry.

[24:43] >> No, that's that's a that's a good one.

[24:45] >> Can't be stained.

[24:47] >> Page 26. The key. Can't read the key.

[25:01] That is an import. So maybe there is a

[25:04] setting I need to export better here.

[25:06] >> Okay. Um

[25:10] >> sorry.

[25:10] >> Look here for instance that's crystal

[25:12] clear.

[25:13] >> Even like page 30. It's hard

[25:17] to read those numbers at the bottom.

[25:19] number of housing units on the graph.

[25:31] » Yeah, that's an important thing because

[25:33] they're clear here.

[25:34] >> Okay.

[25:36] Um on page 31,

[25:41] the two graphics at the bottom, they

[25:43] look like they're the same.

[25:45] >> Yes, we deleted one of them.

[25:47] >> Okay. Oh, you cuz see yours is more

[25:49] updated than what we have.

[25:51] >> Yes.

[25:51] >> What I have.

[25:53] >> Okay. The numbers were different, but it

[25:56] read the same at the top. So, I was very

[25:57] confused.

[26:00] Okay.

[26:05] I think I might get a gold star for

[26:07] doing my homework. Let's see. Page 37.

[26:11] The key is blurry.

[26:14] >> Yep. also exporting.

[26:16] >> One major comment I had on this is

[26:19] shouldn't we have a future land use map

[26:21] in the plan? This is just a current

[26:23] zoning map, but we don't have a future.

[26:27] >> I think the future and the current

[26:28] aren't the same,

[26:30] >> right? Cuz the current zoning is taking

[26:32] in the future's anticipated. Uh Wayne,

[26:36] you're the one that requested this

[26:37] alteration. What's your thoughts here?

[26:39] >> We didn't want to lock the city into

[26:42] future zoning.

[26:44] But and that's that's what's happened a

[26:47] little bit. We've gotten push back when

[26:50] we've gone to zone something that um

[26:55] that is zoned differently and

[26:59] people have said to us, well that's not

[27:01] what your zoning map shows. And so

[27:05] the proposed zoning map from previous

[27:09] general plans.

[27:10] >> Sure. So, we wanted to leave flexibility

[27:13] in in future zoning as to whether

[27:18] they're individual lots or whether

[27:20] there's a a a development that's going

[27:24] on and not

[27:28] have the residents feel that we're going

[27:30] against the general plan where there's a

[27:34] proposed future zoning.

[27:38] wanted to leave that open depending upon

[27:41] the circumstances

[27:43] that you felt that it should be zoned

[27:45] as.

[27:46] >> Yeah, that that makes good sense.

[27:49] Um the the concern is isn't the entire

[27:52] purpose behind having a general plan to

[27:55] have a plan for the future to say hey

[28:00] with what our anticipated growth is so

[28:02] we don't go willy-nilly hodge podgeing

[28:05] all over the city to say hey this is

[28:08] prudent development based on what we

[28:10] know with future roads with future um

[28:14] density areas with future um you know,

[28:18] influx of of either density housing or commercial or whatever whatever it

[28:25] may be. Isn't this where we should be?

[28:27] Yeah, we may not get it right, but

[28:29] shouldn't we be planning for, hey, this

[28:33] is what's expected to be happening here?

[28:36] Um, and so this is where we want to be

[28:38] guiding the city to because right now

[28:41] we're just saying, yeah, the zoning is

[28:44] just great. We love it. And if somebody

[28:47] wants to make a change, they can make a

[28:48] change.

[28:51] >> Well, and I think there's there's

[28:52] something to that. I think right now

[28:55] you've got these areas here that are all

[28:58] zoned as agriculture, and I don't think

[29:00] they'll always be that way. Right.

[29:03] >> So, and what I've seen in other general

[29:05] plans, just throw feedback, sometimes

[29:07] it'll say, it doesn't say this is how

[29:10] we're doing the zoning. It says this is

[29:13] um some guidance in our zoning. and say,

[29:15] "We're anticipating in this general

[29:17] area, we're going to have some higher

[29:18] density. We're anticipating lower

[29:20] density." So, you're not actually zoning

[29:22] the property now, but you're saying this

[29:24] is what we're guiding the the direction

[29:27] towards the zone. That makes sense. So,

[29:29] you can show kind of a future map says

[29:32] this is what the thoughts are, but not

[29:33] actually zone the property.

[29:36] >> Yeah. Yeah. And and I guess

[29:38] >> different owners that don't want their

[29:40] property zone, something different than

[29:41] what is now. Like I know the hes you

[29:43] know all a land that's all they they

[29:45] don't want to at least Jason doesn't

[29:46] want to zone it's something different

[29:48] now but but you can say this is what

[29:49] we're thinking in this area if they ever

[29:51] sell

[29:52] >> exactly yeah so so that we're kind of

[29:54] preparing to say hey and and and here's

[29:58] the deal I mean I'm a developer and when

[30:02] I look at cities I'm looking at you know

[30:06] very few of us myself included is

[30:08] competent or qualified enough to say,

[30:11] "Hey, the future of Woodland Hills is

[30:14] going to be best suited to have this, this, and this on every acre of

[30:19] land." Right? I mean, I'd love to say

[30:21] that we could, but we're not those

[30:22] experts. We we can't speak to that

[30:25] growth. We can't speak to what the

[30:28] impacts of that growth are, what's going

[30:29] to be necessary. But there are experts

[30:31] out there who can guide us to say, "Hey,

[30:34] based on what you guys have, this is an

[30:36] appropriate

[30:38] expectation for your vision of the

[30:40] city." and also for you know responsible

[30:43] development. And that's that's kind of

[30:45] what I always talked about is we want to

[30:47] develop responsibly and this my fear in

[30:51] this is that we're just leaving it open

[30:54] which is fantastic but it's also failing

[30:56] to plan for what's inevitably going to

[30:58] come.

[30:59] >> What do you can you talk more about what

[31:01] you think is inevitable to come? The

[31:03] forcing of of higher density. What what

[31:06] exactly are you

[31:07] >> development development will come into

[31:09] those areas? right? It will never remain

[31:11] a field forever. And so us being able to

[31:14] say, "Hey, it's not going to be a

[31:15] hodgepodge of whatever proposal comes to

[31:19] us, it's going to be a well um a well

[31:22] planned, well thought out um

[31:24] professionally. Again, I'm not that

[31:27] professional. Um but we should have

[31:30] somebody who's competent and qualified

[31:32] come in and say, "Hey, if you have a

[31:34] thoroughfare like this, this is what's

[31:36] best for a city of your caliber." Right?

[31:39] is put this type of zoning, put, you

[31:43] know, and then you buffer into this. Um,

[31:45] people get so upset about highdensity

[31:48] residential, but highdensity residential

[31:51] does not devalue low density

[31:52] residential. What devalues low

[31:55] residential, low density residential is

[31:58] commercial or industrial. Um,

[32:02] and there's nothing aside from us that's

[32:04] stopping that from happening. But even

[32:06] that is not a good fail safe, right?

[32:10] Sure. So

[32:11] >> that makes sense.

[32:14] >> Trying to find

[32:15] >> you control the zoning in the moment, so

[32:18] to speak. When when there's something to

[32:21] be reszoned or developer comes in, uh,

[32:24] you can tell them, "No, those are not

[32:26] going to be oneacre lots in there. We

[32:29] need we need some higher density." You

[32:33] control that. you're here today and gone

[32:37] tomorrow. Those views change and then

[32:40] you've got the property owner to deal

[32:43] with as well.

[32:45] >> And again,

[32:49] one of our visions is

[32:52] we've always said along 11200

[32:54] is a good place for commercial

[32:57] >> in there. So when somebody starts

[33:01] talking about homes along there, they

[33:03] said, "No, no, no. that's that's

[33:06] reserved for commercial.

[33:09] And so we we didn't want to lock

[33:13] that up at this point in time. There's

[33:16] still a lot of development that will

[33:18] occur down in those lower areas over the

[33:22] years to come.

[33:23] >> Yeah.

[33:24] >> And and you as a council may have

[33:26] different views and things may change.

[33:28] We're there's a lot of pressure being

[33:31] put on now by the state for

[33:35] high density housing, for affordable

[33:37] housing, whatever. And and that's

[33:40] defined. And so

[33:44] rather than lock in on some of these

[33:46] things, we wanted to leave it flexible

[33:48] enough that the council then with like

[33:52] you say, if a developer comes in and

[33:54] says, I've done the we've done these

[33:56] studies and here's a person we paid x

[33:58] number of dollars to and this is what

[34:01] bet best fits this this area. And you

[34:04] have that flexibility in making those

[34:07] determinations at that point in time. So

[34:10] that's the that's kind of the rationale

[34:13] and idea behind not seeking a a zone now

[34:18] or recommending a particular zone u.

[34:24] >> Yeah. So here's the map that there used

[34:26] to be there.

[34:30] » So they don't actually selling

[34:33] commercial options

[34:36] over here.

[34:37] >> Can I make a comment?

[34:42] as the city like we've talked about

[34:44] sewer's coming

[34:46] >> it's very slow but you guys have a

[34:48] target where it's going to start and how

[34:50] it will be fed through that's one area

[34:53] that would be coordin exactly what

[34:55] you're talking about this is where we

[34:57] want to say this is you know sewer's

[35:00] going to be here so this could support

[35:02] this kind of a development I years ago

[35:06] decades Craig was on the planning zoning

[35:08] in Salem

[35:09] And they had a it wasn't the general

[35:12] plan, but they had a giant map on the

[35:13] wall that they colorcoded and said, you

[35:16] know, this is what we're thinking. It

[35:18] could be in flux. And it was in flux as

[35:21] they made changes like developer came in

[35:24] and put in

[35:26] development on the highway. And so sewer

[35:28] suddenly went south, I mean north and

[35:31] then that changed because it opened up

[35:33] more opportunities. But I what you're

[35:35] saying I think is really important.

[35:38] So is the flexibility. Yeah, I think

[35:40] having that

[35:41] >> SA calls there's a uh it's called the

[35:44] future land use concept.

[35:46] >> So it's not really a land use map. They

[35:49] kind of what

[35:51] >> so similar to it's kind of like that

[35:53] only they've said they've bubbled in

[35:54] areas not really like identified

[35:56] specifically.

[35:56] >> So similar to this map here, right?

[35:58] >> Yeah. They just kind of bubble it in say

[35:59] here's what we're thinking would go

[36:01] here. Here's what we're think go here.

[36:02] So it doesn't reszone it or lock it in.

[36:05] Um, but I don't know if that's anyway.

[36:07] I'm just kind of throwing out what I was

[36:08] saying.

[36:08] >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, I I just

[36:10] >> You call it a concept map, not really a

[36:13] land use.

[36:14] >> Makes sense. Yeah. And and maybe we we

[36:16] look at that word. I just feel like it's

[36:18] important because it protects protects

[36:21] all of us a little bit from,

[36:24] you know, decisions going ary or little

[36:27] one-off things, right? So, I can sit

[36:30] here and say, well, I trust myself to

[36:32] make a good decision, but I want to see

[36:33] what how it impacts the overall um of

[36:37] the city, not just today, but the

[36:39] adjacent property tomorrow, the next

[36:41] day, the next year. So,

[36:43] >> so I like I like the the idea of the

[36:46] concept because we have been hamstrung

[36:50] because of our general plan and had to

[36:52] vote certain ways, didn't have a choice

[36:55] because it was in the general plan. this

[36:56] is what our future is and this is what

[36:58] we plan for it. Um regardless of what

[37:01] the the residents wanted. Um we were

[37:04] kind of I felt I felt that I was was

[37:08] trapped in that decision and couldn't change it. So I like the idea

[37:12] of setting a concept and saying very

[37:15] clearly this isn't

[37:18] a have to. This is what we're this is

[37:20] what we're envisioning, right? Uh, so I

[37:23] like that and and I like being able to

[37:25] have those guidelines in place like like

[37:27] Steve is talking about.

[37:31] » Okay, keep thinking about this.

[37:33] >> That's certainly your prerogative

[37:36] >> to do that. And I don't I'm not

[37:38] disagreeing. I'm just giving you a

[37:40] reason why

[37:41] >> why you're protecting. Yeah, which makes

[37:43] sense.

[37:45] >> Let's keep thinking about that. If you

[37:46] have more thoughts, send them over my

[37:48] way. Um, and again, just so you guys all

[37:51] know, when I was kind of compiling this,

[37:55] I did not insert my opinion anywhere in

[37:57] the document. So, it's just the merging

[38:00] of the two bodies. Uh, next page. What

[38:04] do we got?

[38:04] >> 40.

[38:05] >> Page 40. You may have fixed this

[38:08] already, but in the second paragraph,

[38:10] tranquility of rural life, there was a

[38:12] space missing. It's just a grammatical

[38:16] thing.

[38:19] Uh up

[38:21] right

[38:22] rural life outdoor lighting down down right there. It needs a space and

[38:28] then

[38:31] oh I'm going to open a can of worms.

[38:34] >> Nice guy.

[38:35] >> If anybody has any

[38:37] >> I'm going to open it all your notes for

[38:39] public comment.

[38:41] Um, what? Okay, I understand.

[38:46] But why did we remove in a recent public

[38:49] survey, residents expressed support for

[38:51] preserving dark skies and continuing to

[38:53] limit artificial lighting?

[38:55] This is what the residents wanted. We're

[38:58] just saying what the residents wanted. I

[39:01] understand. We're not saying that we're

[39:02] going to do it.

[39:05] Well, I think there is some

[39:06] falsification in this verbiage to

[39:09] exaggerate what the research the survey

[39:12] actually said.

[39:14] >> Okay.

[39:14] >> Right. So over 80% of residents

[39:17] indicated

[39:18] >> it was 80% of those that took the survey

[39:22] >> which was onlyund

[39:23] >> which is a small small

[39:26] >> respondent

[39:27] >> right? So it just it is stating

[39:32] something far larger than actual.

[39:36] >> Okay.

[39:36] >> Is my assumption here.

[39:38] >> Can I

[39:39] >> Yes.

[39:40] >> I'm going to add that also. I think

[39:41] people didn't understand what dark skies

[39:43] and night skies. When you tell them dark

[39:46] skies, they're two different things than

[39:48] night sky.

[39:51] And it leaned heavily into dark sky

[39:53] which forces regulations. Night sky is

[39:56] what we

[39:57] >> I think it actually used the verbiage of

[39:59] night skies in the survey.

[40:01] >> Did they use the word night sky? Night

[40:02] sky.

[40:03] >> So they used it here. Dark sky. Dark

[40:05] sky.

[40:05] >> Mhm.

[40:06] >> And then here the city should take

[40:09] proactive steps to prevent to preserve

[40:11] our night sky.

[40:13] >> So now

[40:14] >> that's what I think I really agree with.

[40:17] Definitely preserve our what we have the

[40:20] beauty we have.

[40:22] >> Do they want more policing? I don't know

[40:24] >> cuz question one, two

[40:29] used night sky and four used dark sky.

[40:34] >> I guess um

[40:38] I just, you know, if there's some way to

[40:42] make that wording a little more correct,

[40:45] but also

[40:45] >> Diana had a good suggestion, maybe just

[40:47] say not percent of respondents.

[40:50] >> Yeah.

[40:50] Not% of residents.

[40:53] I mean, I just I guess I don't want to

[40:55] discount what the people that took the

[40:57] survey did say and what they expressed.

[40:59] >> The approximately

[41:02] 40% of respondents or 30% that

[41:04] responded, you know, 80% of those wanted

[41:07] or something like that.

[41:08] >> Yeah, some kind of disclaimer. I know.

[41:10] I'm sorry. I'm I know that's a can of

[41:12] worms, but

[41:14] >> it should be there.

[41:15] >> But when you talk to residents, the

[41:17] majority of them do want the night sky

[41:18] preserved.

[41:20] >> The majority do sky. Night sky is fine.

[41:24] >> Yes,

[41:24] >> we we wanted to take it out of the dark

[41:26] sky which implies ordinance changes for

[41:30] lighting,

[41:31] >> I get it,

[41:32] >> etc., etc.

[41:33] >> No, I know.

[41:34] >> It makes sense. Is dark sky trademarked

[41:38] or is it just the

[41:41] >> It is. Yes.

[41:44] >> Huh?

[41:46] >> Yes, it is trademarked. Um both US and

[41:50] international.

[41:54] Yeah, I'll re I'll kind of reddraft that

[41:57] per your guys' input and send it back

[41:58] out.

[41:59] >> Is that okay?

[42:00] >> Yeah.

[42:00] >> Um,

[42:01] >> everything's okay.

[42:03] >> Just a question. All right, let's see. I

[42:07] think

[42:07] >> we'll go back to 39 real quick. We

[42:09] deleted the TDR program. Um,

[42:13] >> 39.

[42:14] >> Yeah, back to page 39. Sorry.

[42:18] um

[42:20] >> strategic open space.

[42:22] >> Was there a reason behind removing that?

[42:25] I mean, what kind of the general idea

[42:28] behind the TDR program is

[42:30] >> we didn't think there was a chance of

[42:32] that even happening

[42:35] and so we felt it was just kind of

[42:38] extraneous. It's an idea but chances of

[42:41] it ever happening

[42:44] in our view again may differ with your

[42:47] own but that's the reason it was reowned

[42:53] » the transfer of development rights can

[42:55] you explain that better Steve

[42:57] >> I can't

[42:58] >> okay

[42:59] >> category

[43:00] >> is that like what we did with a planned

[43:02] unit development if they um gave

[43:06] property to the city we gave them a

[43:09] density bonus then. But the property

[43:12] that was given to the city most of the

[43:14] time was uh

[43:16] >> gorgees

[43:17] >> gorges and gullies that we then ended up

[43:19] having to maintain and have our wildland

[43:22] fire crew.

[43:24] >> It was never buildable in the first

[43:26] place. While it's a

[43:29] unique FE feature, it wouldn't have

[43:32] provided them any benefit and it really

[43:36] didn't

[43:37] >> provide us any benefit maybe. But we did

[43:41] do that with um PBD and Oaks.

[43:45] >> Okay.

[43:46] So, as we talk about that, is is there

[43:49] Joe, you seem to understand it best. um

[43:52] like when we trade off like let's say we

[43:54] allow a higher density for a tradeoff of

[43:57] dedicated land like a right of way or

[44:00] something like that is is there benefit

[44:02] on that front where we can dictate and

[44:04] say okay we're going to give you better

[44:06] density you're going to make the

[44:08] improvements or dedicate right of way to

[44:10] us that we can actually use

[44:12] >> usually do that in a development

[44:13] agreement if you're going to do

[44:14] something like that which they have a

[44:16] choice to do

[44:17] >> okay

[44:18] >> um

[44:19] maybe we need to encourage more

[44:21] development agreements than not. I mean,

[44:25] that's that may be something you want to

[44:26] look at

[44:28] >> as um a council as you go forward. If

[44:30] they bring a you could look at changing

[44:32] the ordinance and say, you know, if

[44:34] you've got more than 10 acres, you're

[44:36] required to bring a development

[44:38] agreement with it that might benefit the

[44:40] city, but that would be down in our our

[44:43] city code

[44:45] >> those changes. It's currently at like

[44:47] five acres or something or

[44:50] >> 50 acres.

[44:50] >> 50 acres. Wow. Okay.

[44:53] >> It's you can do a development agreement

[44:55] with um I think it's 10 acres in the old

[44:58] area

[44:58] >> and any PUD I think requires a

[45:01] development agreement

[45:04] and then zone for a PUD.

[45:07] But if you want to get more creative in

[45:08] how the zoning's going to look or how a

[45:11] development's going to look, then you

[45:12] want to probably definitely look at

[45:15] encouraging those development agreements

[45:18] and a PUD.

[45:19] >> So, so that serves every purpose that a

[45:21] TDR program would, but a little more

[45:23] flexibility, it sounds like. Okay.

[45:26] >> Yeah. A little more customizability as

[45:28] well. I think one thing I've learned as

[45:31] I've kind of worked closer now with

[45:33] developers and Ted and Wayne and

[45:35] everybody is

[45:37] every single piece of land on this city

[45:40] is almost unique to that piece of land,

[45:43] right? I got a phone call yesterday from

[45:45] a resident. I need to call him back, but

[45:47] you know, requesting a variance for his

[45:50] exception on his piece of land. And it's

[45:52] like, well, that'd be great,

[45:56] except I we'd have to do that for every

[45:58] single person. So, we kind of have to

[45:59] stick to certain rules, but it's there's

[46:02] options still also with the variance

[46:04] options.

[46:05] There's still options within people's

[46:07] rights and property ownership.

[46:09] >> Okay, next page.

[46:11] >> 48. Uh, at the bottom, those are blurry

[46:14] as well. A little exporting.

[46:17] >> Hang on. I had some Ted or uh Ben, did

[46:20] you or mayor, sorry, did you fix the

[46:23] ones that were sent in that were just

[46:25] spelling?

[46:27] >> Yes.

[46:28] >> Okay. So, I don't need to bring those

[46:29] up. I don't need until 40.

[46:34] » If you sent it to me, it's either been

[46:37] edited or on my list still to edit.

[46:41] >> I I sent it to you back on the 24th of

[46:43] March. Okay, I received yours and

[46:45] Steve's emails.

[46:49] >> Um,

[46:52] not anything specific on chapter five.

[46:55] So, like back, but I do have a question.

[46:57] Uh, I was thinking about this.

[47:01] We have, you know, three big main

[47:02] corridors out of town. Ted, this is a

[47:05] question for you. As if we were fully

[47:08] developed out, would our roads be would

[47:11] they ever I mean, do we ever need

[47:12] another main corridor? like will we ever

[47:14] be too congested?

[47:17] >> I don't think so because most of the

[47:19] development that that we have left

[47:21] available space

[47:22] >> is at the bottom.

[47:25] >> Um and we're looking at as that develops

[47:28] making some interconnecting roads to

[47:30] different in other words not just one

[47:32] road into there right multiple

[47:34] connections down there. Um, so I don't

[47:37] know that we'd ever have enough traffic

[47:41] to clog up our roads, our three main

[47:42] corridors.

[47:43] >> Okay. I just wondered that as I was

[47:45] reading about the roads.

[47:49] » Winding them.

[47:53] would be a nightmare

[47:54] anyway.

[47:55] >> No, it would for sure. It's already hard

[47:57] enough trying to get trail right.

[47:59] >> Mhm. Our

[48:00] >> traffic counts right now. They didn't

[48:01] they did a study on Wood Hills Drive as

[48:03] part of that round study.

[48:05] I mean out of our city traffic and it

[48:07] wasn't terribly heavy right now traffic.

[48:13] >> Okay. Next.

[48:15] >> Anybody

[48:16] >> just did you see that email that I

[48:17] forwarded on the Bonavville the trail

[48:20] thing?

[48:20] >> I saw that. I saw it.

[48:25] » Yeah.

[48:25] >> It's in my email.

[48:26] >> I I mean they sent it to me. Oh, okay.

[48:28] Wait. On page 63. That little pie is

[48:32] blurry.

[48:34] Yeah, we we'll fix all the graphics.

[48:37] >> Okay. And then 65, the map is blurry.

[48:41] And that's interesting. That's the

[48:42] Bonavville

[48:43] shoreline trail configuration. And

[48:45] that's what the email was about.

[48:49] >> Yeah. Ted and I used or mostly Ted used

[48:52] that and hopefully to be able to get and

[48:55] petition the the funding for the trail

[48:57] project from MAG is the interlocal

[49:00] nature of our trail.

[49:03] Okay.

[49:05] Um,

[49:07] yeah, just I thought this was good. I

[49:09] didn't have any really concerns on the trail one.

[49:17] I almost uh when I first started reading

[49:19] the part of the switchbacks, I was like,

[49:21] it doesn't talk about the the width, but

[49:23] then it does on the next page on trail

[49:26] tread about the width limitation. I just

[49:29] think that's important.

[49:32] because that is a change that's been

[49:33] made.

[49:37] You you suggested in here that it needs

[49:39] more maintenance. Thanks.

[49:44] » Guess who's going to have to go do that?

[49:47] Me

[49:49] with Sherry and crew will be out there

[49:54] in May probably.

[49:56] Um,

[49:59] yeah. So, that was I think that was all

[50:01] I had.

[50:02] >> Most most of mine were simp just

[50:05] graphics unreadable.

[50:06] >> Yeah.

[50:07] >> And I saw that Steve had one of his

[50:09] initial email a lot of that out. So,

[50:13] >> yeah.

[50:14] I I think only a couple things on page

[50:17] 42 or sorry, were you done, Dan? Sorry.

[50:20] >> Yep.

[50:21] Um 42, deleting the the overlay zone for

[50:25] future zone changes in development. Is

[50:27] that kind of a similar mentality we had

[50:29] there? Um

[50:36] » what's planning commission's thoughts

[50:37] there on three?

[50:39] >> Can you read it?

[50:40] >> Use the overlay zone criteria to

[50:42] evaluate proposed site plans,

[50:45] architectural renderings, and

[50:47] development agreements.

[50:50] Uh the section header is explore

[50:53] commercial and mixeduse development

[50:54] opportunities that align with public

[50:57] preferences and community character.

[51:02] So is that excluded primarily due to the

[51:05] fact of

[51:07] um

[51:09] removing that future possible map and

[51:13] changing it to the existing

[51:15] >> number two above it says consider zoning

[51:19] overlays.

[51:21] I I think we thought it was maybe

[51:23] duplicitous a little bit. Mhm.

[51:31] Okay. I mean, if I were if I were to

[51:34] look at those two, I would say that

[51:36] three is probably more applicable than

[51:38] two if we feel like one of them's

[51:40] duplicitus. But I mean, I do like the

[51:43] idea of talking about village commercial

[51:45] or mixed use architecturally compatible

[51:47] stuff. But I also like the development

[51:49] agreements,

[51:50] um, architectural renderings, that sort

[51:52] of thing. So I

[51:53] >> and it's it's more holistic.

[51:56] That one's

[51:57] >> two points out very specific components

[51:59] of development etc. Whereas number three

[52:02] is a little more generic

[52:03] >> and could be applied to two

[52:05] >> whereas two doesn't necessarily apply to

[52:07] three and three is more broad.

[52:08] >> Yeah,

[52:09] >> it's kind of how I feel. So I I don't

[52:10] know. That's just my thoughts is that

[52:12] it's applicable. Yeah. that I mean

[52:16] this

[52:17] >> or if you want to read or if you want

[52:19] just this like I would parlay this one

[52:21] over that because it's just more

[52:23] inclusive because it's talking about

[52:25] full development agreements

[52:26] architectural rentings this is specific

[52:28] to commercial mixuse etc. So, if you

[52:30] want to keep one of them, I think what

[52:32] Steve is saying is this one seems to be

[52:34] more inclusive of everything versus

[52:36] number two.

[52:37] >> Is that what you're saying?

[52:38] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[52:39] >> I would agree.

[52:46] » Okay.

[52:49] >> Um

[52:50] page 50, um the ADG,

[52:54] some opposition to the ADG there. Again,

[52:57] I just wanted to understand that a

[52:58] little bit more.

[53:04] boost number

[53:08] page 50 there.

[53:09] >> Yeah, page let's see architectural

[53:12] design guidelines. Um right there on C.

[53:16] >> Okay, that was my question was which

[53:18] one?

[53:19] >> Yeah, I'm sorry. C one. um ensure that

[53:23] only any overlay or master plan approval

[53:26] includes architectural design guideline

[53:28] options. Um

[53:32] there again I mean without being too

[53:33] restrictive or or too too controlling

[53:37] you know if if we do see something like

[53:40] that doesn't that not give us the

[53:42] ability to dictate that hey this is what

[53:44] we're expecting to see there within

[53:47] architectural design guidelines.

[53:50] I think we're telling them they have to

[53:52] provide it, ensure that

[53:56] and I think that's really pretty strong.

[53:59] Uh it may be a better word to include

[54:03] that

[54:05] in there. I think that's the reason we

[54:07] removed it to not be so emphatic

[54:13] about it.

[54:15] Use the term may instead.

[54:18] >> Yeah. Yeah. I I I mean it makes sense. I

[54:22] guess it's it's just a matter of how

[54:24] important is

[54:28] are dictating,

[54:30] you know, what goes on down there

[54:31] architecturally. Is it

[54:33] >> some things?

[54:34] >> Yeah.

[54:34] >> Some things we can't.

[54:37] >> Um

[54:37] >> so, something like that

[54:41] >> may include clear architectural design

[54:44] guidelines for multif family housing.

[54:48] Unless we establish an HOA, we can't

[54:52] uh determine architectural design

[54:55] guidelines.

[54:56] >> So, and that's where I've got a problem

[54:59] with this page because it says um that

[55:04] it's uh you know, architecture. Well,

[55:06] actually 49 talks about it being um the

[55:11] architectural features and layout are

[55:13] strictly controlled by the city. Well,

[55:16] when it comes to features, that is

[55:17] nonstructural for the most part. I mean,

[55:20] we can control structural features,

[55:22] structural architectural features, but

[55:24] we cannot control anything that's

[55:26] nonstructural. That's very specific. I

[55:28] learned that from Wayne. Um, and so I

[55:32] hate I don't like the way this is

[55:34] spelled because it spells like it's it's worded like we have lots of control

[55:39] and we're controlling the these these

[55:42] architectural features when we're in in

[55:46] reality we're not. It's only the

[55:48] structural ones that we have any say

[55:50] whatsoever.

[55:56] You have a suggested uh alteration

[55:58] there, Brian.

[56:00] >> Um

[56:02] there are a few features through our

[56:04] other codes that we do just a little bit

[56:06] like height of the building

[56:08] and then some of the exterior materials

[56:11] because of our wood codes, but I don't

[56:14] know it's really that

[56:17] >> okay.

[56:19] I think we have to get out of there that

[56:21] the council retains strict control over

[56:23] architectural features and layouts

[56:25] because we don't we can't.

[56:28] >> Well, we don't want to either.

[56:30] >> Yeah. The whole title of that page 49 is

[56:33] just wrong.

[56:39] » Yeah. So, you're thinking right here.

[56:43] I can

[56:45] >> that.

[56:49] » Yeah, that that whole line right there.

[57:01] » Okay. Anything else?

[57:04] Um,

[57:07] page 60 talks about feedback from the

[57:10] city from from the respondents to avoid

[57:13] sidewalks, but a lot of favoritism

[57:17] toward trails. So, I guess in my mind,

[57:21] they were kind of one and the same, but

[57:23] apparently not. I mean, a trail is just

[57:26] a paved pathway and a sidewalk is

[57:30] >> a paved pathway.

[57:32] >> Yeah. I don't know.

[57:34] >> I think a sidewalk has to is is

[57:36] concrete.

[57:37] >> Okay.

[57:39] >> Um

[57:39] >> the width changes a little bit with

[57:41] sidewalk versus trail material

[57:44] >> drainage requirements.

[57:46] >> Okay. So, so when we talk about trails,

[57:50] we're not talking about sidewalks at

[57:52] all. Okay. I mean, I just

[57:54] >> No.

[57:56] >> Okay.

[57:58] And then page 61, my last comment,

[58:00] sorry, was um

[58:01] >> don't be sorry.

[58:02] >> The strong language about the trails. Um

[58:09] » striking here.

[58:10] >> Yeah. Um

[58:14] so so we we struck that out. Um but it

[58:17] seems pretty clear that that's an

[58:19] important thing.

[58:21] >> Yeah. I I actually didn't love that that

[58:24] uh was struck stricken. It is expected.

[58:29] >> Can we soften it somehow? I mean um

[58:34] an important component or

[58:36] >> highly desired. Highly desired. I like

[58:38] highly desired.

[58:40] >> Yeah. I mean is that agreeable at that

[58:42] point? Um

[58:45] >> yeah. If you just if you just put is

[58:46] highly desired and then get rid of the

[58:48] is it is expected. Yeah. Yeah.

[58:49] >> It takes the strength out, but it still

[58:51] gives it strength back, right?

[58:52] >> Yeah. Yeah.

[58:53] >> It doesn't make it like four exclamation

[58:55] points, but it does make it one,

[58:57] >> right?

[58:58] >> Something like that.

[58:59] >> Yeah, I think that's that's good. Does

[59:01] that seem good?

[59:02] >> Yeah.

[59:03] >> When?

[59:04] >> Yeah.

[59:06] >> Okay.

[59:08] >> All right.

[59:08] >> Anything else?

[59:09] >> I've got a couple more.

[59:11] >> I mean, I had some spelling and and

[59:13] things like that on page 46.

[59:16] Um I put in my notes that um the the new

[59:20] numbers for the median Woodlands home Woodland Hills home price is not

[59:24] reflected in the table

[59:26] um because we've added that because

[59:28] we've gotten more data since this was

[59:30] put together that needs to be added to

[59:32] the table um because it doesn't match.

[59:37] >> Okay. So, you're saying this table here?

[59:41] >> I think I think that's the right

[59:43] >> I think that's the right table, but it

[59:45] was a median home where they had put

[59:47] some numbers in and then Wayne added the

[59:50] new median home price

[59:54] and it just did.

[59:55] >> These are these are specific to years,

[59:59] right? So, this is 2020 or 2017 and

[1:00:02] 2023.

[1:00:04] >> I think it's the top one. doesn't match

[1:00:06] what is in the new verb verbiage

[1:00:10] >> as of 2023.

[1:00:12] >> Yeah, these are as of 2023 right here.

[1:00:17] » So, I think the non-correlation actually

[1:00:19] is okay

[1:00:22] because this is now stating the numbers

[1:00:24] of 2025.

[1:00:26] >> Is it related to the one up on the upper

[1:00:28] right? Is that the one you're referring

[1:00:29] to, Brian?

[1:00:31] Um might be

[1:00:36] >> well that's 2023 that's a carryover

[1:00:38] rate.

[1:00:40] >> Yeah that that would yeah should be

[1:00:44] >> oh I don't think

[1:00:45] >> it too long. Dang it.

[1:00:48] >> It's okay. So loan amount factor.

[1:00:51] >> Yeah. I wonder if that's a carryover

[1:00:52] from the table. Huh.

[1:00:54] >> I don't think it is. I don't think it is

[1:00:56] because you've got a

[1:00:57] >> because it has a

[1:00:58] >> you've got a footnote

[1:00:58] >> a footnote here and then a different

[1:01:01] footnote for this one. So I think it's

[1:01:03] not.

[1:01:04] >> So during 2025 there was 25 home 21

[1:01:06] homes sold in Willen Hills for pricing

[1:01:08] ranging from 750 to 3.5. Medium home

[1:01:13] cost price was uh 1.0

[1:01:17] you know25. The average home selling

[1:01:19] price was 1.4.

[1:01:24] So, Wooden Hills medium home price

[1:01:29] loan amounts factoring. It does not

[1:01:31] include utilities for the 2025 estimate.

[1:01:37] >> So, do we just need a bump? Well,

[1:01:40] >> that's up.

[1:01:41] >> That might have been it.

[1:01:43] >> Yeah. My question is, can you can you

[1:01:46] have the median there? That's the way I

[1:01:50] read that is 510 to 880 is a is a range

[1:01:52] median range, right?

[1:01:54] >> Otherwise, we would have to have a

[1:01:55] singular number. If you say median, it's

[1:01:57] a singular value. But if we put in

[1:01:59] median range,

[1:02:01] >> then that gives us the the low end and

[1:02:05] highend capability there.

[1:02:06] >> So, we probably what should jump this

[1:02:08] though?

[1:02:09] >> Yeah, that but well, even the bottom cuz

[1:02:12] you're saying ranging from 750 to 35.

[1:02:15] So, how can the median be 510? because

[1:02:18] it was in 2017 to

[1:02:21] so they're old numbers.

[1:02:22] >> There's some old numbers in there mixed

[1:02:24] with new numbers. Right. These these are

[1:02:26] >> a different table than this one down

[1:02:28] here.

[1:02:29] >> This is

[1:02:29] >> I don't think it's supposed to be. I

[1:02:31] think it was originally on the same but

[1:02:33] let me pull up the original document.

[1:02:36] >> No, it's my question. Is it part of that

[1:02:38] or is it different?

[1:02:39] >> I don't think so. That makes the best

[1:02:40] sense

[1:02:42] >> because if it's different then we want

[1:02:44] to update it. it but if it's the same

[1:02:47] >> I guess the the question would be for me

[1:02:49] is is there value in showing a median

[1:02:52] range over the course of a six-year

[1:02:53] period or should we show the most recent

[1:02:55] data median range

[1:02:56] >> well let me ask this this may help does

[1:02:59] anybody have an issue if I actually just

[1:03:01] remove this

[1:03:04] >> does the old data

[1:03:06] >> the old

[1:03:07] >> that may shift my alignments here which

[1:03:10] answers our question

[1:03:11] >> yeah you can just control C

[1:03:13] >> so there it

[1:03:15] Oh,

[1:03:15] >> there you go.

[1:03:16] >> Okay,

[1:03:18] >> that makes sense.

[1:03:18] >> Now I need to put this back to 550.

[1:03:20] >> Okay, so that makes sense why there's

[1:03:21] two.

[1:03:23] >> Okay.

[1:03:24] >> All right, perfect.

[1:03:26] >> Yeah, because it was it almost looked

[1:03:29] like it because it did that one little

[1:03:30] footnote. It looked like it was almost

[1:03:32] its own.

[1:03:32] >> Yeah.

[1:03:34] >> Does that resolve your question, Brian?

[1:03:36] >> Yeah, but it's I don't know. I've got

[1:03:39] something something is going on with my

[1:03:42] copy of it that I can't see everything

[1:03:44] properly. But I think I think that does

[1:03:47] I think that makes more sense.

[1:03:51] Um the next one

[1:03:56] um page

[1:03:58] 49.

[1:04:00] Um,

[1:04:02] so I guess that one's more of a if we're taking out or because we we

[1:04:08] deleted the or is unbuildable due to

[1:04:11] topographic constraints, we have to get

[1:04:13] rid of the either. Can't have either

[1:04:16] without an or

[1:04:21] » Okay, let me see if I can track what

[1:04:23] you're saying here. Wait, that's on 49.

[1:04:26] >> That's what I've That's what I've got as

[1:04:28] 49. Um

[1:04:31] >> I don't see the strike for

[1:04:33] >> so or is unbuildable due to so the

[1:04:37] either is where

[1:04:41] » yeah I don't

[1:04:42] >> available land within Woodland Hills is

[1:04:44] either platted for future

[1:04:45] >> either you got to pick either

[1:04:47] >> family homes on mediumsiz lots

[1:04:53] » either Woodland Hills is either do you

[1:04:55] see it

[1:04:56] >> I haven't found it yet either

[1:04:57] >> either second

[1:04:59] I say I have it on my finger on it.

[1:05:01] >> Where are you? I'm not seeing where

[1:05:03] you're at on that screen.

[1:05:06] >> You got it, Brian.

[1:05:08] >> Yeah, this is the issue with the way in

[1:05:10] design operates is as I add larger

[1:05:14] chunks

[1:05:15] >> changing stuff. So, I've got an edit

[1:05:18] process now that I get to go through

[1:05:21] after we've done all this kind of a

[1:05:22] layout.

[1:05:24] Okay.

[1:05:25] >> All right. Another thing on same page 49

[1:05:29] um it states this suggests that multif

[1:05:31] family housing such as town homes condo

[1:05:34] and condos can be built in Woodland

[1:05:35] Hills provided the council retains oh

[1:05:37] wait we've already talked about that

[1:05:38] sorry page 50

[1:05:41] sorry about that okay in page 50

[1:05:44] um

[1:05:46] this is where the title is wrong there

[1:05:49] is no realistic opportunity for moderate

[1:05:51] income housing woodland

[1:05:54] >> yeah It's not feasible. I don't I think

[1:05:57] that's just that's that's false

[1:06:00] advertising.

[1:06:01] Um we just don't there's nothing that

[1:06:03] there's no way to make that realistic.

[1:06:06] >> Um

[1:06:07] >> I agree and yeah

[1:06:09] >> so maybe about it at the end of 49. Um

[1:06:13] >> may not be as realistic but the state is

[1:06:15] required to address it.

[1:06:17] >> Yeah.

[1:06:18] >> So we can't just take it out. We have to

[1:06:19] somehow address it in our general. Well,

[1:06:22] I think actually you guys are I think

[1:06:24] there is a potential option for moderate

[1:06:28] income housing

[1:06:30] when it comes to ADUs,

[1:06:32] >> right?

[1:06:35] » That's that's our only option for

[1:06:37] affordable housing.

[1:06:39] >> And I think you've got also basement

[1:06:41] rentals, right? which is why we went

[1:06:44] down that path with the legislation we

[1:06:46] passed over the last couple years was to

[1:06:50] create carve out the ability to have

[1:06:52] some form of moderate income housing,

[1:06:56] >> right? Like I'm planning to just move

[1:06:58] into Steve's guest house here soon. So,

[1:07:01] >> me too.

[1:07:03] >> You want to talk?

[1:07:05] >> But what we're talking about here other

[1:07:06] than other than addressing internal and

[1:07:08] external ADUs is is not moderate income

[1:07:12] housing.

[1:07:13] Is that the dog house?

[1:07:16] >> I think uh it's often used as you can

[1:07:19] imagine.

[1:07:22] >> Um on the title it is moderate incoming

[1:07:25] housing goals.

[1:07:27] >> Hey, it's it's incoming.

[1:07:33] » All right, my last thing is on page 60.

[1:07:40] Uh goal 3A number two.

[1:07:44] >> 3A2. Okay.

[1:07:46] >> States uh limit use of culde-sacs unless

[1:07:48] topography requires it. My opinion often

[1:07:52] land placement um necessitates

[1:07:54] culde-sacs and not just topography when

[1:07:57] we've got a an area that is blocked by

[1:08:02] you know can't can't you just can't have

[1:08:04] a a pull through. There's no U-shaped

[1:08:06] space. There's no cross. You know,

[1:08:09] sometimes I think that it's not just

[1:08:12] topography that requires that that

[1:08:14] necessitates culde-sac and they don't

[1:08:16] want us to lock us into topography and

[1:08:19] have someone who, you know, would like

[1:08:22] to complain about everything that we

[1:08:23] approve say you you say that we're only

[1:08:27] doing topography and you're allowing

[1:08:28] them to do a culde-sac in this one. So,

[1:08:31] that's where I've got a problem. I think

[1:08:33] it it it needs to either add um

[1:08:39] uh land placement or rewarded another

[1:08:43] way.

[1:08:45] >> So limit use of culde-sacs unless

[1:08:47] topography requires it

[1:08:51] >> topography or land

[1:08:53] >> consider appropriate use. Diana had just

[1:08:56] say whenever possible

[1:08:58] >> whenever possible will work

[1:09:00] >> because we do have constraints.

[1:09:02] >> Perfect.

[1:09:04] >> We want our pls to

[1:09:06] >> I don't want to be stuck with topography

[1:09:07] is the only reason to have a cold.

[1:09:10] >> Well, like I said, every single piece of

[1:09:13] land in this city is unique, right? And

[1:09:15] so we're going to have to look at every

[1:09:17] single piece of land

[1:09:20] and figure out what's possible with it.

[1:09:22] >> Yep. 100%.

[1:09:25] Okay, next.

[1:09:26] >> All up.

[1:09:28] >> Sweet. Wonderful. Okay.

[1:09:31] Anything else? Dan. Oh,

[1:09:33] >> Brian, you're good. Steve, you good?

[1:09:36] Janet?

[1:09:36] >> Yep. Good.

[1:09:38] >> Nice.

[1:09:39] >> Is the sun still shining or did somebody

[1:09:41] >> The sun is still shining.

[1:09:44] >> Well,

[1:09:44] >> okay.

[1:09:46] We are going to move on.

[1:09:48] >> We did good.

[1:09:49] >> Um to update on city grants. Ted,

[1:09:52] >> be out.

[1:09:53] >> Okay. No city grants. We'll come back to

[1:09:56] him then.

[1:09:57] >> Oh, Ted's back.

[1:10:00] >> Back.

[1:10:01] >> Pull up a chair.

[1:10:02] >> Um I I really got nothing on city

[1:10:05] grants. No updates. We've still got the

[1:10:06] three we're waiting on.

[1:10:08] >> Well, pull up a chair and go with

[1:10:09] community development, public works, and

[1:10:11] fire department.

[1:10:13] >> Um

[1:10:16] sorry, which ones are mine? Uh

[1:10:19] public works, fire department, community

[1:10:21] development. Um,

[1:10:24] no updates. I talked to the road people

[1:10:26] today. They're actually wanting to get

[1:10:28] started sometime in kind of late summer.

[1:10:30] Um, actually, they'd like to start in

[1:10:32] July doing our roads. I told them we may

[1:10:34] not have the funding in place. So, keep

[1:10:36] that in mind. Um, because we're working

[1:10:38] on the bond that would be somewhere in

[1:10:39] August.

[1:10:40] >> Um, they may opt to start forward.

[1:10:44] >> Yeah.

[1:10:45] >> Pull that timing forward. Correct, Jody?

[1:10:46] >> Because allegedly

[1:10:47] >> with the new budget cycle, right? It

[1:10:49] goes in the new budget

[1:10:50] >> approved

[1:10:50] >> July one.

[1:10:51] >> Yeah, but we've actually already put it

[1:10:54] through the last budget. So, we've

[1:10:56] already got the approvals in place from

[1:10:58] the council. We still

[1:11:00] >> we still have to do a resolution, then a

[1:11:01] 30-day and a public hearing. As soon as

[1:11:06] we do anything, and I haven't gotten the

[1:11:08] timeline, yeah,

[1:11:12] >> has he responded?

[1:11:13] >> Yes, he did.

[1:11:14] >> We had a meeting with him.

[1:11:15] >> Okay, awesome. But the soonest we're

[1:11:17] looking at even be able to pull it off

[1:11:22] would be beginning in July because

[1:11:27] >> what I told them if they wanted to start

[1:11:28] in July realizing there wouldn't be a

[1:11:31] payment coming till August due in

[1:11:33] September or worst case due in August

[1:11:36] that we could probably get them start in

[1:11:38] July.

[1:11:39] >> That makes sense

[1:11:40] >> cuz they wouldn't even submit us an

[1:11:42] invoice till

[1:11:43] >> August probably. Then you got 30 days be

[1:11:48] >> how how's that going to align with the

[1:11:50] uh Woodland Hills? I mean, it's not

[1:11:52] obviously not related, but is it gonna

[1:11:54] >> the construction? They just have to go

[1:11:56] >> construction there and the roundabout

[1:11:58] everything.

[1:11:58] >> Hey, we've learned this from Salem.

[1:12:01] >> Just shut down and everybody will figure

[1:12:04] it out.

[1:12:04] >> That's right.

[1:12:05] >> It will be. So, what what the

[1:12:07] recommendation is going to be? So, most

[1:12:09] of these roads are up here at the top of

[1:12:10] the city. Loafer Eagle Nest at the top

[1:12:13] of Woodland Hills Drive. I think we got

[1:12:15] one little piece on Woodland Hills Drive

[1:12:17] to do.

[1:12:18] >> But what we're suggesting people do when

[1:12:21] all this construction starts taking

[1:12:23] place is go down Summit Creek. Now

[1:12:25] Summit Creek people aren't going to like

[1:12:26] that. But Summit Creek or Willow Reed.

[1:12:28] >> Say Willow Reed for me.

[1:12:30] >> Yeah.

[1:12:31] And then they can go out to

[1:12:32] Loafer. What Salem's trying to do is use

[1:12:34] Gar Bay to head over Loper Canyon Road

[1:12:36] if they want down.

[1:12:37] >> Gotcha. Because even while this road's

[1:12:40] work is going on Woody Hills Drive,

[1:12:42] Salem City is also doing work within

[1:12:44] their city. So if you try and jog

[1:12:46] through Salem, you're probably going to

[1:12:47] get stuck, too.

[1:12:48] >> You're going to have to do a video.

[1:12:51] >> I think you're going to use some chalk

[1:12:53] for that.

[1:12:54] >> Diana Ariel Diana.

[1:12:56] >> See,

[1:12:58] sided with the get you on the council.

[1:13:03] >> Stop.

[1:13:04] >> Not much.

[1:13:07] Um I think you need to do a video about

[1:13:11] the roads when that's

[1:13:13] >> I'm still a little bit confused, but

[1:13:14] yeah. Um

[1:13:16] so we'll have a lot of our roots

[1:13:19] probably going on in the summer as well,

[1:13:20] but I think most of the people can just

[1:13:23] go down some creek or will that will

[1:13:24] avoid a lot of the issues. Head over to

[1:13:26] Loafer Canyon Parkway. It's going to be

[1:13:28] your best bet. Okay.

[1:13:30] >> Um so we could be starting our road

[1:13:32] projects earlier. I've got to balance

[1:13:34] how to do that with a tank project

[1:13:36] because I really don't want to do

[1:13:37] deforest until we finish the tank

[1:13:39] project. So, we may pull that out of

[1:13:40] this one and bring it ketchup.

[1:13:44] >> And to my comment is Salem. Salem

[1:13:46] actually it was the it was the state

[1:13:48] that kept closing all those random roads

[1:13:50] for the

[1:13:51] >> the strawberry pipeline, but

[1:13:55] >> central. Yeah. So, it wasn't all Salem.

[1:14:00] >> You're being very kind.

[1:14:03] for the north.

[1:14:06] >> Um so we'll have some road work going on

[1:14:09] this summer and

[1:14:11] um our booster pump has been replaced in

[1:14:16] the booster pump stations up and going.

[1:14:18] So

[1:14:20] just timely for the summer

[1:14:23] and uh that's really all I've got to

[1:14:25] update on unless you have any questions.

[1:14:30] Ryan, anything?

[1:14:35] » Nope.

[1:14:39] » Um, fireside. Was that next?

[1:14:42] >> No.

[1:14:43] >> Oh, yeah.

[1:14:45] >> Um, so we've got our full-time crew um

[1:14:48] working partially in the city doing

[1:14:50] chipping. Um, the state has let us use

[1:14:55] the state chipper for a little while.

[1:14:57] So, we've got our crew. They're back

[1:14:59] from Nebraska. They've ar so while

[1:15:01] they're waiting for their next call, we

[1:15:02] just haven't been doing some chipping um

[1:15:06] around the city. This will not replace

[1:15:08] our chipper days. This is in addition to

[1:15:11] so they're just going to do some of the

[1:15:12] piles now, but we'll still be having our

[1:15:13] chipper days towards the last couple

[1:15:15] weeks of May. I'm meeting with the

[1:15:17] county guy tomorrow morning to talk

[1:15:18] about it. Uh he's coming up here. So,

[1:15:21] we'll have definite dates uh come

[1:15:23] tomorrow for chipper days, but likely

[1:15:25] the last two weeks of May. So if they

[1:15:28] see chipping on going on now, don't

[1:15:29] panic. You can still put wood out. Send

[1:15:33] me chipping. Um

[1:15:36] we

[1:15:38] uh we'll talk about that later on in the

[1:15:40] surplus equipment. Um

[1:15:44] really I got all got fires because we

[1:15:46] had our EMS uh sorry had our ambulance

[1:15:48] inspection today.

[1:15:50] >> Um

[1:15:50] >> how did it go?

[1:15:52] >> Oh, it was fun. I tell you

[1:15:54] between

[1:15:56] >> me trying to figure out where everything

[1:15:57] was. So it was me down there alone. So

[1:15:58] he had the C team down there, which was

[1:16:00] me. And he came in, sat at a desk with

[1:16:03] his computer, said, "I need to see this

[1:16:04] and this and this." So he saw me running

[1:16:06] around the ambulance, grabbing bags,

[1:16:08] throwing stuff. Looked like the

[1:16:09] cartoons, you know, when you see the

[1:16:11] cartoon characters going this. That was

[1:16:12] me going through and it was you say

[1:16:14] like, "I need to see 12 of these." Well,

[1:16:16] we'd have five in one bag and three in

[1:16:18] another bag. So I was tearing through

[1:16:20] bags, having them spread all over,

[1:16:21] taking stuff out for that one.

[1:16:23] >> Why did they leave you doing that?

[1:16:25] So,

[1:16:26] >> I think Jim's right. We need to have you

[1:16:28] make a video.

[1:16:29] >> That would have been a funny video. And

[1:16:31] there I was hurry, too. I was like,

[1:16:32] "Grab me this. Give me that."

[1:16:34] >> Some Betty Hill music sped up.

[1:16:36] >> It's about what it looked like. But

[1:16:38] bottom line was, uh, we we got just

[1:16:41] about there. There were just a couple

[1:16:42] items we were lacking or expired that

[1:16:44] need to be replaced. Um, he was good

[1:16:47] about it. He said, "Just take us when

[1:16:49] you get it, just take some pictures and

[1:16:50] send to me." He actually did leave me

[1:16:52] our certification sticker. So, I've got

[1:16:54] a sticker already, but uh we got through

[1:16:56] it. We're really close. So, we're almost

[1:16:59] officially certified.

[1:17:01] >> And have we had any other uh possible

[1:17:05] ambulances come up on the

[1:17:07] >> We haven't. I texted him yesterday and

[1:17:09] he said the only ones that are out there

[1:17:10] so far are the two he found and then

[1:17:14] there's one that Ryan came up with. All

[1:17:17] about the same as far as life and miles

[1:17:20] and stuff like that. So, we told them

[1:17:23] we're not in a huge rush, but but you

[1:17:25] know, we want to get something fairly

[1:17:27] soon. So, if nothing comes up in a

[1:17:29] little while, I'll have to look upon

[1:17:30] those, too. Okay.

[1:17:33] Thank you, kid. Uh Wayne, planning

[1:17:36] commission and code.

[1:17:47] Um there's a couple of complaints that

[1:17:50] we're acting on. At least anybody thinks

[1:17:53] that we don't have complaints. So, uh

[1:17:58] we're working on those. Um we've we've

[1:18:01] received a request from

[1:18:03] Summer Creek to update you. There's one lot that they want to add to

[1:18:08] their latest

[1:18:10] um final plaque that they've done. Uh as

[1:18:14] they the reason it wasn't included to

[1:18:16] begin with is they weren't sure the

[1:18:18] topography and with roads and so forth.

[1:18:22] And as they've got in there and doing

[1:18:24] some clearing, they realized that they

[1:18:27] could get another lot out of a larger

[1:18:29] one. And so they've they're they've

[1:18:33] requested to add to that and we'll be

[1:18:36] talking about it tomorrow night in

[1:18:38] planning commission meeting. But just to

[1:18:40] make you all aware of that. Um, we've

[1:18:44] also got uh an annexation that we're

[1:18:47] working on and that will come to you uh

[1:18:52] when all the documentation and

[1:18:55] information is provided and there will

[1:18:57] be a a reszone request with that as

[1:19:01] well.

[1:19:02] >> What's can you give us a sneak preview

[1:19:06] on where the annexation is? It's it's

[1:19:09] part of Elk Ridge and there's been

[1:19:12] discussions with them and they seem

[1:19:14] agreeable to it and it it buts up

[1:19:16] against Summer Creek's property and so

[1:19:19] it would be brought in as part of their development that they're doing

[1:19:24] now.

[1:19:24] >> Nice.

[1:19:25] >> So

[1:19:27] there'll be a public hearing on that and

[1:19:29] we'll keep you informed as that goes

[1:19:31] forward.

[1:19:32] >> Thanks.

[1:19:34] >> It's any questions?

[1:19:37] We've gotten a few on that edge of town,

[1:19:39] haven't we? Because we got the lower

[1:19:41] ones a few years ago. Some of those

[1:19:43] properties annexed in. So,

[1:19:46] >> yeah.

[1:19:47] >> Are the from the enforcement

[1:19:48] perspective, are they the same type of

[1:19:50] enforcement or just different categories

[1:19:52] of enforcement?

[1:19:53] >> Uh, different categories, two of them.

[1:19:55] Yeah.

[1:19:56] >> So, there's nothing systemic in that we

[1:19:58] should be aware of. Okay.

[1:20:00] Wonderful. Okay. Emergency management.

[1:20:11] A couple things to report on. Um, last

[1:20:13] week the state had a

[1:20:16] um statewide convention for the LAPC

[1:20:19] organizations and I attended that up in Ogden. There was good information

[1:20:25] there that I was able to

[1:20:27] uh generate in regards to how it would

[1:20:29] affect Woodland Hills. The biggest thing

[1:20:33] that I thought that came out of there is

[1:20:35] that they were doing studies or they

[1:20:37] have studies on hazardous materials that

[1:20:39] are being stored down in the valley um

[1:20:43] around us such as um Springville, Provo,

[1:20:48] well all around us. uh it they've

[1:20:51] identified locations where businesses

[1:20:53] are storing hazardous materials and then

[1:20:54] they have a software program that

[1:20:56] actually will predict if one of those

[1:21:00] chemical or hazards was to explode.

[1:21:03] What's the impact zone and which way

[1:21:05] would or what kind of plume chemical

[1:21:08] plume would it create and where would it

[1:21:10] go and would it necessitate evacuations

[1:21:14] and or stay in indoors and seal up your

[1:21:17] windows indoors cuz it's too late type

[1:21:19] of deal.

[1:21:21] um the program that is this the county

[1:21:24] is purchasing that service um they make

[1:21:27] it available for us to go over there and

[1:21:29] take a look at that and see how um

[1:21:32] Woodland Hills could be affected if any

[1:21:34] of the close by chemical storage

[1:21:36] facilities would impact us and if the

[1:21:39] wind was blowing our way. So my goal is

[1:21:41] to be able to meet with the county and

[1:21:43] to get access to that information and

[1:21:44] report back on how big of a threat that

[1:21:46] is, if it is even a threat. um they

[1:21:50] thought it was cuz the wind changes

[1:21:52] directions around here and it could blow

[1:21:54] from the north towards us from the

[1:21:57] north. So that was one piece of good

[1:21:59] news, not good news, good information.

[1:22:03] Um there's other information they had

[1:22:05] there regarding the pipeline, the gas

[1:22:07] pipelines. Um but I think we've already

[1:22:09] been addressing that with our um fire

[1:22:12] department's already looked at that. So

[1:22:13] I didn't really dive into that too much

[1:22:16] knowing that there is a uh potential

[1:22:18] risk of an explosion if we had a 6.5

[1:22:20] earthquake. It could rupture our gas

[1:22:22] lines both the main trunk line that goes

[1:22:24] through the city as well as possible

[1:22:25] lines around um each of the streets too

[1:22:28] which could become issues which I think

[1:22:30] is addressed in our emergency plan. So

[1:22:32] I'm not too worried about that one. We

[1:22:33] just need to maybe keep on top of it.

[1:22:37] Um, other than that, um, any questions

[1:22:39] regarding the LAPC meeting I went to?

[1:22:42] Good stuff. I'll be attending the

[1:22:44] monthly meetings, uh, for the county.

[1:22:46] Um, then also right now we are, I'm

[1:22:48] engaged with the VOAD. You guys,

[1:22:50] everybody know what VOAD is.

[1:22:53] Um, that's where she's at right now. Uh,

[1:22:56] she's actually in charge of the event.

[1:22:58] It's a

[1:23:00] Northwest United States Bo conference

[1:23:03] that's here in Salt Lake. And so I've

[1:23:05] been attending that as well. And it's a

[1:23:07] great resource for us be a for me to be

[1:23:09] able to develop relationships with all

[1:23:10] the volunteer organizations that are

[1:23:12] available for us to call upon in case of

[1:23:14] a disaster like we had last time

[1:23:16] including team Rub Rubicon. Um so it's

[1:23:20] building relationships with those

[1:23:21] organizations. So I have direct

[1:23:24] knowledge of who they are and so forth.

[1:23:27] So I'm attending that building those

[1:23:29] relationships. Okay. So, um, I'm still

[1:23:31] in the process of joining the

[1:23:33] organization because I don't have a list

[1:23:34] of all the services yet, but I'm

[1:23:36] working.

[1:23:37] I I've tried multiple times to get into

[1:23:40] the program.

[1:23:42] They're a little disorganized.

[1:23:45] >> It's just like disorganization from

[1:23:47] emergency

[1:23:47] >> for emergency management.

[1:23:49] >> Yeah. Agreed. Agreed.

[1:23:52] >> Agreed.

[1:23:54] >> Bless their souls. Yeah, they're trying.

[1:23:56] >> You know, you get what you pay for,

[1:23:58] right? And it's all free. So, you got to

[1:24:00] work with what you get. Um, the last

[1:24:03] thing I was going to mention was um the

[1:24:05] discussion from the last um meeting we

[1:24:08] had, I talked about the generator,

[1:24:10] backup generator for the building. Let

[1:24:12] me give you a quick update on that. I

[1:24:13] had a meeting with Alan Wakefield who is

[1:24:16] intimately um knowledgeable about the

[1:24:19] current um wiring in the building for

[1:24:22] backup generator to connect to. Uh the

[1:24:25] wiring in the building is already

[1:24:27] established. Each of these rooms that

[1:24:28] has an upside down plug like that is

[1:24:31] powered to the um

[1:24:35] >> backup power,

[1:24:36] >> the backup power panel. So there's a

[1:24:38] panel in there that we need to power up.

[1:24:40] And so every room in the building has

[1:24:43] one or two of those plugs in it that's

[1:24:45] tied to it. Um so that part's good. So

[1:24:48] the only thing we had to do then is is

[1:24:50] be able to figure out how to connect the

[1:24:52] panel downstairs to an outside

[1:24:54] generator. Now, the original plan was to

[1:24:57] put it way out there by the curb or, you

[1:24:59] know, where that big transformer is out

[1:25:01] there, but that's very expensive for a

[1:25:03] temporary solution for what I'm trying

[1:25:05] to do. I'm trying to do a temporary

[1:25:06] solution until we can afford to get the,

[1:25:08] you know, good quality, high quality

[1:25:10] stuff there, which you guys need to

[1:25:12] figure out we're going to get was it

[1:25:13] 50,000, 60,000? I can't remember what

[1:25:16] Allen's call was, but it was up there.

[1:25:18] So, we're trying to figure out how to do

[1:25:20] with like less than 30.

[1:25:22] And so we're going to suppose that we

[1:25:24] put the generator right next to the wall

[1:25:28] of like right down there like straight

[1:25:30] down there and then just have like a 10

[1:25:33] 15t connection to a new box that goes

[1:25:35] out there. We we that's a manual

[1:25:38] disconnect switch. Plug it in there and

[1:25:40] then we run a wire from there to the So

[1:25:43] it's a it's a minimum amount of distance

[1:25:45] that we would need to run that. So um

[1:25:47] Allan's working on getting me the

[1:25:48] pricing um to do all that. and he thinks

[1:25:52] we can probably fit within that budget

[1:25:53] that you guys were talking about last

[1:25:56] time. So, it's in the works.

[1:25:58] >> And then the ham radio equipment also um

[1:26:00] is coming in pieces by pieces. Some

[1:26:03] stuff is 30 days. Uh how much stuff do

[1:26:06] we have left to um come in, do you

[1:26:08] think?

[1:26:09] >> Just the radio.

[1:26:12] >> No, I think the radio's still a month

[1:26:14] away, isn't it?

[1:26:15] >> I think it was like May 7th.

[1:26:16] >> Yeah. So, we got a lot of parts, but no

[1:26:19] radio.

[1:26:21] So, we're working on that. Um, and we're

[1:26:25] also trying to finalize the location

[1:26:26] where we're going to set up the ham

[1:26:27] radio station. And there's a couple

[1:26:29] things under discussion.

[1:26:30] >> Okay. Any questions about those things?

[1:26:32] >> Did you want to talk Great Shakeup?

[1:26:34] >> Yes. I forgot about that. So, uh, the

[1:26:38] state of Utah is participating in what's

[1:26:40] called the Great Shakeup. Um, it's an

[1:26:41] annual event. It's being held Thursday

[1:26:43] the 16th at, uh, 10:00 in the morning.

[1:26:47] uh I registered our city as being part

[1:26:49] of it, but we can be part of it and do

[1:26:53] whatever part whatever kind of

[1:26:54] preparedness we want to do. So, it's

[1:26:56] kind of up to us decide. So, I've met

[1:26:58] with our staff and we're going to do a

[1:27:01] very minimal type of test internally of

[1:27:04] communications and we're going to

[1:27:05] involve as many committee members that

[1:27:07] we have volunteers uh to be like

[1:27:10] emergency

[1:27:12] or citizens responding to a request for

[1:27:15] information on their status. So, we're

[1:27:17] going to be testing a program called Ard

[1:27:18] Pro, which is a software program that

[1:27:21] I've been developing to collect

[1:27:24] information from the general public,

[1:27:25] have it populate into an EOC

[1:27:28] environment, uh, a large screen

[1:27:30] television, for example, and so we can

[1:27:31] see the statuses of everybody. It's

[1:27:33] colorcoded based upon the the the

[1:27:35] severity of their needs. Um, so that's

[1:27:38] the test we're going to do on Thursday.

[1:27:41] We're also going to do a mesh radio

[1:27:42] test. So, we have these little blue blue

[1:27:46] mesh radios that Bluetooth connect to

[1:27:47] your phone. They operate outside the

[1:27:50] cellular networks. So, if the cellular

[1:27:52] networks go down, can we maintain

[1:27:53] communications? The answer is yes, but

[1:27:55] we're going to we're going to test the

[1:27:56] equipment this Thursday as well. So,

[1:27:58] those are the two things we're going to

[1:27:59] test in this environment. I would also

[1:28:02] propose I'm planting a seed now for

[1:28:05] sometime later this year. I would like

[1:28:06] to do a fire test, a fire preparedness,

[1:28:09] cuz the

[1:28:11] state people I've been talking with are

[1:28:13] very worried about how dry our forest

[1:28:16] and everything is going to be this

[1:28:17] summer. I

[1:28:17] >> was going to say, is it going to be a

[1:28:18] test?

[1:28:20] >> Hey, we hope it's a test and not a real

[1:28:22] thing. Okay. And we hope we do this test

[1:28:25] before then, but this initial earthquake

[1:28:28] preparedness test is going to be the

[1:28:30] same thing it would have been if it was

[1:28:32] a a fire. same kind of systems we would

[1:28:35] need to practice using. The only

[1:28:37] difference is the next one I'd like to

[1:28:38] involve more of the city, more of the

[1:28:40] civilians, but that takes a little bit

[1:28:42] more time and planning and

[1:28:43] pre-notification that this is only going

[1:28:45] to be test. Don't freak out. Um, and

[1:28:47] we're going to I want to propose that as

[1:28:49] something we can do later this year.

[1:28:50] I'll work with Steve figuring out when

[1:28:53] we want to do that, right, Steve?

[1:28:54] >> Yeah.

[1:28:54] >> So, that'll be part of our Thursday

[1:28:55] discussion.

[1:28:56] >> Yep.

[1:28:57] >> Okay. So I was going to I was going to

[1:28:58] put that in there too that we are having

[1:29:00] and that's a public meeting the safety

[1:29:02] meeting 5 o'clock on Thursday as well

[1:29:04] right so

[1:29:05] >> is it five

[1:29:06] >> that's four to be here an hour early

[1:29:11] >> all right any other questions

[1:29:13] >> we doing the alarm

[1:29:15] >> on Thursday no this is more of an

[1:29:17] internal um leadership um EMS fire

[1:29:23] >> and I'll probably bring in parks and

[1:29:24] wreck and planning department

[1:29:28] cuz they're all committed people, right?

[1:29:32] >> Yes, they are. They like it or not.

[1:29:33] >> Team work. Team team work.

[1:29:36] >> Thank you. You're welcome.

[1:29:38] >> Okay, we're now moving over to the mayor

[1:29:40] and city council reports. Um SCSD, um I

[1:29:44] have met, we've had that board meeting.

[1:29:46] Um nothing really to report here. Um

[1:29:49] we're working a lot to try and make sure

[1:29:51] that we are acquiring resources in the

[1:29:54] most efficient way possible so that we

[1:29:56] can try and keep um energy costs as low

[1:29:59] as possible. Uh the Nebo power plant

[1:30:01] currently is down one turbine though it

[1:30:04] has been for quite a while and it should

[1:30:06] be back up this month or next month in

[1:30:09] May. So hopefully that will also help

[1:30:12] us. That's a natural gas power plant

[1:30:14] there just over by in PAC. Um and

[1:30:18] that'll help us with our resources

[1:30:19] there. Um Dry Creek Transfer Station,

[1:30:22] those meetings are coming up this week,

[1:30:24] so report on those next time. Um Mag and

[1:30:27] Cog, we really just kind of been getting

[1:30:30] through the legislative cycle. Um and

[1:30:32] I've got meetings of that uh tomorrow as

[1:30:36] well. Um and personnel and legal update.

[1:30:39] Um really not much uh to update on on

[1:30:42] either of those. So things are going

[1:30:44] well there.

[1:30:46] Uh, Council Member Hutchings.

[1:30:49] >> So, um, we have not met with Sumba or

[1:30:52] Mount Nebo Water. Um, so nothing to

[1:30:55] report there. I did have a conversation

[1:30:57] with Ted about water conservation and I I foresee us and I I'm kind of

[1:31:05] thinking sooner than later. Um, but

[1:31:08] that's up to that's really up to the

[1:31:10] mayor. of of we're we're probably going

[1:31:12] to be seeing water restrictions this

[1:31:15] year based on the low water levels. So,

[1:31:18] doesn't necessarily uh hit our aquifer

[1:31:22] fast, but it will hit our aquifer at

[1:31:24] some point. Um, so we need we do need to

[1:31:27] conserve and we need to conserve for

[1:31:29] those around us as well. Um, so

[1:31:33] we're we're going to be looking at water

[1:31:35] restrictions coming up um in the near

[1:31:37] future when when Ted is and the mayor

[1:31:40] are ready to to announce that.

[1:31:42] >> Ted and I discussed this a little bit in

[1:31:44] our staff meeting on Monday. Um so we

[1:31:46] will as we make those types of

[1:31:48] decisions, we will let everybody know.

[1:31:52] >> Okay. Anything else, council?

[1:31:56] >> No, I don't have anything.

[1:31:58] >> Okay. Uh, Council Member Jones.

[1:32:00] >> Yeah, on on that note, one of the topics

[1:32:02] at the last home builders association

[1:32:04] meeting was actually water. Um,

[1:32:08] there there are some lobbyists going

[1:32:09] around and maybe Ted, you you know some

[1:32:12] something about this. Maybe it's

[1:32:13] something that's been a topic on yours

[1:32:14] too, Brian, but um the estimated daily

[1:32:17] use, the EDU rating for Utah is at 400

[1:32:21] gallons per day. Um

[1:32:25] most states around us are less than 200.

[1:32:28] Um so there are lobbyists going around

[1:32:31] and uh trying to get Utah to be be

[1:32:35] cutting that in half at least.

[1:32:37] >> So yeah, what they've started doing is a

[1:32:38] step towards that. So that was a state

[1:32:41] requirement when you're sizing. That's

[1:32:43] why developers are concerned with it

[1:32:46] because they feel like we're oversizing

[1:32:47] the infrastructure which costs more

[1:32:49] money. Um, so the 400 gallons a day was

[1:32:52] something that the state kind of put in

[1:32:54] place as a general here's what your our

[1:32:57] use guideline is. Now they've started

[1:33:01] switching to rather than you using what

[1:33:04] the state number is or they give you.

[1:33:08] determine what your own number is

[1:33:11] through your water use data. you go back

[1:33:13] and look at your own use and then you

[1:33:15] start sizing your facilities in your

[1:33:18] master plan based on what your actual

[1:33:20] data is and there's not they're not

[1:33:22] wrong that 400's fairly high uh compared

[1:33:27] to what like our numbers are. Uh so it

[1:33:31] it'll be interesting to see where that

[1:33:32] goes. But yeah, they're they're going

[1:33:34] that way. I I don't know that I agree or

[1:33:36] disagree with it. I think maybe we do.

[1:33:39] Um, I think it's it's it's better to to

[1:33:43] actually size our facilities on what is

[1:33:45] and what the demands are rather than

[1:33:47] just some arbitrary number.

[1:33:49] >> You saying 400 per household or

[1:33:52] >> Yes. 400 gallons per day per household.

[1:33:54] >> So, you're looking at 12,000 gallons a

[1:33:56] month than per household. Well, 400

[1:34:00] gallons per day

[1:34:03] per household is 400 times 30

[1:34:06] >> is 12,000

[1:34:07] >> 12,000 gallons indoor use doesn't count

[1:34:09] outdoor

[1:34:10] >> which is really high

[1:34:12] >> which is generally about three times

[1:34:13] that

[1:34:14] >> we have a lot of kids.

[1:34:17] >> Yeah, it is Utah.

[1:34:18] >> Ted, what are we at?

[1:34:19] >> Bomb showers,

[1:34:20] >> you know.

[1:34:21] >> Uh I could look our numbers but we were

[1:34:23] generally about half of that probably.

[1:34:25] >> So we're around 200 internal use. We're

[1:34:28] better at the national average.

[1:34:30] >> No, that's just an arbitrary number. The

[1:34:32] state used through some state studies

[1:34:33] years ago. What they are finding is

[1:34:35] they're actually doing cities are

[1:34:36] actually doing their own study to see

[1:34:38] what their actual use is. They're

[1:34:39] finding is less uh not just our city but

[1:34:43] others. So it's not like an national

[1:34:45] average. This is just a state arbitrary

[1:34:48] number they had of the 400 gallons and I

[1:34:50] think it was 800 when you're sizing

[1:34:52] water tanks or something like that. But

[1:34:53] now you don't pay are are the the water

[1:34:56] tank uh the storage criteria is not far

[1:34:58] off what the state is but the actual

[1:35:01] demand which is what sizes your pipes

[1:35:03] has been a little high generally and I

[1:35:05] think that's been the push from the

[1:35:07] developers is we're oversizing all our

[1:35:09] infrastructure. Now I don't know if

[1:35:11] that's going to change the size of the

[1:35:13] infrastructure

[1:35:15] because ultimately you still need a high

[1:35:17] demand for uh fire hazards.

[1:35:21] >> Yeah. And whether you're doing 400

[1:35:22] gallons a day or not, it doesn't matter

[1:35:23] because a fire hydrant flow is what's

[1:35:25] going to determine the size pipe. And

[1:35:27] you need about a minimum 8 inch pipe,

[1:35:28] which is what the state says is your

[1:35:29] minimum piping use. So,

[1:35:32] >> makes sense. Okay. Yeah. So, kind of an

[1:35:35] interesting topic. So, if you're looking

[1:35:37] at that, it's going around.

[1:35:41] >> I like these reports. They're fun.

[1:35:43] Council member Le,

[1:35:45] >> um, we're the Maple Festival on

[1:35:48] Saturday.

[1:35:49] Um, and I think everything is pretty

[1:35:52] much in place. I don't have a flag

[1:35:54] ceremony

[1:35:56] still. Um, I had someone that was trying

[1:35:59] to get they were trying to get with the

[1:36:01] VFW and get uh Spencer was going to get

[1:36:04] somebody for me, but he wasn't able to.

[1:36:06] So, if you know somebody

[1:36:09] uh if not, I'll just tell them not I

[1:36:12] don't know why they need it necessarily,

[1:36:14] but they did it last year and wanted to

[1:36:16] have it again. And then, um, should be

[1:36:18] good. It's 10 to 2 at the park.

[1:36:21] >> Is this a bring your snowshoes type of

[1:36:23] event?

[1:36:24] >> I know it's snowing on Friday.

[1:36:28] » Um, it'll be in the street if it is.

[1:36:31] Yeah. So, if it's wet, odds are it'll be

[1:36:35] in the street. Um, and then we met with

[1:36:37] the finance committee this last week and

[1:36:40] went over what we went over as a

[1:36:42] council. U, they had some good

[1:36:45] suggestions. one of the finance members

[1:36:47] was quite the hawk on the numbers and I

[1:36:50] went back and listened to the recording

[1:36:53] and anyway it's another story but um

[1:36:58] they they did have a couple of

[1:36:59] suggestions they do think that uh for

[1:37:02] council because we don't really get a

[1:37:04] wage they think it should be should show

[1:37:07] us a stipend

[1:37:09] and not pay FICA on that and then end up

[1:37:11] just maybe $1099 council members because

[1:37:14] it's such a small amount and it's it's

[1:37:16] really not a wage. It really is just a

[1:37:18] stipend for gas and stuff. So, that was

[1:37:21] a suggestion they had. And then they

[1:37:23] also requested that anything that's

[1:37:25] 10,000 or more that there be an

[1:37:27] explanation like a breakout. Some of

[1:37:30] those categories have several things

[1:37:31] that roll into there. They wanted more

[1:37:34] detail. Uh but they they liked

[1:37:37] everything. They agreed with all of our

[1:37:39] decisions. They liked everything that

[1:37:41] they saw mostly. Uh but those were just

[1:37:44] some questions that they had.

[1:37:47] >> What?

[1:37:49] >> So when they're asking for a breakout,

[1:37:50] do we need to attend a meeting to give

[1:37:52] them a breakout? What would they like?

[1:37:54] >> I'll be providing that in an email form.

[1:37:56] >> Thank you.

[1:37:59] >> Yes. And uh the next meeting I won't be

[1:38:01] able to attend May 5th. So they've

[1:38:04] actually requested that Jod and or Lori

[1:38:07] be there. spoken with Lori and she's

[1:38:09] planning on it

[1:38:10] >> just so they can answer some more

[1:38:12] detailed questions. There was really

[1:38:14] only one question that I didn't have the

[1:38:16] answer to, but one of the members was

[1:38:17] really bothered that I didn't have every

[1:38:20] single answer that he wanted. And part

[1:38:23] of the budget we we didn't go over in

[1:38:25] council because the fixed costs we

[1:38:27] didn't go over. A lot of it I knew from

[1:38:29] previous discussions, but there were a

[1:38:31] couple of things that I wasn't 100% sure

[1:38:33] exactly what went into the number and um

[1:38:37] he didn't like that. So

[1:38:39] >> that's okay.

[1:38:40] >> Anyway,

[1:38:41] >> we have an agenda for the May 5th or is

[1:38:42] it just going to be discussion of the

[1:38:44] 2027 fiscal year budget?

[1:38:46] >> Yes, I'll then

[1:38:48] >> it'll be the same probably agenda that

[1:38:50] it was last time. You can just repeat

[1:38:53] it. Jen, was there any comment about

[1:38:57] bringing forth these questions in

[1:38:58] advance so you can get answers to them

[1:39:01] and take them back to the committee?

[1:39:02] >> There's a bunch in an email from Mike

[1:39:04] Meyers. He sent an email with a bunch of

[1:39:08] questions.

[1:39:08] >> Thank you, Michael.

[1:39:09] >> And then I have a bunch uh here too. And

[1:39:14] um I put them in the minutes that I

[1:39:17] typed up yesterday.

[1:39:19] So,

[1:39:21] but I could send out the question as as

[1:39:23] well to

[1:39:24] >> it kind of seems unfair to you. I mean,

[1:39:27] there's there it's so broad and the

[1:39:30] questions can run the gamut that and

[1:39:33] there's going there'll be answers to

[1:39:35] them, but that it, you know,

[1:39:38] >> in part there was a piece of it that was on me. you know, by the time I

[1:39:42] was able to coordinate with Lori and get

[1:39:44] through a lot of those numbers present,

[1:39:46] I presented it to them a little bit

[1:39:48] later than I wanted to. And so that was

[1:39:51] really them looking at it for the first

[1:39:52] time in that meeting. So now they're

[1:39:55] going to send me all the numbers and

[1:39:56] questions that they have that are just

[1:39:59] what is this type of question. So I'll

[1:40:01] be able to provide that. So then their

[1:40:03] questions coming in this next meeting

[1:40:05] will be more substantative versus just

[1:40:07] inquisitive.

[1:40:09] >> Yeah. And like I say, they there were a

[1:40:10] lot of on the fixed costs that they had

[1:40:12] questions on that we didn't necessarily

[1:40:13] go over in great detail in the council

[1:40:15] meeting because we went over the

[1:40:16] variables, right? That was the agenda of

[1:40:18] our meeting.

[1:40:20] But it it was good. Like I say, I had

[1:40:22] most of the answers, but there were a

[1:40:23] couple that I wasn't sure.

[1:40:26] So, we'll get Lori in the hot seat next

[1:40:29] time. I'll be in Kawaii.

[1:40:30] >> She knows everything anyway, so it'll be

[1:40:32] good. Okay. Anything else?

[1:40:34] >> Nope, that's it.

[1:40:35] >> Okay. Council member Malovich is

[1:40:36] excused. Um, Council Member Roden.

[1:40:40] >> Uh, no. The only thing after the Maple

[1:40:42] Festival, we have the fire and EMS expo

[1:40:46] that we want to get working on. So, Ted

[1:40:48] and I need to get together, make sure

[1:40:49] that I have an understanding of what the

[1:40:51] plan is for this year, and then we're

[1:40:53] going to get out in front from a

[1:40:54] marketing perspective, just let people

[1:40:56] know what it is. And and it it is

[1:40:59] interesting. You've probably seen it,

[1:41:00] Ted, and everybody here. Just used to be

[1:41:03] a lot of kids that would come and now as

[1:41:05] we age as a city, it may not. I don't

[1:41:07] know if it's grandkids that are coming

[1:41:08] as much or if it's what the dynamic or

[1:41:11] what the demographic looks like from a

[1:41:13] shift. So, we'll take that into

[1:41:14] consideration as we market the event.

[1:41:18] So, but uh that's the next one on the

[1:41:21] list from an event perspective.

[1:41:24] >> Thank you.

[1:41:26] >> Um

[1:41:28] also with you uh Dan.

[1:41:31] >> Yeah.

[1:41:32] >> Uh

[1:41:33] so we talked a little bit today. We've

[1:41:35] got a new program that we're working on.

[1:41:37] Um, and it is a communications software

[1:41:40] that is predominantly focused around

[1:41:42] water and water usage and communications

[1:41:45] around water.

[1:41:46] >> Um, though I think there may be some options there for us to consider.

[1:41:51] >> So, we'll talk a little bit about that

[1:41:52] and then we'll we'll go into deeper

[1:41:55] detail in a future council meeting.

[1:41:57] >> Sounds great.

[1:41:58] >> Um, on that from your IT assignment

[1:42:00] there. So, perfect. Thank you. And Dan,

[1:42:02] we need to meet with uh Woodland Hills

[1:42:05] crew. Woodland Hills Days crew.

[1:42:07] >> Yes.

[1:42:07] >> Probably the end of April. So, kind of

[1:42:09] keep that on your So, I just figured

[1:42:11] that as soon as we got Maple Festival

[1:42:12] over with,

[1:42:14] >> then we could meet and we need to figure

[1:42:16] out a new couple to bring in

[1:42:18] >> for chair.

[1:42:19] >> Uh-huh.

[1:42:20] >> So, um the Lowe's will still be the the

[1:42:23] presiding.

[1:42:24] >> Yep.

[1:42:24] >> But we need a new one like a training.

[1:42:26] So, think if you think of anybody

[1:42:28] >> and not our neighborhood cuz our

[1:42:30] neighborhood's gotten hit pretty hard.

[1:42:31] So, we need to try and get

[1:42:32] >> We're tapped out.

[1:42:33] >> We need another part of town.

[1:42:37] >> Wonderful. Okay. Anything for any

[1:42:39] upcoming city council meetings?

[1:42:45] Anything from you, Brian?

[1:42:47] No. Okay.

[1:42:49] Uh, wonderful. Okay, then it is

[1:42:53] 7:44.

[1:42:55] Let's uh start back up. Let's take a

[1:42:58] quick break and let us start at 7:45.

[1:43:03] » One minute break.

[1:43:04] >> I was thinking

[1:43:05] >> it's 7:41. Sorry.

[1:43:13] » Okay. Welcome everybody to city council.

[1:43:16] Um we are going to have an invocation

[1:43:18] from council member Lunt and a pledge of

[1:43:20] allegiance from council member John's.

[1:43:23] Our

[1:43:27] dear kind and gracious heavenly father,

[1:43:28] we're so grateful that we could gather

[1:43:31] together this evening to work on city

[1:43:34] matters and to discuss

[1:43:37] our general plan and different things

[1:43:39] that need to be discussed so that we can

[1:43:43] make sure that we are covering all the

[1:43:44] ideas that are going to be best for our

[1:43:46] community. And we're grateful for this

[1:43:48] opportunity to serve and to look out for

[1:43:51] our city and its residents. and please

[1:43:53] watch over our community and our city as

[1:43:56] we come into fire season that our

[1:43:58] community will continue to be protected

[1:44:00] and we're so grateful for all those that

[1:44:02] are willing to serve on all the

[1:44:03] committees that we have and for all of

[1:44:06] those that are in need. Please help us

[1:44:08] to be mindful of our neighbors and we

[1:44:10] say these things in the name of Jesus

[1:44:11] Christ. Amen.

[1:44:11] >> Amen.

[1:44:13] >> Please join me in reciting the pledge of

[1:44:15] allegiance.

[1:44:18] I pledge algiance to the flag of the

[1:44:21] United States of America and to the

[1:44:24] republic for which it stands. One nation

[1:44:28] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:44:31] justice for all.

[1:44:36] Thank you both. Okay, we'll go into the

[1:44:40] Oh, perfect. We'll go into the public

[1:44:42] comment uh section. So, if there's any

[1:44:45] comments, uh, we'd like to limit them to

[1:44:47] 2 minutes or less if possible. Um, only

[1:44:50] in-person comments will be included as

[1:44:52] part of the official record.

[1:44:55] >> So, do we have any public comment here?

[1:44:59] >> Okay.

[1:45:00] >> Sure, please. We'd love to hear from

[1:45:01] you.

[1:45:02] >> And if you could state your name for the

[1:45:03] record, please.

[1:45:04] >> Absolutely. So, I'm Matt Durant. Um, I'm

[1:45:06] a candidate for House District 64. So, I

[1:45:08] was just hoping to come to the council

[1:45:10] meetings, introduce myself, and just if

[1:45:13] I get elected, I look forward to working

[1:45:14] with you.

[1:45:15] >> Well, wonderful. Thanks for showing up.

[1:45:17] Appreciate it.

[1:45:17] >> Thank you.

[1:45:18] >> Thanks, man.

[1:45:21] >> We'll have to look you up. I want to see

[1:45:22] what your uh platform is.

[1:45:26] >> Diana,

[1:45:29] >> hey, thanks for your mention about her

[1:45:31] soliciting.

[1:45:32] >> Oh,

[1:45:33] >> I of course

[1:45:34] >> I don't know what to do. I've had it.

[1:45:37] Well,

[1:45:38] >> one guy came twice and you know, my

[1:45:41] daughter with Down syndrome is in our

[1:45:42] yard and I don't feel safe with

[1:45:45] strangers in and out and Thank you.

[1:45:49] >> And yeah, you know, when I'm gone to

[1:45:50] work and my camera will register and

[1:45:53] it's just unnerving cuz they're waiting

[1:45:55] for you to answer the door and you

[1:45:56] don't, but they look around and they

[1:45:58] look around in the backyard cuz my porch

[1:45:59] looks into the backyard. So, I always

[1:46:01] catch him on camera looking into my

[1:46:03] backyard and kind of peeking in the

[1:46:04] windows and I'm like, "Get off my

[1:46:06] porch."

[1:46:08] Right.

[1:46:09] >> I'm not always available to immediately

[1:46:11] respond,

[1:46:12] >> of course,

[1:46:13] >> because I'm with someone else. So, if

[1:46:18] >> our hope is that residents will figure

[1:46:20] out

[1:46:22] >> tomorrow,

[1:46:23] >> we uh hopefully everybody will

[1:46:25] understand and know that they can ask if

[1:46:27] somebody does show up, right? um that

[1:46:31] they can ask and you can ask for their

[1:46:34] business license with this city and they

[1:46:36] can't preside it then let us know give

[1:46:41] us a ring. Um, I found somebody the

[1:46:44] other day who knocked on my door and you

[1:46:47] know, I shouldn't maybe admit this on

[1:46:49] the public record, but I got a little

[1:46:50] bit of a kick, you know, when they uh

[1:46:53] when they try and tell me that they do

[1:46:54] have lensure within the city um that I

[1:46:59] haven't, you know, seen. And so we

[1:47:02] walked them right over here and what

[1:47:04] actually had happened is they had gone

[1:47:06] over to a neighboring city and they had

[1:47:08] been told, this is what they're telling

[1:47:09] us, right, that that license covered our

[1:47:12] city as well. And so we were able to

[1:47:14] help them and re-educate them a bit and

[1:47:16] they came back and they provided us with

[1:47:18] their their background check. Um, and we

[1:47:21] were able to issue them a business

[1:47:23] license for Woodland Hills. Um, and so

[1:47:25] they should have that on their person.

[1:47:28] If they do not, they have not come to us

[1:47:30] because they've not been educated. Um,

[1:47:33] and like I said in my message this week,

[1:47:36] um, if you have kids, they don't need a

[1:47:38] business license. Um, but we also really

[1:47:43] personally I'd like to foster that

[1:47:44] entrepreneurial spirit with our our

[1:47:46] young residents. And so, they just need

[1:47:48] to come in, talk with Jody. Jody will

[1:47:51] ask some some questions and it's more

[1:47:53] for their benefit than anybody else's.

[1:47:56] um and then they'll be authorized and

[1:47:58] they can even put on their handouts or

[1:48:01] anything that they are city approved. Um

[1:48:04] and so we can kind of foster that type

[1:48:05] of a thing. But there are some people

[1:48:08] that have carveouts that do not need it.

[1:48:11] So religious petitioners do not need a

[1:48:15] business license obviously. Um but

[1:48:17] pretty much everybody else does. Um, if

[1:48:22] they say they're not soliciting, but

[1:48:24] they want to do a presentation,

[1:48:28] lean back on them and say, "Well, if

[1:48:30] this petition, this presentation has

[1:48:33] anything to do with any solicitation

[1:48:35] eventually, you need a business license.

[1:48:37] You can't try and usurp it." Right? So,

[1:48:41] but if missionaries show up, it's just a

[1:48:43] presentation. And that's why they're

[1:48:45] able to and allowed to do that. Okay.

[1:48:48] >> Is solar a religion? Uh solar uh is a

[1:48:51] religion for some but I don't believe it

[1:48:53] is uh seen in the same light though

[1:48:56] light is involved. It's a different uh

[1:49:00] >> different kind of light

[1:49:00] >> say source.

[1:49:02] >> Perfect. Thank you.

[1:49:04] >> Do we have an ordinance if we have it

[1:49:06] posted no soliciting that can actually

[1:49:09] be

[1:49:10] >> we don't have one that says no

[1:49:12] soliciting in the city.

[1:49:13] >> It just says no.

[1:49:14] >> What about for individuals like your

[1:49:16] home has a no soliciting? That would be

[1:49:18] where you ask them to honor people's

[1:49:20] things, but we can't

[1:49:23] >> enforce it. It public

[1:49:26] >> I could run you some dogs.

[1:49:29] >> Yeah, exactly.

[1:49:31] >> Perfect. Okay. Thank you so much. Uh,

[1:49:34] nobody's online, so we will continue on

[1:49:36] and we will close the public comment.

[1:49:39] So, uh, we will move to the consent

[1:49:41] agenda. So, on the consent agenda is our

[1:49:44] meeting minutes for our March 10th

[1:49:46] meeting as well as our March 24th

[1:49:48] meeting. I'll take those individually or

[1:49:50] collectively, whichever.

[1:49:52] >> I'll make a motion that we approve the

[1:49:54] entire consent agenda.

[1:49:57] >> I have motion. Do I have a second? I'll

[1:49:59] second. Real quick, Jody, did you make

[1:50:02] the change that I sent

[1:50:05] >> change on the March 24th minutes to

[1:50:08] include that you were here in person and

[1:50:11] Mayor Hillier participated elect.

[1:50:15] >> Thank you.

[1:50:16] Brian. Okay. I have a motion

[1:50:18] from council member Lunt and a second

[1:50:19] from council member Rhden. Uh all in

[1:50:21] favor? I

[1:50:23] >> I

[1:50:24] >> any opposed

[1:50:27] >> that motion roll call because I'm

[1:50:28] online.

[1:50:30] >> Yes, we have to do

[1:50:32] >> on the consent. Thank you. We'll get

[1:50:34] this one day. Um so we got to adjust our

[1:50:38] my cheat sheet here.

[1:50:39] >> That's why it says roll call no unless

[1:50:41] they are remote participants.

[1:50:43] >> Never mind. I just need to read what you

[1:50:45] give me.

[1:50:46] >> Okay. Uh council member Jones.

[1:50:48] >> Uh yes.

[1:50:49] >> Council member Hutchings.

[1:50:51] >> Yes. Council member Rhoden,

[1:50:53] >> yes.

[1:50:54] >> Council member Lent,

[1:50:55] >> yes.

[1:50:56] >> Okay, that motion passes. Um, next on

[1:51:00] our uh agenda, we have a discussion for

[1:51:04] the sale of surplus equipment, which we

[1:51:06] will turn over to Ted Mickelson.

[1:51:14] All right, we got two items we want to

[1:51:16] sell and uh it says we have to have the

[1:51:19] council over I think it's $20,000.

[1:51:23] >> Yes, 20,000. Um so one we're looking at,

[1:51:26] as we mentioned before, we're looking at

[1:51:28] selling our fire engine, our our sec our

[1:51:30] old fire engine. Um that one we're

[1:51:33] starting to get. Brian's got some

[1:51:34] offers, at least one offer so far uh on

[1:51:38] the firet truck and I thought it was a

[1:51:40] pretty good one and uh but he's going to

[1:51:42] ask another company that was interested.

[1:51:44] >> They they they are declining to offer at

[1:51:46] this point. So, we have the one standing

[1:51:48] offer.

[1:51:49] >> Okay. So, we do have an offer on the

[1:51:51] fire truck. Uh so, we need to get

[1:51:53] council approval to surplus that one.

[1:51:56] The offer

[1:51:56] >> we need to send that through the

[1:51:58] auction. Brian,

[1:52:00] >> no. We had stated that we were not going

[1:52:03] to send it through the auction because

[1:52:04] it is a specialized piece of equipment

[1:52:06] and this allows us to get more money

[1:52:09] from it. Um, this is actually a service

[1:52:12] that buys engines and refurbishes them

[1:52:14] and resells them um who has offered to purchase it. I got an estimate um

[1:52:21] from one company and then they take a a

[1:52:24] 10% fee once it sells. Um, and this was

[1:52:28] slightly less than that uh estimate

[1:52:30] minus the 10% fee and and believe that

[1:52:33] it's an incredibly good offer. Um, it

[1:52:35] was more than than Ted and I were

[1:52:37] actually uh anticipating to be honest.

[1:52:42] >> This will more than cover the cost of a

[1:52:44] new an ambulance, the approved budget

[1:52:46] for an ambulance. So,

[1:52:48] um I think if we have no other offers,

[1:52:50] we might move forward with accepting

[1:52:52] this offer. Um, our code does allow

[1:52:57] multiple ways of surplusing the

[1:52:59] equipment. It doesn't always have to go

[1:53:00] to auction. So, um,

[1:53:03] >> we'll probably

[1:53:05] we'll send you want to send the offer

[1:53:07] to, um, to the attorneys just to make

[1:53:10] sure they review it

[1:53:13] before we move forward.

[1:53:16] >> Good idea. Okay.

[1:53:19] >> Uh, so that's equipment piece number

[1:53:21] one. So, that will likely be sold. Um,

[1:53:25] and then second item is we've talked

[1:53:28] about the mini excavator.

[1:53:30] Um, I think it's about time we surplus

[1:53:32] that as well. Um, it doesn't run real

[1:53:35] well. One of the tracks are locked up.

[1:53:38] It's going to cost a lot of money

[1:53:39] probably to fix it and we don't really

[1:53:41] use it that much. Uh, the occasional

[1:53:44] need we have for an excavator can be

[1:53:46] done by a contractor, which is what

[1:53:48] we've been doing for, you know, not a

[1:53:50] whole lot more. and we'll have to

[1:53:51] maintain a piece of equipment. So, our

[1:53:52] mini excavator, I think we'd like to put

[1:53:55] that one up on the auction and surplus

[1:53:57] that one.

[1:53:58] >> About how much do you think you'll get

[1:53:59] for that guy?

[1:54:00] >> I don't know. It's going to be a whole

[1:54:01] lot. It needs some work. I mean, it's

[1:54:03] going to be we'll we'll put it up there.

[1:54:05] It's going to be I know less than 10.

[1:54:07] >> Okay.

[1:54:08] >> Be my guess. But, um just because it's

[1:54:11] going to need some work to get it going.

[1:54:14] Um

[1:54:15] >> yeah, I don't think what when was the

[1:54:17] last time we the city used that? more

[1:54:19] than three years ago.

[1:54:21] >> Since I've been here, we haven't used

[1:54:22] it. Diesel Brothers used it once when

[1:54:24] they had to get that pole plane off the

[1:54:26] hill to lift their bucket down. But, uh,

[1:54:29] that's been the last time it was used. I

[1:54:30] know they had a bugger using it. Um, I

[1:54:33] talked to Craig Northrup who used to

[1:54:35] maintain our equipment. Um, his

[1:54:39] recommendation was get rid of it the

[1:54:41] first chance you get because it needs a

[1:54:43] lot of work. Uh, and it was a lot of

[1:54:47] work to maintain. So, no reason to keep

[1:54:49] it and just have to sit there and and

[1:54:52] devalue itself when we can try and get

[1:54:53] some money for it now.

[1:54:56] Wonderful. Okay, then. Uh, thank you,

[1:54:59] Ted. Any questions for Ted?

[1:55:03] >> Okay, then I would entertain a motion to

[1:55:07] proceed on those two items or if anybody

[1:55:10] wants to, we can pull them out

[1:55:12] separately.

[1:55:14] I I move to uh put on for sale, approve

[1:55:17] the sale of them

[1:55:19] >> jointly. Right.

[1:55:20] >> Yeah, jointly.

[1:55:21] >> Okay. I have a motion from Council

[1:55:23] Member John. Do I have a second?

[1:55:25] >> I'll second it.

[1:55:26] >> Council member Rhden. Uh Council Member

[1:55:29] Lent.

[1:55:30] >> Yes.

[1:55:30] >> Council member Rhoden.

[1:55:32] >> Yes.

[1:55:32] >> Council member Hutchkins.

[1:55:34] >> Yes.

[1:55:35] >> Council member Johns.

[1:55:37] >> Okay. That motion passes.

[1:55:40] Wonderful. Okay. Um,

[1:55:43] close session. Um, do we I don't believe

[1:55:46] we have anything that really would

[1:55:48] warrant an update of any sorts. Anybody?

[1:55:53] >> No. Anybody here on the council?

[1:55:56] >> No.

[1:55:57] Okay.

[1:55:59] Then I'll entertain a motion to adjourn.

[1:56:03] >> It's too early, isn't it?

[1:56:06] >> Hurry. It's 7:15. I I'll motion to

[1:56:08] adjourn to see if we can get done by 8.

[1:56:09] Motion to

[1:56:11] >> second the motion.

[1:56:12] >> We are adjourned.

[1:56:14] >> Okay. Thank you everybody. It's

[1:56:16] >> not even 8:00 yet.

[1:56:17] >> It's still light. iPad to Reco get

Work Session and City Council Meeting April 14 2026

Transcript