[0:03] Uh, Provolad changed their name Prov.

[0:08] Uh, thank you everyone. My apologies

[0:10] we're starting slightly late. Um,

[0:14] but we're really glad you guys are here.

[0:17] Um, we're going to start with the public

[0:19] hearing. This is a petition to vacate a

[0:21] portion of Eagle's Nest. Uh, this is

[0:23] consistent with a developer agreement

[0:25] approved by the city council back in

[0:27] 2022.

[0:30] So, if there's anybody here from the

[0:32] public who would like to speak on the

[0:34] vacating of Eagle's Nest.

[0:40] Okay. Then we will close the public

[0:41] hearing for the petition to vacate the

[0:43] portion of Eagle's Nest. We will open a

[0:45] public hearing for amending the city fee

[0:48] schedule.

[0:53] Okay. hearing. No uh public hearing. We

[0:57] will close the public hearing for the

[0:59] mending the city fees schedule. And now

[1:01] we will open a

[1:04] public hearing for amending of the 2026

[1:07] fiscal year budget.

[1:13] Lucky, you got anything for us?

[1:16] Okay, perfect. Not hearing anything for

[1:19] that public hearing. We will close the

[1:20] public hearing for amending the 2026

[1:23] fiscal year uh budget. Uh we will move

[1:26] into our work session. Um this is where

[1:29] the city council will discuss uh and

[1:31] present. Uh there will be no formal

[1:34] action taking during this discussion

[1:36] point. Um that will come later. Uh we're

[1:39] going to move to number four. Update on

[1:41] the planning commission public hearing.

[1:43] uh including the planning commission

[1:45] recommendation to approve the general

[1:46] plan and discussion of the proposed

[1:49] general plan. Uh wing

[2:00] our planning commission uh last week we

[2:05] had uh a public hearing on the general

[2:08] plan. It had it's been out in uh public

[2:13] uh through our website for several weeks

[2:17] uh including

[2:20] um all the updates and changes to it

[2:24] made by both the planning commission and

[2:26] the city council

[2:29] as you all reviewed it. uh we did not

[2:32] have any further public comment on it or

[2:37] recommendations that came from the

[2:39] public. We uh took a the planning

[2:43] commission took a vote on it again uh in

[2:46] its completed uh stage.

[2:50] It was unanimously approved and

[2:53] recommended to you all the city council

[2:56] to to approve it. Um we I might mention

[3:01] that uh there was on our three or four

[3:07] weeks ago a um semblance of a strategic

[3:12] plan that was provided was by the um the the committee and and Daniel

[3:21] Jensen, the contractor. we we did not

[3:26] include that in our recommendations. We

[3:30] felt that there was sufficient

[3:33] um goal setting within the general plan

[3:36] itself. Uh and um so we did not we're

[3:42] not recommending any part of that

[3:44] strategic plan. Up to you whether you

[3:46] want to adopt it or not but we felt that

[3:49] the general plan was sufficient and

[3:51] could stand by itself. in that regard.

[3:54] So,

[3:55] >> are there several references in the

[3:56] general plan to the strategic plan?

[4:00] >> There were. We took we took them out.

[4:04] Okay.

[4:06] >> Um

[4:08] and not that they can't be put back in

[4:10] should you choose. We just didn't feel

[4:11] that there was enough substance to the

[4:14] strategic plan to have it kind of stand

[4:18] on its own and be there. that the

[4:20] general plan was sufficient and covered

[4:22] the goals as as needed as we went

[4:24] forward with the general plan.

[4:26] >> Okay.

[4:28] Um

[4:30] that's

[4:32] any questions that any of you have?

[4:36] Carrie?

[4:36] >> I Yes, I do. Um I just wanted to remind

[4:40] the council that the general plan is the

[4:43] planning commission's document that they

[4:46] give to us and it's a framework for the

[4:48] next you know five ten years for our

[4:50] city. The strategic plan is not a

[4:52] general is not a planning commission

[4:54] document. It's a city council document.

[4:57] So it's not even for the planning

[5:00] commission to approve or not approve.

[5:03] It's a plan. It's a city council

[5:05] document for us um as council people to

[5:09] help um the mayor and the staff and us

[5:12] make um short-term goals so that the

[5:15] general plan is a living document and

[5:18] that we are moving forward in in goals.

[5:21] So it's it's not a general plan document

[5:24] and it's not a planning commission

[5:26] document. It's a city council document.

[5:28] And so I want to make sure that we have

[5:31] a distinction between those two and why

[5:34] there's a difference. One's long-term,

[5:36] one's shortterm. Um, and so just as a

[5:40] clarification, I know the mayor um had

[5:43] was going to be asking um Daniel um from

[5:47] Sunrise and Kirsten from the community

[5:49] development committee to come and

[5:51] present that today. And I don't know if

[5:53] they're in the room or not. Um or if you

[5:56] reached out to them to make sure that

[5:58] they were going to talk about it from the committee standpoint.

[6:03] >> Kirstston's here.

[6:05] >> Okay, great.

[6:07] >> Perfect. Thank you, Carrie.

[6:10] >> Wonderful. Very good. Okay, then we'll

[6:12] move to the next one uh for the

[6:15] discussion of the proposed strategic

[6:17] plan.

[6:18] We'll turn it over to uh to Kirsten.

[6:21] Hold

[6:23] on. Let me get all my handouts that are

[6:27] really small anyway, but

[6:33] I should have received that plan and the

[6:36] nature.

[6:37] >> Okay, good. Because I was hoping this

[6:38] isn't your first time seeing it cuz it's

[6:40] really small, but I at least wanted you

[6:43] to have some eyes on it just so you have

[6:45] a little bit of an idea of the layout.

[6:49] So, as Carrie mentioned,

[6:52] the intention of this is to help support

[6:55] the goals of the um

[7:00] >> Oh my gosh.

[7:01] >> general plan.

[7:02] >> Thank you. General plan.

[7:04] And so it's meant to be a working

[7:08] document. It's not necessarily even

[7:11] something that we have to have like

[7:13] public. So, I don't know that it

[7:14] necessarily even has to be like

[7:16] approved, but it's available for your

[7:19] use as the council and for the city. And

[7:22] if you don't like it, you can blame me.

[7:24] And if you like it, then give the credit

[7:26] to to Daniel and and Ted and all the

[7:29] others who put all of the notes and

[7:30] comments in. So, um, as mentioned,

[7:34] ideally, I think you guys have at least

[7:36] seen this before. And so it's it's

[7:39] intended that at least yearly

[7:42] um the city recorder can work with all

[7:46] of those who have are listed as being

[7:49] responsible for moving forward some of

[7:51] the goals. Um can review the strategic

[7:55] plan and and have been keeping notes and

[7:58] progress and updating um and keeping

[8:01] this as a living updating record of

[8:03] we're moving toward our goals. If you

[8:05] feel like you already have something in

[8:07] place for that, then maybe this isn't

[8:10] going to be useful to the council. I

[8:11] don't know that. So, it's if it's

[8:14] useful, great. There is a one page um

[8:16] that you could at this point, I don't

[8:19] know if it's worth uh extending the time

[8:22] of the general plan um to include it,

[8:24] but there's an overview. And so, some

[8:27] cities will put like a website, a link

[8:30] to a a web page that's just a PDF,

[8:33] right? um where it just says yes, the

[8:36] city has a strategic plan. This is kind

[8:37] of what it includes, but the strategic

[8:39] plan itself doesn't necessarily have to

[8:42] be publicly available, you know, request

[8:44] or something. And so it's just meant to

[8:47] be a useful tool

[8:50] general plan and any further than that I

[8:52] don't necessarily have.

[8:54] >> Well, wonderful.

[8:57] Um, yeah. So, unless there's any other

[9:00] questions, the only other thing I would

[9:01] mention is, and I know it's like

[9:02] microscopic,

[9:04] you could choose, we made it so that you

[9:07] could filter um by what chapter it is or

[9:10] whatever. We tried to color code it also

[9:12] so that it would easily be able to see

[9:13] what's land use and what's not, right?

[9:15] If that's annoying or confusing, you

[9:17] don't like the way it prints, ideally,

[9:18] you're using this digitally on computer.

[9:20] It's really not ideal for print, but um,

[9:23] you know, it's easy just to grade those

[9:25] out. Anybody that kind of knows a little

[9:26] bit of Excel could go in and fix that

[9:28] up, but we tried to make it a little bit

[9:31] >> a quick reference overview of these are

[9:33] the goals, this is who's responsible,

[9:35] and these are the steps they're going to

[9:36] take to achieve them.

[9:38] >> Okay,

[9:39] >> wonderful.

[9:40] >> Okay,

[9:40] >> I've got one question for you.

[9:42] >> Sure.

[9:43] >> As to um you know, your role, not

[9:46] necessarily on the strategic plan side,

[9:48] >> is there any more deliverables for the

[9:51] community development committee?

[9:53] >> No. No. We wanted to try to supply this

[9:56] in line with getting that general plan

[9:58] through. So I think ideally we're moving

[10:01] together.

[10:03] Um but I don't have any other

[10:05] deliverables or not. As far as I'm on

[10:06] the contract end of things with Sunrise,

[10:08] I don't believe they, you know, have any

[10:11] either.

[10:11] >> Then I'll try and coordinate a time with

[10:13] Daniel to review the contract to, you

[10:16] know, to see if we are in agreeance

[10:18] between he and I

[10:20] >> on whether the deliverables have been

[10:21] met. Um but

[10:24] >> in our last meeting he gave a budget

[10:27] report and we were under by quite a bit.

[10:30] So

[10:32] >> well that'd be great. Love to come

[10:34] under.

[10:35] >> Yeah.

[10:35] >> Usually comes under.

[10:38] >> So

[10:40] budget.

[10:43] » Oh wonderful. Okay. Carrie here.

[10:47] >> Yes. I uh just wanted to publicly thank

[10:50] Kristen and the community development

[10:52] committee. They put in a lot of time and

[10:54] effort on the general plan and the

[10:56] strategic plan um in organizing and

[11:00] getting those two documents ready for

[11:02] us. Um when I first originally wrote

[11:05] that grant, um we put it in there to

[11:09] have a strategic plan. We've never had

[11:11] one before. And part of that is to

[11:14] distinguish between our long-term

[11:16] objectives and the the desires for our

[11:19] city and what we think our city should

[11:21] look like in growth. But also then to

[11:24] make sure we're doing it strategically

[11:26] so our short-term goals are met so that

[11:29] um and leaving that document flexible

[11:32] enough that if we need to pivot one way

[11:35] or another but still align with the

[11:37] overall arching principles of the

[11:39] general plan, we can. So, it's not

[11:42] written in stone. It is a living

[11:43] document like she said. And um and I

[11:47] hope that we can approve it tonight so

[11:49] that we can allow not only ourselves

[11:52] depending on which area of the city that

[11:54] we kind of help oversee, but also you

[11:57] mayor as well and the staff for those

[12:01] guidelines and those boundaries.

[12:02] recognizing the flexibility to be in

[12:05] that um in that space and being able to

[12:08] show our community that quality of life

[12:10] is really important to us. But at to

[12:13] maintain our quality of life, we really

[12:15] do need to have strategic a strategic

[12:18] goal in place to keep it for what it is

[12:21] because a lot of uh a lot of in um

[12:26] things are creeping in on us from all

[12:28] around and we'll we might need to change

[12:31] some of our modeling but at the same

[12:34] time maintain what Woodland Hills is.

[12:37] And so I wanted to thank them for all

[12:39] the work that they did over the years in getting this done.

[12:46] » Definitely. Kirstston,

[12:48] >> I I just had a question for you if I

[12:50] could. Um I mean, you've put a lot of

[12:51] work into this over the years and I know

[12:54] that uh there there's been a lot of back

[12:57] and forth. Where it stands today, what's

[12:59] your take on it? So it sounds like you

[13:03] approve it.

[13:04] >> Which part? Well, I mean, are are there

[13:07] any I I haven't seen the final draft and

[13:10] so I'm kind of leaning on on you as kind

[13:14] of my gauge to do we need to hesitate on

[13:18] an approval right now or do you feel

[13:20] like it is where it's going to be, I

[13:22] guess, is kind of what I'm

[13:24] >> um I am all for

[13:27] lots of opinions and that coming

[13:29] together and sometimes that means we

[13:31] compromise and sometimes it means we

[13:34] stand our ground. Um, but I I feel

[13:37] comfortable moving forward. Honestly,

[13:38] this has been um a long project and I

[13:43] think it's kind of about time we move it

[13:45] forward.

[13:46] >> Yeah.

[13:46] >> Um, so I am all for that. Um, a lot of

[13:50] the edits I know there was, you know,

[13:52] grammatical things and things like that,

[13:53] but overall I felt like the goals stayed

[13:56] pretty much the same. And the strategic

[13:58] plan, again, it doesn't add goals.

[14:00] There's no new goals in here. um it just

[14:04] builds steps to the ones that are

[14:05] already in the general plan. And so um I still feel comfortable with that. The

[14:11] I know like dark skies, you know, that's

[14:13] like a scary word around here, but um I

[14:16] felt like we got to a good place in what

[14:18] I think is realistically manageable for

[14:20] the our city.

[14:22] >> Um and just still making sure that we're

[14:25] listening to the residents, that they

[14:26] like their night skies. um but we didn't

[14:29] necessarily feel like we then had to

[14:31] align ourselves with an additional

[14:33] organization or rules. So I I'm okay

[14:36] with that knowing that we have um we're

[14:39] a smaller city and code enforcement

[14:41] things is a little bit harder at the

[14:44] size of our city. So I think we need to

[14:45] take those things into account. So

[14:47] overall um I feel okay about it. There

[14:50] was only one other section that if my

[14:53] understanding didn't continue in the new

[14:56] general plan and it was that provision

[14:59] where you could again I know the word

[15:02] density is not a good word around here

[15:04] but um you could potentially

[15:07] you know preserve green space and take

[15:10] what that density would have been and

[15:12] apply it elsewhere and so I just because

[15:16] it's not the general plan though doesn't

[15:17] mean that down the road that couldn't

[15:18] still potentially be an option.

[15:20] Um, but it was nice to have that in the

[15:22] general plan because you just don't know

[15:24] 5 10 years down the road if the city

[15:27] council then will be aware that that's

[15:29] in state code and an option for a city

[15:32] to choose from. So, I'm all for options.

[15:35] Um, and so that's why we included that

[15:37] in there, but I'm not too set on, again,

[15:42] just because it's not in the general

[15:43] plan doesn't mean it's something you

[15:44] couldn't do in the future. Those are

[15:45] only I think the two things that were

[15:47] kind of the most discussed um points of

[15:50] the general plan, but like I said, it's

[15:52] time to move it forward.

[15:54] >> Yeah. Okay. Thank you.

[15:55] >> Well, thank you so much. I know that was

[15:57] massive. I appreciate the undertaking.

[15:59] We'll take a look on the executive side

[16:02] for the strategic implementation of of

[16:05] the strategic plan. Uh make edits where

[16:08] we feel would make sense for, you know,

[16:10] our trajectory. But this is a fabulous

[16:13] starting point. We appreciate that.

[16:14] Thank you.

[16:15] >> Y

[16:15] >> um we will also then look to if needed

[16:19] I'll work with Jody on this but to see

[16:22] you know what we need to dissolve that

[16:24] committee so you don't have to keep

[16:25] having meetings and posting minutes and

[16:27] stuff because I know you love that part.

[16:29] >> That sounds great to me. I've got a big

[16:31] project next year for works.

[16:33] >> Well, we appreciate it. Thank you so

[16:35] much. Is there anybody else with any

[16:36] questions? Brian?

[16:38] >> Yes. Um so couple of couple of things.

[16:40] Kristen, I hope that you feel we, you

[16:44] know, one of the things we we talked

[16:46] about earlier in this process was, you

[16:48] know, there was some some uh

[16:51] disagreements between your committee and

[16:54] um the planning commission. And I hope

[16:58] that you feel like we gave your I mean

[17:02] we made sure that we got your what your document and the changes

[17:09] from the the planning commission. So we

[17:13] got to see both. Um and and I wanted I

[17:15] wanted to make sure I hope that you felt

[17:18] we did that well enough. um that you

[17:21] that that we the council did get to see

[17:23] those your your original document and

[17:26] then the changes that were recommended

[17:30] um in our our reviews of it.

[17:34] >> Great. No, thank you for saying that and all all good for me. All good. All

[17:40] good here. And I appreciate that you all

[17:42] took that time because you didn't have

[17:43] to. And so I appreciate that you took

[17:44] into account the work of the different

[17:47] members of the committee over time and

[17:50] the thoughts and um intentions and

[17:53] desires that they had and the results we

[17:55] received from the the city residents and

[17:58] the survey results and um our public

[18:00] openhouse. all of that that went into

[18:02] the overall

[18:05] first draft that came out of the

[18:07] community development committee for the general plan. Um, but of course,

[18:11] like I said, we support that there's

[18:14] other opinions and that's what's the

[18:17] beautiful part of local government.

[18:20] >> I I have not seen the final draft. I

[18:23] haven't had time to go through it since

[18:25] it was sent to me. Um, but you know, if

[18:28] everything was put in that we talked

[18:29] about, um, I'm I'm happy with that. Um,

[18:32] just to be honest, I wasn't very nice

[18:35] with the strategic plan. Um, I don't

[18:37] know if you watched our our council

[18:40] sessions on that. Um,

[18:42] >> but I think that what you're talking

[18:45] about here and and putting a shortterm

[18:49] things together um is something that we

[18:52] can definitely I'm I'm willing to look

[18:54] at and and uh and I'm not sure how the

[18:57] rest of the council is, but I'm I'm I'm

[19:00] definitely willing to look at it and and dig into it more. I don't think I'm

[19:04] ready to to vote on a strategic plan

[19:06] tonight because one of the things I felt

[19:08] was is couldn't have a strategic plan

[19:10] without a general plan. Once we vote on

[19:12] the general plan, then we can go back

[19:13] and say, "Okay, does this align? Is this

[19:15] the things we want to focus on?" Now, I

[19:18] think there and and I don't know that is needed by your committee. you

[19:23] put that uh you know the baseline

[19:26] together for us um that we can work from

[19:29] and decide okay here's here's the things

[19:31] that we want to attack right now and and

[19:34] then put that in there and and like I'm definitely not ready for it tonight

[19:38] but I think it definitely is something

[19:40] that that could be um could be brought

[19:44] up and and we could look at and dig into

[19:47] more.

[19:48] >> I appreciate you guys put a lot of work

[19:50] into it. appreciate it.

[19:51] >> Just because something took a lot of

[19:53] work or time or people doesn't mean it's

[19:57] what you need. And so take it for what

[20:00] it is. And if you feel like it's not

[20:03] useful to the future of the city and

[20:07] it's planning and accountability and

[20:09] organization, like you're not going to

[20:11] hurt my feelings. So um but yes, we

[20:14] tried to take in a lot of opinions. Um

[20:17] and not not opinions isn't the right

[20:19] word. We tried to take in a lot of

[20:21] feedback and information and input from

[20:23] different members of city employees and

[20:25] the different um committee heads were

[20:28] like these are their words. I I didn't

[20:30] write out these steps. This is them

[20:33] saying this is what I'm going to do

[20:35] because I'm responsible for this step

[20:37] that's leading to this goal in the

[20:39] general plan. So that strategic plan was

[20:43] put together by a lot of people beyond

[20:46] the community development committee. So

[20:49] take take that forward.

[20:51] >> Thank you.

[20:52] >> So maybe just quickly on the strategic

[20:55] plan when when you wrote the RFP for

[20:58] that, the intent of the strategic plan

[21:01] was to really be an immediate action

[21:03] document. Nothing comprehensive because

[21:07] part of the challenge that a lot of

[21:09] communities have with general plans is

[21:12] other than the planning commissioner, no

[21:13] one else ever really digs into it. and maybe the planning commission, but

[21:17] no one really understands it. So, out of

[21:20] those general plans though come some goals. And so, the strategic plan

[21:24] was meant to be what's a short document

[21:27] >> that can get us to moving on these

[21:29] general plan goals. Something we can

[21:31] start tackling right away. It was really

[21:33] it's really meant to be a staff level

[21:35] document, right? not a city level

[21:37] document

[21:38] >> which is why it's an internal document

[21:41] because it's what can us as a staff be

[21:43] doing to start um the process of getting

[21:47] the general plan recommendations

[21:49] underway. So when we put this RFP

[21:52] together u that was the purpose of the

[21:55] strategic plan. So it's not meant to be

[21:57] a completely involved document. It's not

[22:00] meant to be really kind of a uh

[22:02] something that we're going to

[22:05] um use. Uh obviously it's available

[22:10] citywide, but it's meant for the staff.

[22:12] So I spent a bit of time with Daniel on

[22:15] the strategic plan thing talking about

[22:17] some of all the new problems and goals

[22:18] and stuff like that and what are some of

[22:20] our stuff we can start tackling right

[22:22] away. So that's kind of the purpose

[22:24] behind the strategic plan. So I guess

[22:26] what I would be uh just admonish to

[22:29] council is don't spend a lot of time

[22:31] trying to

[22:33] daughter up change

[22:36] not to say you don't have feedback could

[22:38] change the strategic plan whatever you

[22:39] feel a guidance for the city because

[22:43] but

[22:45] we want to start these things sooner

[22:48] rather than later and not spend another

[22:51] six months trying to dive through a

[22:53] strategic plan and get it so complic

[22:55] complicated that we would but that it

[22:57] just gets sheld

[22:59] if that makes sense. So that would be

[23:00] just my strategic

[23:02] >> that that totally makes sense but does

[23:04] that mean I mean to me that sounds like

[23:07] more of a you know administrative

[23:12] um and and on the executives you know

[23:14] the executive side of things it doesn't

[23:16] even look like doesn't even sound like

[23:18] something we need to adopt as a city

[23:19] council. um if we adopt the general plan

[23:23] and this is the way that that the staff

[23:26] team is going to attack their things um

[23:30] in it and even if even if there's some

[23:32] involvement with with council members it

[23:35] doesn't sound like it's something we

[23:36] need to adopt and make official is that

[23:40] is how is that normally done Ted

[23:43] >> and I would would would I would leave

[23:45] that up to the council on a strategic

[23:47] plan I've seen other communities do

[23:48] these um for the same purpose. They're very or I should say they're

[23:54] relatively new in the industry we'll

[23:56] call it now new in the industry is last

[23:58] decade or so um for that purpose now

[24:01] give you an example uh the general plan

[24:04] might say something like we want to

[24:07] um have better roads and change the

[24:10] width of the roads right which is a very

[24:13] general goal what the strategic plan

[24:17] does it says okay and then to accomplish

[24:19] that in yours here's what Ted needs to

[24:21] do in years one and two. We need to

[24:23] start figuring out what is our budget,

[24:25] what does this take, what roads do we

[24:26] need to do, what's our priority. Years

[24:28] three to five, you know, okay, now we

[24:30] can start tackling the design and

[24:32] construction of these. And so that's the

[24:34] idea of the strategic plan to take some

[24:35] of these general plan things and

[24:36] actually make them actionable for the

[24:39] staff. Um things that we can start doing

[24:42] to make these general plan ideas

[24:43] actionable. So it's kind of the purpose

[24:45] behind a strategic plan. Whether you

[24:47] decide you need to adopt it or not is is

[24:49] up to you guys. But that's kind of the

[24:51] to give you a just a basic idea of why

[24:55] the strategic plan is there for the

[24:57] staff to start figuring out how we

[25:01] tackle these very general plan ideas.

[25:04] >> So I again I I it goes back to I don't

[25:08] think the legislative branch's job is to

[25:11] run the executive branch's team. Um, and

[25:14] I don't I I think that gets us into a

[25:16] really

[25:18] bad situation there. I think that this

[25:21] in in my opinion, this isn't the

[25:23] council's job to tell the mayor's team

[25:27] how to execute on what the council's the

[25:29] goals council set as goals. Um, my

[25:33] opinion, again, this is why we got why

[25:35] we have a work session, but that's my two cents. Um, I'll let other

[25:39] council members and the mayor put in

[25:41] theirs as well.

[25:43] Brian, I agree with you. Really, what I

[25:45] would say we vote on tonight is this

[25:48] cover sheet for the strategic plan,

[25:51] right? That is what you guys would say.

[25:53] Let's put that on the website as the

[25:55] strategic plans cover sheet. This matrix

[25:58] is something that would stay internal.

[26:01] This would not be a public facing

[26:03] document. This would be, you know, what

[26:05] do I have the staff doing? What do they

[26:08] feel that they need to do for us to

[26:10] execute on the general plan? So, the

[26:11] matrix is not up for a vote in my

[26:14] opinion. I think we're looking to just

[26:16] really vote on whether we want to keep

[26:18] or vote on this cover sheet or not.

[26:21] >> And and I would just add,

[26:23] >> like Ted said, these strategic plans

[26:25] look very different across cities. Some

[26:29] look like this. Some are just the

[26:31] overview, like they're very broad. And

[26:35] so if you feel like the overview is

[26:38] helpful, I think it's if especially if

[26:39] it's not in the general plan, maybe it's

[26:41] helpful for residents to know that the

[26:43] city is trying to measure and keep to

[26:45] their uh like you know KPIs or things

[26:48] like that, but um it's an accountability

[26:52] document internally, right? Um and so

[26:56] that would maybe be where the overview

[26:58] serves a purpose, but again, it's this

[27:00] isn't like a required thing. If it works

[27:02] for the city, great. If it doesn't,

[27:04] that's okay. Wonderful. Thank you.

[27:06] Anything else for uh Kirsten,

[27:11] Kevin, good again. Thank you. Fabulous

[27:15] work.

[27:17] Okay, then let us move on to uh the

[27:20] number six, discussion of proposed

[27:22] ordinance vacating a portion of Eagle's

[27:24] Nest.

[27:27] Okay. Do you want to talk about this at

[27:30] all? Does anybody have any questions on

[27:32] this?

[27:35] I mean, we've talked about it already.

[27:37] >> We have.

[27:38] >> We might just want to Mayor, we might

[27:40] want to just remind the citizens who are

[27:44] maybe watching this later why um we are

[27:47] doing this as part of the development

[27:50] agreement from the past. I mean, it's on

[27:52] the agenda that way, but maybe just give

[27:54] a little bit more of the history of of

[27:57] that.

[27:59] >> Okay, I'm okay with that. Do you want to

[28:01] do that, Ted, or do you want to do that,

[28:03] Bucky? Or do you want to do that? Wing,

[28:06] >> I may maybe make just a comment. Um,

[28:12] there'll be a public hearing on this as

[28:15] we did before.

[28:17] >> No, we've already done a public hearing

[28:19] >> on both of them.

[28:20] >> This is just the one we're doing today.

[28:22] The eagle list. This isn't

[28:24] >> only eagle nest is what we're talking

[28:25] about. We're not talking about the other

[28:27] one. This isn't property. So, the public

[28:30] hearing was just held prior to this

[28:31] meeting.

[28:34] So,

[28:35] >> okay. Yes, there's this is the second

[28:38] time we've been through

[28:40] >> this particular

[28:42] issue and um I don't know if it would be

[28:48] beneficial to put portion of the

[28:51] development agreement out there just for

[28:53] people to look to see again, not as a

[28:55] public hearing but just as a as a

[28:57] document. I think it's available in our

[29:01] previous minutes,

[29:03] >> right?

[29:04] >> I mean, we can put it in we can attach

[29:06] it to these minutes, but this was

[29:07] something that was agreed upon when the

[29:09] council agreed to the um development

[29:12] agreement that was signed in 2022 in

[29:15] exchange for this vacation of road.

[29:18] There was some improvements done uh on

[29:22] some not finished city roads,

[29:25] particularly Bear Hollow, and some up

[29:28] and down Summit Creek that were in

[29:30] exchange for this as part of the

[29:32] development agreement.

[29:33] >> This is really just a technical exercise

[29:36] that we need to do to make sure we we

[29:38] check all the statutory requirements to

[29:41] honor the agreement that we signed into

[29:44] 2022. And also our attorneys reviewed

[29:46] all of this.

[29:47] >> Our attorneys before it was agreed on

[29:50] >> we well we've even had them review this

[29:53] and the ordinance has gone to the

[29:54] attorneys as well and they've reviewed

[29:56] it and so it's

[29:58] >> I just think that's important too

[29:59] because we want to make sure it's clear

[30:02] >> and council member Pratt I think knocked

[30:03] off about five years of his life

[30:05] expectancy going through this and all

[30:07] sorts of fun stuff. So,

[30:10] >> and that's why I just wanted to clarify

[30:12] so anyone who may not have heard one of

[30:14] our past city council meetings, we've

[30:16] talked about this for years, but just to

[30:18] let them know it is part of the

[30:21] agreement, legal agreement that we made

[30:25] with Summit Creek and we're now it's

[30:28] time to do it. So, I just wanted to make

[30:30] sure that's clear for anyone who may not

[30:32] who may think we're doing this at the

[30:34] last minute. We've been doing it for

[30:35] years.

[30:37] >> Of course. Thank you, Carrie. Okay, then

[30:40] let us move to number seven, discussion

[30:42] of

[30:44] the proposed resolution amending the

[30:46] city fee schedule.

[30:49] Um, do you want to tackle this, Jody?

[30:53] >> I'm happy to if you want.

[30:56] >> If you would, that would be great.

[30:58] >> Thank you.

[30:59] >> Um, in your uh resolution, you will see

[31:02] some highlights that are yellow. Um each

[31:06] one of those highlights where there's a

[31:08] potential change to the consolidated fee

[31:10] schedule. Um

[31:13] if you start on page three of it, uh

[31:17] past due bills, it's gone from 3% to 5%

[31:21] interest.

[31:23] Um, and then we also include the inloo

[31:26] water fee and that allows developers

[31:28] instead of bringing water shares to the

[31:31] city, they can pay the city $5,200

[31:34] uh for the 1.0 and 0.90 acre feet of reserve city reserve water.

[31:46] >> Okay.

[31:47] Um

[31:51] on page four, uh we are changing we're

[31:55] proposing to change the homebased

[31:57] business license from $25 to $50 a year.

[32:02] Um 25 has been there since uh 2002 and

[32:07] 24 years later it's probably time to uh

[32:12] increase that fee. It also allows us to

[32:14] do a little bit more tracking, send out

[32:16] reminders, and we're also looking to do

[32:18] that on a um January 1 to December 31st

[32:23] basis so that all permits would renew in

[32:26] January. Uh conditional use application

[32:30] license permits would also go from 150

[32:33] to 200. Uh those require us that we

[32:36] publish with a local newspaper any

[32:39] conditional use application. publication

[32:42] costs have gone up. So that will

[32:44] basically make us break even on those.

[32:47] Um we are proposing a significant

[32:50] increase to our land use application

[32:52] fees.

[32:53] Um when the uh new house bill passed and

[32:59] we got rid of uh preliminary reviews and

[33:03] we just went to a final subdivision

[33:05] review. There's a lot more that goes

[33:07] into those subdivision reviews. uh our

[33:10] engineering costs to review those seem

[33:12] to be a a bit more. And when we did a

[33:16] um analysis of what we're paying out as

[33:20] we tracked certain subdivisions, we seem

[33:22] to not be recouping our costs. And so

[33:25] this is helping us in the future to pay

[33:29] for what it's actually costing us to

[33:31] appro approve a subdivision.

[33:34] So those fees are there.

[33:37] Um changes on page five again are uh

[33:42] fees that are pretty much a pass

[33:44] through. Uh annexation requests again

[33:48] it's the publication. It's sending out

[33:50] notices to everyone.

[33:52] >> Um it's staff time, engineers time to

[33:55] review things. So these are just kind of

[33:58] after looking at what we've been um

[34:02] charging and what it's costing, we're

[34:05] kind of putting those back in line.

[34:07] Um,

[34:09] same again with page number six. There

[34:12] is a change though to an ADU application

[34:15] and that's a onetime fee of 750 which

[34:18] covers up to four inspections. As we've

[34:21] been tracking our building permits and

[34:23] our inspection fees um seem to be

[34:27] running about between an hour and a half

[34:29] and two hours each inspection and each

[34:32] inspection is $75. So when they go and

[34:34] they spend 2 hours there, we're paying

[34:37] for $150 and we're only recouping 75 of

[34:40] it. So again, it's going to be one of

[34:43] those passroughs. Um

[34:47] on page seven, the sewer impact fee that

[34:52] is a pass through to PAC that is

[34:54] increasing from 7177 to 7351.

[34:59] Again, that's not uh money the city

[35:02] collects in our I guess you'd say

[35:05] coffers. It's money that's passed

[35:06] through to PAS. Um

[35:10] we did propose a temporary occupancy

[35:12] certificate that would allow someone

[35:15] once all their safety issues are taken

[35:17] care of to go ahead and occupy their

[35:19] home. Um but there would still be some

[35:22] zoning issues that maybe need to happen,

[35:24] driveways that need to be finished,

[35:26] things like that.

[35:28] um

[35:30] reinspection fees. Uh

[35:34] we are going to uh specify in our

[35:37] consolidated fee schedule how many

[35:40] inspections are part of a home, part of

[35:43] an ADU.

[35:45] Um that clears up any problem with

[35:48] people calling for partial inspections.

[35:50] Uh in a sense, the permit pays for 18

[35:53] home inspections. If you are going above

[35:56] that 18, you're going to get build.

[35:58] Again, it's trying to recoup our costs

[36:00] so that residents aren't paying for

[36:02] construction costs.

[36:04] Um, do you guys have any questions?

[36:09] I know we've been asked uh by a resident

[36:12] on PA uh for exhibit A on page nine to

[36:16] identify what the yellow, red, and blue

[36:19] stars are. And I'll go ahead and put

[36:22] that in so that you can see those. Uh,

[36:25] red are homes that have already paid a

[36:30] impact fee to the sewer reimbursement

[36:32] fee of $3501.

[36:34] Yellow are lots that potentially could

[36:37] be developed and reimburse the city for

[36:39] the $351

[36:41] fee. and red are homes that were built

[36:47] before the sewer line was put in that we

[36:50] will not uh get reimbursed for. So this

[36:54] was something that was put together by

[36:55] our private previous public works

[36:57] director in uh 2018 when we installed

[37:00] the sewer line.

[37:03] >> So they're all being served but have not

[37:06] paid.

[37:06] >> They can be served but they may not be

[37:09] connected.

[37:13] Well, they may be on septic.

[37:15] >> Yeah. Yeah. I mean, and and I'm just I'm

[37:20] just saying this out loud. There there

[37:23] are laws that if there is a sewer within

[37:25] a certain distance of the home that it

[37:27] needs to to go that way,

[37:29] >> within 300 ft and but that we can't

[37:32] require if they've already put in a

[37:35] subject tank. Now, if their septic tank

[37:37] were to fail or require major

[37:40] improvements, right, then we could

[37:43] require them to do

[37:46] >> grandfathered thing if they were there

[37:48] before the sewer.

[37:49] >> Make Yeah, makes sense. And and I'm not

[37:51] suggesting that we go that route. I'm

[37:54] just saying that if somebody were to tie

[37:56] in, do we have the ability to then

[37:58] charge that impact fee at that point?

[38:00] >> Yes. Okay. And we've had a couple that

[38:02] have chosen um if they've had a problem

[38:04] with their septic tank to actually

[38:06] connect to the system and then they have

[38:08] paid us the $351

[38:11] um that was uh done in the impact fee

[38:14] study that we had done in 2023

[38:19] I think it was probably right around

[38:20] there. Yeah.

[38:21] >> Um and so

[38:23] >> so they wouldn't be subject to the

[38:26] >> they would be subject to the 7,000 as

[38:28] well from

[38:29] >> for both. Okay. Okay.

[38:32] >> Okay. Good. Good to know.

[38:33] >> Any other questions?

[38:35] >> Couple of questions. Jody, hang on.

[38:38] >> Um the 5% uh on the late fee, is that

[38:42] capped by the state?

[38:46] >> No, that's just what our treasurer

[38:49] suggested.

[38:51] >> Just seems low to me for late.

[38:57] » We're friendly. too nice sometimes,

[39:00] Brad. We can't hostile.

[39:02] >> That's that I'm being hostile,

[39:04] Hutchings. Um, on the sewer, when when

[39:09] it's a pass through, can we word it like

[39:11] we do the attorney fees that just

[39:13] whatever PAC's charging us is what we're

[39:15] going to charge so we don't have to keep

[39:17] changing it every time Pac does.

[39:21] >> We could.

[39:23] >> I just wonder if that's a little bit

[39:24] easier.

[39:26] >> Um, and the six month head or Wayne

[39:30] might know and Jody you might know as

[39:32] well on the stop work um violation is

[39:36] that capped by the state

[39:40] » no

[39:42] that seems low as well to me um if they

[39:46] violate stop work um and I get that

[39:50] subsequent are doubled but I still think

[39:53] $500 is low for a stop work violation

[39:57] Does that continue to double?

[40:00] >> First instance 500, second instance a

[40:03] th00and, third instance 2,000.

[40:05] >> 500 each time.

[40:06] >> 500. So yeah,

[40:08] >> I kind of like my version better than

[40:10] yours. I like your version.

[40:11] >> You're welcome to write it however you

[40:13] want.

[40:15] Um we I did look at other cities so that

[40:18] we weren't totally out of line. Um,

[40:22] and this seems to be what uh many other

[40:25] cities are doing, but you guys are

[40:27] welcome to write it however you'd like.

[40:29] >> The state's guidelines when it comes to

[40:33] uh the legalities of it generally say

[40:37] you recoup your cost. That's what that's

[40:39] kind of what you have to base your fee

[40:41] at, right? So, we have to look at

[40:42] recouping our cost. Um, so whatever that

[40:45] stopwork actual cost dollar is is

[40:48] generally the range you want to be in.

[40:50] It's usually their guidelines from a

[40:51] legal aspect. Um I know a few times in

[40:55] my other half

[40:57] before coming to work for the city there

[40:59] were times where

[41:02] that world we call them liquidated

[41:03] damages and we would put a set amount

[41:05] liquidated damages but if you ever went

[41:06] to court just says you're only you can

[41:08] collect what your your costs were

[41:10] regardless of what the document said. So

[41:13] it's generally guidelines what we look

[41:14] at

[41:16] >> and and an occurrence. I mean

[41:18] >> in theory that could be two or three

[41:20] occurrences in a single day if they're

[41:23] >> going back and so yeah I mean

[41:28] I I think it's reasonable. It's not like

[41:30] it's a revenue generator for the city

[41:34] >> and it's not like we just hand them out

[41:37] all the time.

[41:38] >> Yeah.

[41:38] >> Right. I think um our

[41:43] public works and code enforcement

[41:45] officer try to work with the individual

[41:48] first um and it's usually it's only

[41:52] after you know I think we've handed out

[41:55] maybe two in the last

[41:59] three or four years.

[42:01] >> Yeah.

[42:02] Usually too, our ordinances refer to it

[42:05] as a day, not as an occurrence. So if

[42:09] there are five occurrences during a day,

[42:11] it would be one one charge of $500 for

[42:14] those if it if it were to multiply that

[42:18] way. But ordinance reads per day.

[42:22] So

[42:25] » Brian,

[42:28] that I just I wanted to have the

[42:30] discussion.

[42:31] >> Wonderful. Well, any other questions

[42:32] from you?

[42:35] No. Okay,

[42:38] wonderful. Any from you guys?

[42:41] No. Okay, Jerry, you good? Perfect.

[42:45] Okay, thank you. I heard I saw your head

[42:47] shaking. So, let us move to the

[42:50] discussion of proposed ordinance

[42:51] amending the 2026 fiscal year budget.

[42:54] So, I want to go over a little bit what

[42:56] we did here.

[42:58] um to make sure that we did this right,

[43:00] we actually called our uh city auditor

[43:04] and he was able to kind of give us some

[43:06] guidance on this as well. Um just for

[43:08] you guys's update. Um Charlene currently

[43:11] is going through all of her training to

[43:13] be aware of our software and

[43:15] understanding of that. So she's working

[43:17] um to get familiar with all the

[43:19] intricacies of our city. um she is

[43:22] planning to come and join a city council

[43:24] meeting here um in the next month or so.

[43:27] Um and you guys will be able to ask her

[43:30] any questions. She first wanted to kind

[43:32] of be able to know what's going on so

[43:34] she could answer them first. Um just so

[43:37] you guys understand where Charlene is

[43:39] right now. Um what we did is we went

[43:42] through the general fund and we looked a

[43:45] lot at what is this percentage um of

[43:49] completion and we then looked to make

[43:51] sure that all of those percentages were

[43:54] in line. Now you will see there are

[43:56] subcategories within these primary

[43:58] headers. For example, in revenue there

[44:01] is a number of these that are way over

[44:04] budget. Okay. In the revenue side of

[44:07] this, we really don't care as much. And

[44:10] this is the words from our auditor. Um,

[44:13] if we're above percentage on revenue,

[44:16] that's always a good thing.

[44:17] >> I was going to say that's a good thing.

[44:19] >> Exactly. If you look at our expenditures

[44:22] though,

[44:24] um there will be a few categories uh

[44:27] that currently are um you know, like we

[44:30] have here public safety. Um we're

[44:34] currently at 100.43%.

[44:38] Um that we will then need to appro or

[44:43] fix at our final um

[44:47] opening of the fiscal year 2026 budget.

[44:50] Okay. But everything else you can see

[44:52] that we're we're quite a bit under. Um

[44:55] we're looking pretty good on those

[44:56] things. Um, we've actually got a few

[44:59] excess funds in the administrative

[45:02] category this year, um, that we I

[45:05] reallocated up to it that I think we'll

[45:07] be able to pull a few of those projects

[45:08] that we were maybe thinking of doing in

[45:10] 2027

[45:12] um, over into this fiscal year, which

[45:14] will then, you know, help us get further

[45:17] down our list of things that need to be

[45:18] done, especially here on the building in

[45:21] 2027. So that's what that why the

[45:25] expense general government um percentage

[45:29] is actually quite low. So we'll be

[45:30] working on that a little bit this month.

[45:33] But you guys have any questions for us

[45:35] there on these uh financials?

[45:43] » Steve got anything for us?

[45:45] >> Um no I I haven't reviewed it in depth

[45:48] but uh I mean it looks really good. just

[45:51] is is the cleanup and the catch up all

[45:54] going pretty well then and

[45:55] >> Yes. Yeah, we we have found a number of

[45:58] things that uh we've been able to kind

[46:01] of figure out what's going on. We've

[46:02] gotten those squared away. Um we pulled

[46:05] out a lot of the monies that we had

[46:06] transferred in here.

[46:08] >> Um we're actually making a deposit um

[46:11] back into our savings of um I'm not

[46:14] seeing it here, Jody. What is it? 10 and

[46:16] something

[46:18] 143,000 or something. If I remember

[46:20] correctly,

[46:21] >> uh, $154,850.

[46:25] » You just headed it back into savings, so

[46:27] things are actually looking pretty good.

[46:29] 2026.

[46:30] >> Oh, I see it. 154.

[46:32] >> Perfect.

[46:35] >> Trying not to

[46:37] budget needs to be you need to adopt

[46:39] your amended budget before June 30th.

[46:42] And that's why Sant.

[46:44] >> Okay, perfect.

[46:47] Um, then I will have

[46:50] a suggested uh a recommended motion when

[46:53] we get to that point so we can get that

[46:55] last little clerical issue with that one

[46:57] budget.

[46:58] >> Okay.

[47:00] Well, wonderful. Thank you. Um we will

[47:03] move then to the discussion and proposed

[47:05] contract with Larsson and company for

[47:07] the independent auditing service.

[47:10] So you guys will see in your packet um

[47:14] this is the contract that uh they have

[47:16] sent over to me. Um, if you guys approve

[47:19] it, this will um then lock us back in

[47:23] for uh the next few years. Um, and you

[47:27] can see how the pricing shifts and

[47:30] changes um as we go throughout from 2026

[47:35] and on. Um, and this is for the next six

[47:39] years. In talking with Charlene, she

[47:43] recommends with the transition for her

[47:45] position that continuing with the same

[47:49] auditing firm makes a lot of sense. Um,

[47:53] I have spent a decent amount of time um,

[47:55] looking at the other auditing firms,

[47:57] asking other cities who are they using,

[48:00] asking um, other like our banker what

[48:05] he's heard about different auditing

[48:07] firms. and Larson really does

[48:11] uh get a very very high review. Um so

[48:14] things have gone really well there.

[48:15] Carrie,

[48:17] >> did you say this contract is a fiveyear

[48:19] or sevenyear?

[48:22] >> In between that sixy year.

[48:24] >> Oh, six years. Okay, thank you.

[48:26] >> Yep.

[48:28] >> So I believe is that am I speaking that

[48:32] truth? Yeah,

[48:33] >> because it says here we have prepared a

[48:34] preliminary time and expense budget for

[48:36] the next six years.

[48:39] >> Yes.

[48:40] >> Can I make a comment?

[48:41] >> I don't know.

[48:43] >> Thank you.

[48:44] >> I might make you wait till public

[48:46] comment. No, please.

[48:48] >> On on this um we we've had this auditor

[48:51] for at least probably 10 years. Jody

[48:54] would know. This the state recommends

[48:58] every five years we change auditors.

[49:01] It's that's and that's that's in a

[49:03] written document. I can understand Shin

[49:06] wanting to keep the same one this this

[49:08] year with the familiarity and everything

[49:11] and so forth, but I I I would suggest

[49:14] you you keep it open for after this year

[49:18] to see what some alternatives might be.

[49:22] Um,

[49:24] again,

[49:26] um, they're very familiar with with with

[49:29] our records and everything and and

[49:32] that's probably a plus for them as well

[49:34] as us. But, uh, there's a benefit to to

[49:38] changing too and seeing if there's some

[49:40] things that got overlooked or need to

[49:42] have greater attention to them. And, um,

[49:46] I think we need to keep our options open

[49:48] in the future bes.

[49:51] So just a thought.

[49:52] >> Thank you.

[49:54] >> Yeah. Any questions on the audit company

[49:57] contract?

[50:00] >> Um

[50:00] >> yes.

[50:02] >> So did we get did we get a break for

[50:04] entering that six-year contract? Like a cost break? Is that why we're doing

[50:09] that? Or

[50:11] >> typically these contracts from what I'm

[50:13] learning are typically between three to

[50:17] five to eight years.

[50:21] And this one's just for six. Okay.

[50:25] >> And that's probably a very negotiable

[50:28] option.

[50:32] » Yeah, thank you. I'm just looking at

[50:34] previous years here sideways.

[50:38] Um it looks like we were 13 and 14,000.

[50:43] >> Yeah. So we're only going up a thousand.

[50:47] >> Yeah. for

[50:53] » I I do have a question, mayor. Um I

[50:56] mean, I think Wayne's comment um is

[50:59] correct that the state suggests the

[51:02] state auditors suggest that you change

[51:05] up every so many times. maybe only have

[51:08] them one or two contract cycles and then

[51:10] get someone new just to make sure that

[51:13] familiarity sometimes gets in there that

[51:17] things may be overlooked just because it

[51:19] is so familiar. Um, did we consider that

[51:23] at all or did we ask anybody else for a

[51:25] bid or we just feel good about Larsson?

[51:29] What was the rationale or process?

[51:33] >> I did not ask anybody else for a bid.

[51:36] This was just their their natural cycle

[51:40] of sending out the new bids because that

[51:42] our time frame is up with a lar company.

[51:46] um

[51:48] in my conversations with other cities on

[51:52] who they go or other um service

[51:55] districts on who's doing their audits.

[51:58] Um and then also consulting with

[52:00] Charlene. Um

[52:03] that those different points of

[52:06] information is what I am now deciding to

[52:09] recommend that we do continue with them

[52:12] for at least a year. Um, I think

[52:15] relooking at it would make sense and I

[52:18] can actually renegotiate this contract

[52:20] um, depending on the motion to which you

[52:23] guys make or don't make to make this a

[52:27] one-year contract versus a six. And then

[52:31] we could send it out to RFP uh, next

[52:34] year, for example. Or we can just send

[52:36] it out to RFP now.

[52:39] So, Mayor, um I was looking that up

[52:41] because it actually sounds like a really

[52:43] good idea. Um Utah administrative code

[52:46] R123-5,

[52:48] cities must competitively procure

[52:51] accounting and auditing services at

[52:52] least every five years. Um you can

[52:55] select the same ones. They do kind of

[52:58] push towards you know getting thresh but

[53:01] we are required by by code to

[53:04] competitively bid this every five years.

[53:07] We probably have good reason uh we don't

[53:11] have to pick the cheapest one, but we

[53:13] probably have good reason to keep the

[53:15] same auditor at least for the next year

[53:18] like you've recommend or like you're

[53:19] recommending. Um but code does require

[53:22] that that we we do an RFP on.

[53:27] >> Do we know when the last time we did an

[53:28] RFP for auditor was? Jody,

[53:33] you want to

[53:34] >> I'm

[53:35] >> take a look at it when we continue here.

[53:37] Just interrupt once if you figure that

[53:39] out for us. I appreciate that, Brian.

[53:42] Thank you.

[53:42] >> Yep.

[53:48] Any other thoughts or discussion?

[53:53] Okay.

[53:56] uh when if you find that out Jody.

[54:00] >> So it would have been in 2020

[54:04] one. I wrote one

[54:06] earlier this year and sent it to our

[54:09] prior financial director and um had to

[54:14] change

[54:18] but it was in 2020

[54:22] that we got the last one.

[54:23] >> So we are due for it. So, we do need to

[54:25] send the star then.

[54:27] >> We probably should. Yes.

[54:29] >> Okay. Then we will

[54:31] I would recommend then we table that

[54:33] decision for right now till we send it

[54:35] through that process since we're bound

[54:38] statutoily.

[54:40] Okay. Thank you, Brian. Thank you,

[54:42] Carrie. Thank you all.

[54:45] Um,

[54:48] number 10, discussion proposal ordinance

[54:50] amending city code 10-4-5E.

[54:55] Um,

[54:56] I can go over this unless you guys want

[54:59] to. Head, do you want to talk to this

[55:01] or? So, this is for our natural hazard

[55:05] study. Um there is I believe we have

[55:08] certain geographic regions that our code

[55:11] currently requires that they get not

[55:14] everybody but if you fall within a

[55:15] certain geographic region, right? Um and

[55:19] some of those homes may necessarily not

[55:21] actually need them. And so what this

[55:23] code amendment looks and will do is

[55:27] basically give the engineer um so

[55:32] actually point E here is a natural

[55:34] hazard study for homes located in uh

[55:37] identified hazard areas if required. So,

[55:40] we'd give the engineer of record there

[55:42] the ability to dis have a little bit of

[55:45] discretion um on whether they feel that

[55:48] site needs a hazard study instead of

[55:51] just imposing that requirement on the builder and the homeowner.

[55:55] >> That's our engineer that makes that

[55:57] determination, not the engineer

[55:58] director.

[55:59] >> Oh, thank you for that correction. So,

[56:02] that is Jones Deil currently. That would

[56:06] be Ted. Okay. So, our community

[56:09] development director.

[56:12] >> So, perfect.

[56:14] >> Um,

[56:17] >> uh, Sherry, if we could, if you can take

[56:20] note of that uh, in the public comment,

[56:22] we'd love to hear from that. Thank you.

[56:26] >> Um,

[56:28] will will there be a delineation

[56:31] um on that or or is it more

[56:34] discretionary?

[56:36] >> No. So we we some years ago had a

[56:39] natural hazard assessment map completed

[56:42] and the map basically identifies when we

[56:44] have certain hazards that we have to be

[56:46] aware of. Obviously in those areas we

[56:49] want them to be looking at certain

[56:51] elements of the hazard. So what this

[56:56] kind of allows us to do is one focus on

[56:58] those areas and two make sure we're

[57:00] getting the correct information so uh

[57:03] they're not just looking at anything out

[57:05] there. You know like if they're on a on

[57:07] a potentially identified or a

[57:10] potentially mapped fault line, we can

[57:12] have them go out and do a fault line

[57:14] study.

[57:16] Um if they're not in a fault line area,

[57:18] then there's really not a reason for

[57:19] them to have a fault line study. Um,

[57:22] this is just a balance of making sure

[57:25] we're getting um keeping the the future

[57:29] homeowners as safely as we can uh by but

[57:33] requiring what we need and not be so

[57:36] general about it and not be just cart

[57:38] blank either.

[57:39] >> Yeah.

[57:40] >> Requiring $30,000 studies when really

[57:43] they're not in an area that's a concern

[57:46] of fault. You know what I mean?

[57:48] >> Yeah. Yeah. No, I mean I I know when I

[57:50] built my home a few years ago, it was a

[57:52] requirement on my house and it

[57:54] >> it it it's painful, but I'm also glad

[57:56] that I had it and it forced the review

[57:59] of all the USGS documents and

[58:02] >> making sure that everything was there.

[58:04] >> It doesn't prohibit them from doing it

[58:06] if they choose to do it,

[58:07] >> right?

[58:08] >> There's still an area we've identified

[58:10] as a hazard certainly.

[58:13] It's just fabulous to stay outside these

[58:15] hazards areas, especially when you start

[58:17] building out down the agricultural

[58:19] lands.

[58:20] >> I mean, there is one little fault line

[58:22] that comes off there through

[58:27] the bottom, but the rest of that there's

[58:29] no identified hazard. So, it's

[58:32] >> Yeah. Just needless to do it. Yeah.

[58:35] I guess I guess my primary

[58:38] question around that is if we if we

[58:40] change it, there's a way for people to

[58:41] know

[58:43] that

[58:45] you know there there's a way they can go

[58:46] look and see if their property is going

[58:48] to be subject to it before they are

[58:51] invested.

[58:51] >> Yeah, the hazard map is part of our

[58:53] building package. So, uh when they get

[58:56] in the building

[58:59] department website area, we have our

[59:02] building permit package and all that in

[59:03] there. The the map's actually in there

[59:05] so they can look at the map,

[59:07] >> see see what they're exposed to.

[59:11] Okay, cool. That's my only question

[59:14] about it.

[59:14] >> Brian, you went unmuted there for a

[59:16] second. Did you have something?

[59:18] >> Well, I was just wondering about the map

[59:20] and and we have identified everything in

[59:23] the map needs to have a hazard study.

[59:26] Correct.

[59:30] » Well, so the way this code would read is

[59:33] we would it's up to the engineer to

[59:34] require that, but the answer is yes. if

[59:38] it's on the map, we're going to request

[59:40] that they get a hazard state specific to

[59:42] what that hazard might be because

[59:43] different areas are different hazards.

[59:45] Um, so we want to work with them to

[59:47] identify what that specific hazard is.

[59:49] Make sure they're doing the right study.

[59:52] Obviously, if they're in a hazard zone,

[59:53] we're going to have them do a study, but

[59:55] if they're, for example, some of debris,

[59:57] you know, zone, hazard zone, they may

[1:00:01] not be close to a fault line. So, there

[1:00:02] no reason to do a fault line study when

[1:00:05] flood study or something like that. You

[1:00:07] know what I mean? So, we want the the

[1:00:09] flexibility to make sure we're getting

[1:00:11] the right information in the right

[1:00:13] areas. Um, and not just have them kind

[1:00:16] of say, "Oh, we need a hazard study."

[1:00:18] And they submit something that really

[1:00:21] doesn't do us any good. Um, it's a way

[1:00:24] for us to work directly with them and

[1:00:26] make sure we're getting the right

[1:00:27] information. Yes. If it's in identified

[1:00:30] hazard area, we will work with that

[1:00:33] builder identify.

[1:00:39] » Okay. I just see that it says if

[1:00:42] required. That's our change and and it

[1:00:44] doesn't specify a lot.

[1:00:47] >> And that's because there are some areas

[1:00:48] where they're non-hazard zones and and

[1:00:51] it may not be required.

[1:00:53] >> Okay. But is there somewhere that it

[1:00:57] states that that you're making this

[1:00:59] determination or

[1:01:02] >> Yes.

[1:01:04] >> Okay.

[1:01:04] >> Think right inside. Did anybody read

[1:01:06] there say you know the engineer, city

[1:01:10] engineer?

[1:01:10] >> No.

[1:01:11] that's in another part of the

[1:01:13] ordinance.

[1:01:13] >> Oh yeah. Continue. So the entirety of

[1:01:16] the ordinance, if you read the entirety,

[1:01:17] everything doesn't say

[1:01:21] » it probably does. This just we're only

[1:01:24] adding the discretion element

[1:01:26] >> to this line. It's basically making the

[1:01:28] requirement of a hazard study

[1:01:31] discretionary

[1:01:32] per the authority of the city engineer

[1:01:34] which would then come into a different

[1:01:37] another section of that chapter would

[1:01:40] delineates who this just gives

[1:01:43] discretion on the hazard study

[1:01:44] >> 101 right

[1:01:46] >> correct I believe so

[1:01:49] no 104 through five

[1:01:52] >> um

[1:01:56] so 1045

[1:01:59] if you

[1:02:04] it's not in 1045

[1:02:07] if that's where you think it was.

[1:02:09] >> We have a whole section on hazardous

[1:02:12] study and

[1:02:15] it addresses it there. This is just

[1:02:20] another another 1045 is is another

[1:02:24] reference to having a study done. And we

[1:02:27] didn't the council has already plat pass

[1:02:31] the change

[1:02:34] the the overall broad change to

[1:02:36] requiring it. This is just another place

[1:02:39] in our ordinance that addresses it.

[1:02:46] So this is this is basically making it

[1:02:49] consistent with the entirety of the or

[1:02:50] is what we're doing.

[1:02:51] >> Yes.

[1:02:52] >> This is not changing what hasn't already

[1:02:53] been done. It's just making consistent

[1:02:55] with the other change.

[1:02:58] » Okay.

[1:03:02] » Does that answer that for you, Brian?

[1:03:04] >> Thank you. Thank you. I I appreciate

[1:03:06] that. I thought that we'd had it in

[1:03:07] there before with the the men. Um I just

[1:03:12] wanted to make sure that

[1:03:15] somebody just couldn't willy-nilly say,

[1:03:17] "Oh, you're we're going to require you

[1:03:19] to do it." You know, that we we needed

[1:03:20] some kind of backing. We needed some

[1:03:22] professionalism on that.

[1:03:25] >> Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. We are going

[1:03:27] to move to discussion point 11.

[1:03:30] discussion of America 250 celebration

[1:03:33] scheduled for July 5th, 2026.

[1:03:36] If if Council Member Lunt can not die on

[1:03:39] us,

[1:03:40] >> if she can talk.

[1:03:42] Um, so I I wanted to give a little bit

[1:03:45] more information, I think, on America

[1:03:47] 250, just to make it clear. Um, this is

[1:03:49] a national thing that's going on all

[1:03:52] over the nation and um there's a lot of

[1:03:54] things going on in our state. There's

[1:03:56] activities that are actually starting on

[1:03:58] June 27th

[1:04:00] and there's different kinds of things

[1:04:02] going through um July 5th, but July 5th

[1:04:06] what they uh wanted nationally, they're

[1:04:08] calling it America's potluck dinner. And

[1:04:11] so we decided to participate in that.

[1:04:14] So, we're doing a potluck dinner and

[1:04:16] it's a Sunday, July 5th, and we'll be at

[1:04:18] the city park and um we are going to

[1:04:24] have a band that is a very, it's not

[1:04:26] rock and roll. It's just a very like

[1:04:29] oldies, you know, feel-good kind of

[1:04:31] music. Um we're going to have a

[1:04:34] singalong in the middle of that. So

[1:04:35] they'll do they'll do like a 45minut set

[1:04:38] and then they'll take a break and then

[1:04:41] um we're going to sing some patriotic

[1:04:43] music. So we've got somebody else that

[1:04:45] will come in, not the band, somebody

[1:04:47] else has volunteered to come and do the

[1:04:49] sing along with us and then then the the

[1:04:52] group will um play some more. Um we have

[1:04:57] a signup genius that we just

[1:05:00] um loaded. I just put it in an hour ago

[1:05:03] and I've already got four people signed

[1:05:05] up. So, that's amazing.

[1:05:07] It's on our Facebook page, the official

[1:05:09] page, and also on the community page.

[1:05:12] And um we would recommend that people go

[1:05:15] in there and sign up for items that they

[1:05:18] want to donate or help with. We're

[1:05:21] hoping that everybody, you know, you're

[1:05:22] going to bring your whole family, so

[1:05:24] we're hoping that you'll bring a big

[1:05:25] side dish, at least enough to feed your

[1:05:28] family and a little bit more. And then

[1:05:29] if everybody shares, then hopefully

[1:05:31] there's a lot of food, a lot of good

[1:05:33] food um to share with each other. But we

[1:05:36] have categories. So we have one for

[1:05:38] volunteer volunteers. So hoping we can

[1:05:41] get some people that'll just kind of

[1:05:42] help clean up, set up, whatever. And

[1:05:45] then for sweet salads, savory salads,

[1:05:48] chips and dips, fruit bowls or fruit

[1:05:50] platters or veggie platters or desserts.

[1:05:53] And then there's another other like if

[1:05:55] there's something else you want to

[1:05:56] bring. I imagine we'll get a lot of

[1:05:58] watermelon. That's okay. I might be

[1:06:00] bringing a watermelon myself. Um, but

[1:06:04] we're excited for that. It should be a

[1:06:06] lot of fun.

[1:06:08] We're not spending any money. We're

[1:06:10] trying to keep it pretty lowkey. Um,

[1:06:13] even we're not going to rent tables and

[1:06:15] chairs. We'll have tables and chairs and

[1:06:17] the pavilion for our elderly citizens.

[1:06:20] And I think I'm going to make a little

[1:06:21] sign, maybe like a reserved

[1:06:25] kind of sign for those tables so that

[1:06:26] people don't fill in on those tables.

[1:06:28] But we're really trying to get it out

[1:06:30] there that, you know, you need to bring

[1:06:31] your chairs or camp chairs. And if you

[1:06:33] want to bring a shade, bring a shade and

[1:06:36] set up a shade on the lawn somewhere

[1:06:37] with your chairs. And um it's just

[1:06:39] supposed to be, you know, real picnic

[1:06:41] style. So um we're having homemade root

[1:06:44] beer. All of the all of the ingredients

[1:06:48] for that have been ordered and reserved,

[1:06:51] so we're good there. So, yeah, I think

[1:06:53] we're good. I don't know. Anything else

[1:06:55] you want to add? The money is coming

[1:06:57] from the county to pay for it. So, it's

[1:07:00] not being paid by tax dollars at all.

[1:07:02] So,

[1:07:04] >> not from our budget.

[1:07:05] >> That's not true.

[1:07:07] >> Yes. Not from ours. And so it's great

[1:07:10] because we have a little budget that of

[1:07:13] funds that were given to us for the

[1:07:14] celebration and we're sticking to that

[1:07:16] budget.

[1:07:18] >> Carrie,

[1:07:20] >> yes. I just wanted to reiterate too that

[1:07:23] it's a national um event um for the

[1:07:27] Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day

[1:07:28] Saints. They've asked everyone to fast

[1:07:31] for religious freedom. and actually

[1:07:34] started in Utah to have this potluck

[1:07:37] break the fast afterwards.

[1:07:40] Um, and it has since then gone national

[1:07:44] and lots of different um, religious

[1:07:46] organizations will be fasting and then

[1:07:50] having a potluck afterwards as well.

[1:07:53] Some are doing it within that church

[1:07:55] community, others are doing it within

[1:07:58] um, neighborhood communities or citywide

[1:08:01] organizations. our city is small enough

[1:08:03] that we do feel like a a as little small

[1:08:06] family and so I think it's very

[1:08:08] appropriate that we have this at the

[1:08:10] city park coming together as a

[1:08:12] community. We have very few community

[1:08:14] experiences like this and yet it's uh it

[1:08:18] showcases to our military who have

[1:08:21] served and sacrificed a lot that our

[1:08:23] religious freedoms make mean a lot to

[1:08:26] us. It showcases to our youth um that

[1:08:29] this is something that we hold dear to

[1:08:32] us and um I'm really grateful that our

[1:08:35] city is participating.

[1:08:39] » Thank you, Carrie. Thank you, Janet. Um

[1:08:43] I'm really excited about this. I think

[1:08:45] it'll be very, very enjoyable. We hope

[1:08:48] everybody will come and attend. Um, I

[1:08:52] think it's important for us to celebrate

[1:08:54] the birth of our great nation. Um, I

[1:08:57] think it's important to celebrate those

[1:08:59] that have laid down their lives, for us

[1:09:01] to have these freedoms. Um, and I think

[1:09:04] it'll be a great opportunity for us to

[1:09:06] be able to spend some great quality time

[1:09:08] together, get to know each other a

[1:09:09] little bit better. Um, I think it'll

[1:09:12] just be a lot of fun. So, I hope

[1:09:13] everybody will come. And I've talked

[1:09:16] about this before, but um in PAC all

[1:09:19] summer long on Sunday nights, they have

[1:09:21] a community band. And the community

[1:09:24] band, they practice all the time and

[1:09:25] then they need somewhere to perform. So

[1:09:27] they perform in the city park almost

[1:09:29] every Sunday night in the summertime.

[1:09:31] And families come and they bring their

[1:09:33] chairs and they hang out. Now in Mason

[1:09:36] Park, they have a lot more big tall

[1:09:37] shade trees. So it's really shady and

[1:09:40] nice. So, we don't have as many big tall

[1:09:42] shade trees, but like I say, if people

[1:09:44] will bring their canopies and their

[1:09:46] chairs, um, we can make, you know, and

[1:09:48] then invite neighbors that don't have

[1:09:50] canopies to come sit under ours, we can

[1:09:52] share and join together. I think we can

[1:09:54] have that really good community feel.

[1:09:56] And that's that's really what uh, you

[1:09:58] know, the day of rest is about, I think,

[1:10:00] is is

[1:10:02] looking after our neighbors and and

[1:10:04] spending some time together. So, I think

[1:10:05] it will be good.

[1:10:08] >> Thank you.

[1:10:09] I'd like to suggest that the council and

[1:10:11] mayor consider maybe a one-page

[1:10:14] patriarchal patriarch Yeah.

[1:10:18] >> Yeah. message to the to the to to those

[1:10:22] who attend in the city. Um, we've had

[1:10:26] some nice comments made in newsletters,

[1:10:29] something along that line that could be

[1:10:31] hand out, people could take with them

[1:10:33] and uh give some reflection too for for

[1:10:37] that for this time period,

[1:10:39] >> like our uh what it what being an

[1:10:41] American means to me. Some of those

[1:10:43] >> Yes.

[1:10:44] >> Yeah. Some of those were so good and I

[1:10:46] need to we need to do some more. I

[1:10:50] need to get some more. I guess the other

[1:10:52] thing we could do um is um pass a

[1:10:56] resolution as a city council that just

[1:11:00] acknowledges the 250th anniversary of

[1:11:03] the founding of our country and just

[1:11:06] have that as part of the our next

[1:11:09] council meeting. It's a suggestion.

[1:11:12] >> I believe we actually already did that.

[1:11:14] So Oh,

[1:11:16] >> we did that. When was that Jody? May,

[1:11:21] April.

[1:11:24] >> Sheesh.

[1:11:25] >> It was in a previous month to this one

[1:11:27] that we passed said resol.

[1:11:28] >> I guess I forgot it. I guess I must have

[1:11:31] forgotten it.

[1:11:32] >> Sorry.

[1:11:33] >> We might not have been there.

[1:11:34] >> You might have been absent on that one,

[1:11:36] but we did. So, that was a great idea.

[1:11:38] So great that we've already accomplished

[1:11:40] that. I like those.

[1:11:42] >> Great.

[1:11:43] >> Okay. Thank you all. Um, number 12, May

[1:11:47] 2026, financials, the check

[1:11:49] dispersements. Any questions there from

[1:11:51] the council?

[1:11:57] Okay, then we'll move to number 13,

[1:12:00] update on city grants. Ted, do you have

[1:12:02] anything on that?

[1:12:07] » Uh, no.

[1:12:09] Works moving forward. So, um,

[1:12:12] >> what's our time frame on that?

[1:12:15] um ASAP. That's what I gave the uh

[1:12:19] that's what I gave the engineers. So,

[1:12:22] you actually they'll actually be out

[1:12:23] surveying it tomorrow.

[1:12:26] So, we'll start the process of getting

[1:12:28] the survey done for the area and then

[1:12:30] they'll start the design. Design's going

[1:12:34] to take too long and then we'll figure

[1:12:35] out where to go from there.

[1:12:36] >> Um our Woodland Hills Days committee was

[1:12:38] just wondering for Woodland Hills Days

[1:12:41] what phase those would be at. Will we be

[1:12:44] planning a pickle ball tournament as

[1:12:46] part of Woodland Hills days?

[1:12:48] >> Likely not because it just just

[1:12:51] a bidding process itself takes almost a

[1:12:54] month. So even if we had the design done

[1:12:56] in a month,

[1:12:59] probably won't be starting construction

[1:13:00] till sometime around end of August 1st

[1:13:02] September.

[1:13:04] >> So then they were hoping that maybe we'd

[1:13:05] have cement pads and nothing else and we

[1:13:07] could use the cement pads for Woodland

[1:13:09] Hills days for the band or something.

[1:13:12] >> Could be. Yeah, we'll see how fast we

[1:13:14] can this might be doing it this fall,

[1:13:17] but it's all going to depend on

[1:13:20] scheduling of contractors and getting

[1:13:23] the design documents done.

[1:13:25] >> Yes, there's a lot of variables. I

[1:13:26] understand. I just wondered if you have

[1:13:31] » we may

[1:13:36] then we'll move to you for departmental

[1:13:38] reports.

[1:13:38] >> Do do you clarify real quick on that? Um

[1:13:41] so we were talking at the last meeting

[1:13:43] about um just public support on that

[1:13:47] whether we can get some sweat equity

[1:13:49] from the city um like kind whatever work

[1:13:54] so matching the grant a little bit. I've

[1:13:57] also reached out to a couple of brick

[1:14:00] and paver suppliers so I can start to I don't have any official costs yet, but

[1:14:06] that way we can do some sort of a

[1:14:08] presentation to the public if anybody

[1:14:09] wants to put their name on the block and

[1:14:11] we can figure out a program there if

[1:14:14] that's of interest cuz

[1:14:16] >> you have till after July 5th and then

[1:14:17] we're going to start promoting

[1:14:18] >> and then it's over with. Okay.

[1:14:19] >> No, no. Then we're going to start

[1:14:20] promoting the the blocks for

[1:14:22] >> Okay, sweet.

[1:14:23] >> Do America 250 right now and then

[1:14:25] >> and then we'll hit that. Yeah. So,

[1:14:26] >> so you got a minute to figure it out,

[1:14:28] like a week.

[1:14:30] >> Yeah. So, there's there's even a couple

[1:14:31] things just to to add on to that real

[1:14:33] quick. Um,

[1:14:35] >> there is a connector piece. So, the

[1:14:36] pickle ball court is is there's a trail

[1:14:38] segment

[1:14:41] that runs uh north and south that

[1:14:44] connects kind of the one trail that

[1:14:45] comes

[1:14:47] >> around the pickle ball. Of course, going

[1:14:50] to take out that little piece of trail

[1:14:51] where it's plan to go. But the walkway

[1:14:55] along the what will be the east side of

[1:14:57] the pickle ball court will connect those

[1:14:58] two trails back again with some paths

[1:15:00] around either side. That's kind of where

[1:15:02] we're planning it now. So that walkway

[1:15:04] could be a PA walkway. Also some bench

[1:15:07] donations. Uh we're going to have some

[1:15:08] spots for a couple benches but not

[1:15:10] really included in the cost of it. So

[1:15:12] there's some bench don a couple bench

[1:15:14] donations.

[1:15:15] >> Oh, awesome.

[1:15:16] >> Um something like that. We could stick

[1:15:17] those there and it'll be close enough to

[1:15:19] the pavilion. People could wait in the

[1:15:21] pavilion too if they're waiting for a

[1:15:22] quarter or something like that in the

[1:15:23] shade.

[1:15:25] >> Okay.

[1:15:25] >> But once we get a um survey done, we'll

[1:15:28] come back with a concept plan and we'll

[1:15:29] kind of show you what that looks like

[1:15:31] and get some feedback from parks and

[1:15:35] wreck and since

[1:15:38] this is uh the parks and wrecks

[1:15:42] >> baby Yeah, it's

[1:15:45] >> it's been Yeah. Five years, six years.

[1:15:48] They wanted

[1:15:50] >> It was our uh number one voted item in

[1:15:56] the community that they wanted to see at

[1:15:58] the park was a pickle ball court. So,

[1:16:00] trying to bring parks and reccks doing a

[1:16:03] good job bringing the community what

[1:16:05] they've asked for.

[1:16:06] >> Is there going to be a pool like Summit

[1:16:07] Creek?

[1:16:08] >> Yeah.

[1:16:10] Next phase. Phase two. It's on the list.

[1:16:13] We're just way down the list.

[1:16:16] >> So, Ted, that helps. Um, I will lean

[1:16:19] more toward pavers than because I wasn't

[1:16:21] sure if we're going to do sort of like a

[1:16:23] brick wall or something retaining, but

[1:16:26] I'll I'll focus more on ground pavers

[1:16:28] then.

[1:16:29] >> Yeah. I don't I don't I don't think

[1:16:30] we'll need retaining cuz that spot we're

[1:16:32] looking at is fairly flat.

[1:16:34] >> So, are you thinking like

[1:16:35] >> back in

[1:16:36] >> pavers like cement in the middle and

[1:16:37] pavers on the sides of each

[1:16:40] >> um

[1:16:40] >> names? Is that where

[1:16:42] >> it looks sharp?

[1:16:42] >> No. So, let me draw this imaginary

[1:16:46] because I'm a whiteboard guy. Pickle

[1:16:48] ball court is going to sit like this,

[1:16:51] right? And this up is north. Always

[1:16:52] north, though.

[1:16:53] >> Yep.

[1:16:53] >> Sits like this, right? And pavilion sits

[1:16:55] over here. And you've got those two

[1:16:57] existing pathways. And the one that

[1:16:59] connects them, we're going to wipe out

[1:17:00] the one that connects them. Putting this

[1:17:01] pickle ball court in. But between there,

[1:17:03] we'll put like a a walkway with some

[1:17:05] benches on it so you can walk from trail

[1:17:07] to trail.

[1:17:08] >> That would be a paver. And then we'll

[1:17:10] have it come halfway around the

[1:17:11] pickleball court to two gates is what

[1:17:14] we're planning now where you can get in

[1:17:15] and out of the pickleball court. So you

[1:17:16] have walkway halfway halfway along this

[1:17:19] side. Nothing along this side. And then

[1:17:21] you'll be able to access the pickleball

[1:17:23] courts from the center.

[1:17:25] >> So if you had to guess how many pavers

[1:17:26] we could sell like if it went crazy.

[1:17:30] >> We will not sell more than we need.

[1:17:34] >> Okay.

[1:17:35] >> Yeah. It would be sad if we only sold

[1:17:38] like

[1:17:38] >> three.

[1:17:39] >> Well, yeah. I I've got a strategy around

[1:17:42] that, too. So, we'll talk about that

[1:17:43] once I've got kind of the whole cost

[1:17:46] matrix put together. But

[1:17:47] >> Awesome. And the other uh thing that

[1:17:49] we're committed to doing as our inind

[1:17:52] work for the grant is the grading and

[1:17:56] sprinkler system relocation. And so,

[1:17:58] that's something the city can work on.

[1:17:59] grading. We we've we've got a couple

[1:18:02] excavators in the city uh that we've

[1:18:04] talked to that are willing to help us

[1:18:05] out. Um

[1:18:07] >> Okay.

[1:18:08] >> And then beyond that, it's really

[1:18:12] uh trail. We've also got a trail planned

[1:18:14] from

[1:18:16] the north side of the pavilion to come

[1:18:18] from the parking area, what will be an

[1:18:20] ADA trail that will come from the

[1:18:22] parking area over to the pickleball

[1:18:24] court bench area. So because ADA access

[1:18:28] is is critical for that. So so that

[1:18:31] trail is also planned as part of the

[1:18:32] project

[1:18:33] >> and the ADA thing has also been a big

[1:18:35] focus for um parks and wreck.

[1:18:38] >> Well will will that have a branch off

[1:18:40] that goes to the pavilion as well. So

[1:18:42] >> yeah I think so. We hadn't really talked

[1:18:43] a lot about that but I it's running

[1:18:45] right next to the pavilion so it makes

[1:18:46] sense to have something that you could

[1:18:49] access to the pavilion.

[1:18:50] >> I think that would be so okay. So,

[1:18:53] community help, uh, great. Obviously,

[1:18:55] equipment, we've got some people doing

[1:18:56] that. Sprinkler help. Um, Toby's great,

[1:18:59] but anything he can get with with

[1:19:00] community members that are familiar with

[1:19:01] sprinkler systems because we're going to

[1:19:03] have to relocate our sprinkler system.

[1:19:05] >> I'll just volunteer my husband.

[1:19:07] >> Cuz he he kind of fixed it at the park.

[1:19:10] >> And beyond that, it's concrete and

[1:19:12] coating and some fencing and

[1:19:14] >> Yeah.

[1:19:16] I mean, it might be kind of fun.

[1:19:18] And I know it kind of makes it a mess

[1:19:19] logistically because as a contractor I'd

[1:19:21] be like, "No, we won't do this." But

[1:19:24] just just saying, "Hey, Saturday we're

[1:19:27] going to have a community sprinkler

[1:19:30] laying party or irrigation party or

[1:19:32] something." You know,

[1:19:33] >> there's so many good people in the

[1:19:34] community that love to chip in and help

[1:19:36] with that stuff. So

[1:19:38] >> cuz, you know, if you get kids out and

[1:19:39] all that other stuff, it makes it the

[1:19:41] whole project a little more meaningful

[1:19:43] and lasting. So,

[1:19:44] >> and hopefully this clears up kind of

[1:19:46] that messy drainage area too. That's

[1:19:48] >> Yeah, that is that spot is a problem.

[1:19:50] So, that'll be good.

[1:19:52] >> Hey, Ted. Um, any way you could have

[1:19:54] your contractor when they're or before

[1:19:57] they come out to start the road work

[1:20:00] just to give us a an estimate on the uh

[1:20:05] little parking area there or kind of ADA

[1:20:07] parking um just to see if we could tag

[1:20:12] into that and save any kind of money um

[1:20:15] for that parking area would be kind of

[1:20:17] nice.

[1:20:17] >> And if we can get the

[1:20:18] >> Well, you've uh you read my mind, Brian.

[1:20:21] We're actually having a part sliding

[1:20:24] into public works report. We're having

[1:20:26] our kickoff meeting for tomorrow for our

[1:20:28] paving project tomorrow with the

[1:20:30] contractor. And one of the things that

[1:20:33] uh we had talked about in the grant for

[1:20:34] the pickle ball court was we would look

[1:20:36] at seeing if we can get that parking

[1:20:37] area paved. So, I'm going to talk to the

[1:20:40] contractor tomorrow and just have them

[1:20:41] look at that, see what an estimate might

[1:20:43] be because if we can come under on some

[1:20:46] of our other work possibly

[1:20:48] um or at least not go too far over.

[1:20:51] We've got a little extra money that in

[1:20:53] our road budget, you know, that we can

[1:20:54] probably get some parking lot paving

[1:20:57] done there, so it gives a better ADA

[1:21:00] access to the park.

[1:21:02] >> Thank you. I just thought it would be

[1:21:03] worth it.

[1:21:04] >> Make it easier for the teenagers to go

[1:21:06] park down there, too. They

[1:21:09] even tore up. They're moving to the park

[1:21:11] and are Sherry's house and

[1:21:15] >> great.

[1:21:16] >> Yeah.

[1:21:19] >> Departmental updates.

[1:21:21] >> Uh public works. I think we we've uh

[1:21:24] said we're kicking off the the

[1:21:27] having the pre-construction meeting for

[1:21:29] the paving project tomorrow is tomorrow.

[1:21:34] Um and then also maybe just to make you

[1:21:37] guys aware of something else that is

[1:21:38] coming. I just got the notice on. We've

[1:21:40] known about for a little while but got

[1:21:41] the official notice. So the state um

[1:21:46] division of drinking water runs under

[1:21:48] the department of environmental quality.

[1:21:51] Um, with the cut back on federal grant

[1:21:54] monies available, which is what helps

[1:21:56] fund the division of drinking water,

[1:21:59] they're now going to start assessing a

[1:22:01] fee to all public water systems. The

[1:22:03] state is so we will get a sust.

[1:22:11] So, the base fee and it's not huge. I

[1:22:13] mean, the base fee is $35

[1:22:16] and then the use fee is based on water

[1:22:19] usage. So, it's the base fee of 35 and

[1:22:22] the use fee is based on the water usage.

[1:22:24] An estimate from the 2025 for our city

[1:22:27] would have been $1,800 for the year. So,

[1:22:30] and it's of course the more water use

[1:22:32] the more that goes up, but I mean still

[1:22:33] with us it's going to be not a whole

[1:22:36] lot, but just make you aware that's

[1:22:38] coming up in 2027.

[1:22:39] >> That base rate is assessed per resident

[1:22:42] at $35.

[1:22:43] >> No, that's that's the total base rate.

[1:22:45] >> Oh, the city.

[1:22:46] >> So, we're talking cents per resident.

[1:22:49] Yeah. For the base rate, then the use

[1:22:51] fee. Uh, so what they'll do is they'll give you from I think in July

[1:22:56] 2027 is when they'll send out a notice

[1:22:59] for the base fee. You pay that. And then

[1:23:01] I think around October is when the use

[1:23:03] fee is due between October and December.

[1:23:05] I think you have to pay that. And I said

[1:23:07] that's going to be somewhere around

[1:23:08] about $1,900 if it would have been 2025

[1:23:11] for us. Of course, it's probably a

[1:23:12] couple thousand dollar now. So then you

[1:23:15] >> Yeah. So that's coming up. Um,

[1:23:18] and then the just so you're aware, the

[1:23:21] fire crew is been out for almost a week

[1:23:24] now.

[1:23:24] >> Where?

[1:23:25] >> They are right now they're on the

[1:23:27] Hastings fire.

[1:23:28] >> Yeah.

[1:23:30] >> So many to choose from.

[1:23:31] >> Yeah. Which one?

[1:23:32] >> Yeah.

[1:23:33] Yeah. They started out as an

[1:23:36] initial attack out of uh

[1:23:40] Forest Street Fire State Landsfield

[1:23:41] office in Cedar City and then went got

[1:23:44] assigned to the Hastings fire. So

[1:23:46] they're

[1:23:46] >> Where's that one at?

[1:23:47] >> Over in Tilla County.

[1:23:49] >> Oh, okay.

[1:23:50] >> That was about done. They they've been I

[1:23:53] talked to Lance today. They've actually

[1:23:55] backed burned about 20,000.

[1:24:03] » No, I don't remember now. Think

[1:24:05] >> about 20,000 acres.

[1:24:06] >> 20,000 acres. Is that what it was?

[1:24:08] >> Yeah,

[1:24:08] >> we started out a fire, but they've back

[1:24:09] burned now about 20,000 acres, I

[1:24:11] believe. And that fire, I think, is now

[1:24:13] about 85% contained. So, they're

[1:24:15] releasing personnel. So, I don't know

[1:24:17] where they'll go next. Uh I know the

[1:24:18] Iron Fire is needing some personnel and

[1:24:20] now they got the big one, the Cottonwood

[1:24:21] fire down in Beaver County. That's just

[1:24:24] blew blown right up.

[1:24:25] >> It's huge fast.

[1:24:26] >> Yeah.

[1:24:27] >> I just got a you know, we have the app.

[1:24:29] I just got a notification and they said

[1:24:31] they're starting a back burn on the iron

[1:24:34] tonight.

[1:24:35] >> So, there'll be a lot of smoke.

[1:24:39] So says on the east side of the fire,

[1:24:41] smoke will be visible from surrounding

[1:24:43] communities through the night. So it'll

[1:24:46] be good, I guess. Stop it. They're

[1:24:48] trying to get it stopped, right?

[1:24:49] >> Yeah. Yeah. It's still growing fairly

[1:24:51] quickly. I think it's about five or 10%

[1:24:54] contains something like that. And I

[1:24:55] looked at their stuff.

[1:24:56] >> Yeah. Like nine, I think.

[1:25:01] » We have friends that live in like that

[1:25:03] have the farms in Ma that are close, you

[1:25:06] know, not too far away. So

[1:25:08] >> scary.

[1:25:09] >> Yeah.

[1:25:11] The one in Beaver went from 750 acres to

[1:25:13] 27,000 acres in like a day.

[1:25:17] >> They had It's huge. So

[1:25:20] that's crazy.

[1:25:21] >> Wonderful. Anything else? Any questions

[1:25:24] for Ted?

[1:25:26] >> We've got an awesome fire group. We even

[1:25:29] had people asking if they can help.

[1:25:31] We're on the Eureka Fire event.

[1:25:34] >> Yes. I think it's worth noting that a

[1:25:38] lot all of the current fires in our

[1:25:40] state were

[1:25:43] man-made, man-caused. Is that true? I

[1:25:47] know it is for the majority. I don't

[1:25:48] know if it's all

[1:25:50] >> the current ones. I think a majority of them are

[1:25:56] >> I know Eureka is I know Utah was

[1:25:58] >> Did they determine what caused Eureka?

[1:26:01] >> Yeah.

[1:26:04] But you can't say

[1:26:05] >> it's not publicly announced.

[1:26:06] >> Yeah, it's mancaused.

[1:26:09] >> I knew that, but I just wondered was it

[1:26:11] a target shooting or

[1:26:12] >> I don't know about the cotton fire. I

[1:26:14] don't know if they decided yet what

[1:26:15] started up.

[1:26:16] >> Well, either way, please everybody be be

[1:26:19] safe. Be very cognizant of the fact that

[1:26:22] anything you do could spark, could light

[1:26:25] something up.

[1:26:27] >> We just need to be very careful.

[1:26:29] >> Our county is in stage one fire

[1:26:31] restrictions right now. Of course, our

[1:26:32] city has more stricter restrictions than

[1:26:35] the stage one county fire restrictions.

[1:26:37] >> We should post what the city

[1:26:38] restrictions are. Can you do that or

[1:26:42] >> I I think it would be really great to

[1:26:43] have um the fire chief and maybe some of

[1:26:47] the other people in the fire department

[1:26:49] make a little video to just talk about

[1:26:53] our fire restrictions, but also about

[1:26:56] the fires that are all around us right

[1:26:58] now and what the fire department will be

[1:27:00] doing on the 4th of July and and how

[1:27:03] they make the rounds around town. And if

[1:27:06] you see anything, call it in. Don't just

[1:27:08] say, "Huh, I wonder what's happening

[1:27:10] there." Actually call it in. And so I

[1:27:13] think it would be great if we had a

[1:27:14] little a little video from the fire

[1:27:16] department.

[1:27:18] >> I always love

[1:27:20] uh

[1:27:21] >> a TED video.

[1:27:22] >> A TED talk video. They are fabulous.

[1:27:25] >> TED talks.

[1:27:27] >> So TED talks.

[1:27:30] >> No way. That would be great.

[1:27:32] >> You know what my dad always said?

[1:27:35] >> Um is it appropriate?

[1:27:38] Um yeah, he he always told me he said

[1:27:41] it's better to keep your mouth shut and

[1:27:43] be thought a fool than to open it and

[1:27:45] remove all doubt.

[1:27:46] >> I love that.

[1:27:47] >> Uh sometimes we uh do prove that we are

[1:27:51] a fool

[1:27:53] >> and we communicate too much.

[1:27:56] >> Why you giving me the side eye? I've

[1:27:58] been quiet tonight.

[1:28:00] >> Isn't that you?

[1:28:02] >> I'm afraid to talk. I might cough.

[1:28:06] isn't helping.

[1:28:07] >> There was no ask for a helicopter. Did

[1:28:09] you Did you just witness that? There was

[1:28:11] no ask for a helicopter.

[1:28:12] >> I know.

[1:28:14] >> There you go.

[1:28:14] >> He's dropped that topic lately.

[1:28:17] >> No, they cause fires.

[1:28:19] >> Oh. Oh, shoot. Sorry. Laughs of

[1:28:22] judgment. Yeah.

[1:28:24] >> Okay, we're moving on to 14B. Do you

[1:28:27] have anything uh from Planning

[1:28:28] Commission or uh for uh enforcement?

[1:28:31] >> Already said.

[1:28:32] Oh, I'd love those. Do you

[1:28:34] want to Okay.

[1:28:36] >> I've got no uh emergency management,

[1:28:38] though I will I will state that we had a

[1:28:41] fabulous exercise

[1:28:44] um on Saturday. Uh we really appreciate

[1:28:47] those that did respond um to the message

[1:28:50] that went out. We had just around just

[1:28:54] over around 60% after we went in and

[1:28:56] pulled home duplicates out of the mix.

[1:28:59] Um which I was concerned we dropped

[1:29:01] quite a bit. Um, we

[1:29:04] it really turned out well. Um, I didn't

[1:29:07] have service or I'm not

[1:29:09] >> It's okay. Steve didn't respond either.

[1:29:12] >> No, Steve's uh response had zero zero

[1:29:16] longitude latitude, so it put him in the

[1:29:18] ocean. So, we pulled you back in.

[1:29:19] >> Oh, that's good.

[1:29:20] >> So, you got re reallocated properly.

[1:29:23] >> Um, we had a few. We actually had 109

[1:29:26] that dropped in the ocean just off the

[1:29:28] coast of Africa.

[1:29:29] >> Oh, really? So Ted or Alan Aaron has

[1:29:31] already worked on the software and

[1:29:33] pulled that bug out of it so it can't do

[1:29:35] that anymore. Um they've actually been

[1:29:37] doing a lot of work on it today um and

[1:29:40] since the exercise so it it was really I

[1:29:44] felt extremely successful and did really

[1:29:46] well. Carrie,

[1:29:49] >> yes, I thought it was it was really good

[1:29:51] too. Um there were some things that we

[1:29:53] were able to see that uh you know that

[1:29:55] we can work on that we can be a little

[1:29:58] bit better at but we had a good um

[1:30:00] response rate. The Red Cross were on a

[1:30:03] hand. We were the very first city in the

[1:30:06] state that they chose to come and help

[1:30:10] do assessments or to provide um free um

[1:30:16] smoke detectors. And so I was thinking

[1:30:19] that maybe Janet would like to put

[1:30:20] something in the newsletter about that.

[1:30:22] So with their contact information, some

[1:30:26] of our residents have a harder time, you

[1:30:28] know, making sure that they're working,

[1:30:29] testing them, and they'll come in for

[1:30:31] free and put smoke detectors in your

[1:30:34] home for anyone actually in our city.

[1:30:37] And so, um, it was a good partnership

[1:30:39] with the Red Cross. It was a good um

[1:30:42] exercise in seeing um how that software

[1:30:45] worked. And um it was fun watching all

[1:30:49] of the hearts come up on the screen that

[1:30:51] we had in the big room there. And um

[1:30:54] Dorl, it showed Dorl out in the middle

[1:30:56] of the ocean on vacation and it showed

[1:30:58] some other people where they were

[1:31:00] because they used that those who took

[1:31:02] off their latitude and latitude as the

[1:31:04] mayor said were off the coast of Africa.

[1:31:06] So it was kind of fun just to see that.

[1:31:10] um that people were willing to be

[1:31:12] responsive um and it will greatly help

[1:31:16] um our city in the future as we identify

[1:31:19] who needs help and who is able to get

[1:31:21] out on their own because there is a lot

[1:31:23] of chaos when you evacuate and we want

[1:31:26] to make sure that everyone is accounted

[1:31:28] for safely. So, thanks to Erin and all

[1:31:32] of the team who who helped out on that.

[1:31:35] >> No, it was great. Um, one thing that we

[1:31:37] are going to be looking at internally as

[1:31:39] a staff is correlating our records. Um,

[1:31:44] we're going to find out who was able to

[1:31:45] respond, look at what our systems were

[1:31:48] and those that didn't respond to, see if

[1:31:50] we actually have updated information,

[1:31:52] contact information for them. Um, we did

[1:31:54] learn that there was uh an update that

[1:31:57] took place on Everbridge. So, we're

[1:32:00] really grateful that we did this because

[1:32:01] we were able to find out that they had

[1:32:03] broken a few of our connections. And so

[1:32:05] we've been able to get those we're

[1:32:06] working on getting those reestablished

[1:32:08] and re-updated. So if you did not

[1:32:11] receive a message on Saturday, we are

[1:32:14] aware of that. We're working on it and

[1:32:16] that shouldn't repeat hopefully. So

[1:32:19] >> maybe we can make like a signup genius

[1:32:21] or something uh for people to put in

[1:32:22] their current contact information and

[1:32:24] then we can verify it if we wanted to.

[1:32:27] That might be an idea.

[1:32:28] >> Yeah, I think there will be a great

[1:32:30] brainstorming exercise that needs to

[1:32:32] happen to figure out what that looks

[1:32:33] like.

[1:32:34] Um, nothing from 911 Special Service

[1:32:37] District. Um, for the mayor and council

[1:32:41] reports, uh, personnel, I've already

[1:32:44] spoken, uh, where we're at with

[1:32:45] Charlene. Um, auditors, um, the rest of

[1:32:49] our staff are I can't say enough good

[1:32:51] things about them. I'm grateful every

[1:32:53] single day as I come into the office. um

[1:32:57] they are extremely confident or

[1:32:59] competent and confident um that we're

[1:33:02] getting everything done that we need to.

[1:33:03] Um so thank you each of you for that

[1:33:07] fabulous work. Um as for a legal update

[1:33:11] um I don't really have anything too uh

[1:33:14] new um anything that you guys can think

[1:33:16] of for this body.

[1:33:21] Okay. Um, we will probably need to I do

[1:33:24] have other updates for a close session

[1:33:26] if you guys so desire. Um, Council

[1:33:30] Member Hutchkins, Planning Commission.

[1:33:33] >> Yeah. Um, Wayne's already talked about

[1:33:35] it and I missed it because my plane was

[1:33:37] delayed, so

[1:33:40] nothing for me.

[1:33:42] >> Wonderful. Council member Johns, public

[1:33:43] safety committee.

[1:33:44] >> No, we only hold these once a quarter.

[1:33:46] So, nothing new. Just uh, good stuff on

[1:33:49] the

[1:33:50] >> Wonderful. Fantastic.

[1:33:52] >> Thank you. Okay. Council member Lun

[1:33:54] everything that that you are over.

[1:33:57] >> There's a couple things. Um so we

[1:34:00] haven't had PTR or finance committee. Um

[1:34:03] events we met I met with the Woodland

[1:34:05] Hills Days Committee last night. Um we

[1:34:08] have a really great group and they're

[1:34:11] trying to level up a few things and um

[1:34:13] improve those. So I'm excited for that.

[1:34:16] And

[1:34:18] um

[1:34:19] we have kind of a folk band that's going

[1:34:22] to play. So it'll be a lot different

[1:34:24] than what we've had in the past. We've

[1:34:25] had kind of a old rock and roll type

[1:34:28] band before, but it's going to be more

[1:34:30] of a folk band this time. So that'll be

[1:34:32] really fun. A lot of it will be the

[1:34:34] same. Um, Hillary Weekes wants to level

[1:34:38] up the booths and she's reached out to

[1:34:41] some kind of high more high-end vendors

[1:34:45] that want to come um and are going to

[1:34:48] come and have booths. Not the same as

[1:34:51] Maple Fest, but to that level of like

[1:34:53] quality stuff. Not the same people is

[1:34:56] what I mean. But um anyway, so kind of

[1:34:59] excited for that. And not that that's a

[1:35:01] money maker or anything because the

[1:35:02] booth is $20, but um and she even told

[1:35:06] the vendors, I can't guarantee you, you

[1:35:08] know, how well you'll do, but they're

[1:35:09] willing to come and give it a shot cuz

[1:35:11] the booths are so cheap. So, that's

[1:35:13] good. Um and then tomorrow night, I meet

[1:35:16] with our America 250 group. So, I just

[1:35:19] need to get numbers from you where we're

[1:35:21] at on the budget so I know,

[1:35:22] >> of course,

[1:35:23] >> for the food, what I have left to spend.

[1:35:26] And then cuz we don't want to go over

[1:35:28] and then a newsletter is coming due. So

[1:35:32] it's time for a TED talk and a Wayne's

[1:35:34] world and stats from you know our law

[1:35:39] enforcement and then anything else that

[1:35:41] anybody else has. And Bucky, if there's

[1:35:44] ever anything for Summit Creek that you

[1:35:46] want to put in our newsletter, we will

[1:35:48] take any and all

[1:35:51] contributions.

[1:35:52] So once a month I the end of the month

[1:35:55] is a deadline and then like the first

[1:35:57] business day of the month we get the

[1:35:59] newsletter out and

[1:36:01] >> okay

[1:36:02] >> any events going on in the community or

[1:36:04] anything like if there's something you

[1:36:05] want to let people know it's like slow

[1:36:07] down

[1:36:09] >> on the creek drive anything like that

[1:36:11] let us know we'll add it.

[1:36:12] >> Awesome.

[1:36:13] >> So okay that's all I got.

[1:36:17] >> Wonderful

[1:36:19] Hills days um you reached out to our

[1:36:23] legislators,

[1:36:25] um the state and the federal. I I

[1:36:28] noticed that Mike has been going to the

[1:36:30] different city events. um he posted on

[1:36:35] his

[1:36:36] uh Facebook page and and I just think

[1:36:39] especially where we've got a uh you know

[1:36:42] some races going on, we might might want

[1:36:45] to reach out especially after the the

[1:36:47] primary closes and we see who's going to

[1:36:49] move on and some of those might be might

[1:36:52] be interested in coming up. Just a

[1:36:54] thought.

[1:36:56] >> Yeah, we used to invite them every time.

[1:36:58] Um, but we haven't uh I mean I usually

[1:37:02] send something out to them, but it just

[1:37:04] depends on what's going on. And just in

[1:37:07] case people don't re remember, um,

[1:37:09] Representative Burton did resign a

[1:37:12] couple months ago and um, Jackie Larson

[1:37:15] was his replacement. Um, and so if we do

[1:37:19] invite them, make sure that she's on the

[1:37:21] list as well as Mike. And then after the

[1:37:24] primary um

[1:37:27] votes are in tonight by 8, we should

[1:37:29] know who is going to be on our ballot um

[1:37:33] for Congress, which would either be

[1:37:35] Celeste Malloy or Phil Lyman. And so

[1:37:38] it'd be nice to be able to invite them.

[1:37:41] Usually the Sheriff Smith usually comes

[1:37:44] up and sometimes our our county um

[1:37:47] commissioners come. So if you'd like me

[1:37:49] to invite them, I would. If you want to

[1:37:52] do it on your own, I'm fine. Doesn't

[1:37:53] matter. But, um, I think that's a great

[1:37:56] reminder that it is, um, people do like

[1:37:59] seeing them.

[1:38:01] >> If you could take that on, I'd

[1:38:03] appreciate it.

[1:38:05] >> Okay.

[1:38:08] You have all those connections.

[1:38:11] >> Seems like a natural.

[1:38:14] >> All right.

[1:38:14] >> Well, I know we already talked a lot

[1:38:16] about community development, Carrie, but

[1:38:17] do you have anything else there?

[1:38:20] No, I except for again just reiterating

[1:38:23] my appreciation to the committee. They

[1:38:25] took it seriously. Um and I thought they

[1:38:28] did a really great job in um and all the

[1:38:31] documents that they produced and the

[1:38:34] time that they spent with it and um it

[1:38:37] was great.

[1:38:39] >> Thank you. Appreciate that.

[1:38:41] Okay. We'll excuse Council Member Rhoden

[1:38:43] and I should have done that earlier. I

[1:38:45] apologize. Um he is currently in

[1:38:47] traveling for work.

[1:38:49] Um, anything for upcoming uh, city

[1:38:51] council meeting?

[1:38:55] Uh, obviously we've got the auditor um,

[1:38:57] RFP that'll need to be on a future

[1:38:59] council meeting. Um, anything else? I

[1:39:02] appreciate you just uh, putting the

[1:39:04] America 250 on there just so that we

[1:39:07] keep talking about it and and citizens

[1:39:09] hear about it because I know a lot of

[1:39:11] people listen after the fact. So, um, I

[1:39:14] just I like that we keep So, keep doing

[1:39:16] that. I mean, we've only got one more

[1:39:18] time, but let's do it one more time.

[1:39:20] >> Well, actually, you will have only one

[1:39:23] meeting in July, and so we need to

[1:39:25] decide on that date.

[1:39:28] >> Um,

[1:39:30] >> I forgot about that.

[1:39:31] >> Yeah, it would be a good time to do

[1:39:33] that. I know we've discussed,

[1:39:35] >> so if we pull up calendars here, you

[1:39:37] guys, we have discussed the

[1:39:40] >> 14th, 21st, or 28th.

[1:39:44] >> So, concerning the in the beginning of

[1:39:46] the month.

[1:39:50] I mean the sooner date, whichever one

[1:39:52] was the sooner,

[1:39:53] >> the 14th.

[1:39:55] >> Yeah.

[1:39:57] >> Does anything anybody have a conflict on

[1:39:59] the 14th? That is our standard second

[1:40:03] uh week.

[1:40:06] Jody, anything on your end?

[1:40:09] I know we'll go quite a while till the

[1:40:11] next one, but

[1:40:14] >> you should be okay.

[1:40:21] » Will, but

[1:40:24] >> so plan uh August 11th

[1:40:28] uh to be a decent sized meeting. Carrie,

[1:40:32] >> um yes. I also wanted to just um I've

[1:40:35] been talking to quite a few cities about

[1:40:37] what they've been doing for America 250.

[1:40:40] Some of them have been doing something

[1:40:42] clear from last July 4th all year long

[1:40:47] and um and some are continuing on after

[1:40:51] this Fourth of July and we might want to

[1:40:54] consider

[1:40:56] something at Woodland Hills Day that

[1:40:58] just reiterates the 250 again in some

[1:41:02] way. Maybe that's when we do the the pie

[1:41:05] contest or any of those types of things

[1:41:07] when it's already associated with our traditional celebration, but it's it

[1:41:13] wasn't meant to be just a one-day thing.

[1:41:15] It it was meant to be celebrating all

[1:41:17] year long. So, just a thought.

[1:41:20] >> We already have that planned.

[1:41:23] >> Good.

[1:41:23] >> Yep.

[1:41:23] >> It's already in the works.

[1:41:26] >> Wonderful, though. Good reminder. Okay.

[1:41:28] Anything else? Anybody?

[1:41:30] Does the 14th work though?

[1:41:32] >> Works for me.

[1:41:33] >> Okay, let's plan on the 14th unless uh

[1:41:36] we find out that there is some sort of a

[1:41:38] requirement for public hearing or

[1:41:41] anything that we need to have happen

[1:41:42] that may push that and I don't think

[1:41:45] there is unless Bucky something new at

[1:41:48] me.

[1:41:50] >> He probably will. Wonderful. Okay, then

[1:41:53] we will um currently I I always look at

[1:41:56] that clock and it's wrong. Um,

[1:41:59] let's take a quick recess for before um

[1:42:04] our city council meeting. Um, and let's

[1:42:06] plan to come back.

[1:42:10] » Give me two minutes.

[1:42:11] >> Steve's always excited about this at

[1:42:14] 7:53.

[1:42:17] » That gives you five minutes.

[1:42:24] » Okay. Hey, I'd like to call everybody

[1:42:26] order to order for this uh city council

[1:42:28] meeting. Um we are on June the 23rd,

[1:42:32] 2026. We're going to have an invocation

[1:42:35] from Council Member Malovich and then

[1:42:37] we'll have a pledge of allegiance from

[1:42:40] Council Member Jones. Thank you. Yeah.

[1:42:46] » Dear heavenly father, we're grateful to

[1:42:48] be gathered together tonight to discuss

[1:42:51] the needs of our city. We're grateful

[1:42:54] for the blessings thou has given unto

[1:42:56] us.

[1:42:58] Father, we're mindful of the fire danger

[1:43:01] we have. And please bless and protect

[1:43:04] our city. Help our residents be mindful

[1:43:06] of their actions.

[1:43:09] Please bless the people of our state,

[1:43:12] especially those in the Eureka area who

[1:43:15] are currently evacuated.

[1:43:17] help and bless the firefighters who are

[1:43:20] working so hard to protect and to

[1:43:22] contain that fire as well as the others

[1:43:24] in the state.

[1:43:26] Father, we're grateful for

[1:43:28] our freedoms, to have um a council and to

[1:43:33] have governing body to keep our city

[1:43:37] running well and and um that we are

[1:43:40] mindful of the decisions that we make.

[1:43:44] Please bless us this night as we um

[1:43:47] continue to discuss and vote on items

[1:43:50] that are important to um the well-being

[1:43:52] of our citizens, their health, their

[1:43:54] safety, and as we remember um the

[1:43:59] quality of life that we all moved here

[1:44:01] for. We're grateful for um the

[1:44:04] friendships that we have throughout our

[1:44:06] community and for the

[1:44:10] camaraderie and the um the neighbors and

[1:44:15] the um sense of community that we have

[1:44:20] um together. Bless us this night that

[1:44:23] our decisions will be thoughtful and

[1:44:24] intentional as well as our votes. And we

[1:44:27] say these things in the name of Jesus

[1:44:29] Christ. Amen. Amen.

[1:44:36] Council member Jones.

[1:44:37] >> Oh yeah. Please join me in the pledge of

[1:44:40] allegiance.

[1:44:42] I pledge allegiance to the flag of the

[1:44:45] United States of America and to the

[1:44:48] republic for which it stands. One nation

[1:44:52] under God, indivisible, with liberty and

[1:44:56] justice for all.

[1:45:02] Uh thank you Council Member Malovich and

[1:45:05] Council Member Jones. Um we are now

[1:45:08] going to open the public comment uh

[1:45:10] section of our city council meeting.

[1:45:13] Comments are limited to 2 minutes or

[1:45:14] less. Uh only in-person comments will be

[1:45:17] included as part of the official record.

[1:45:20] Um

[1:45:24] » do you have anything, Kyle?

[1:45:25] >> Sure. Please, if you can state your

[1:45:28] name.

[1:45:29] >> Sure.

[1:45:29] >> Um,

[1:45:30] >> two minutes.

[1:45:32] >> If you need more, we can give you a

[1:45:33] little bit more.

[1:45:36] >> That's more for when we have a large

[1:45:37] group that I've got to

[1:45:41] >> like one of I think. So,

[1:45:43] >> well, my name is Am I speaking to the

[1:45:45] screen or do you guys

[1:45:47] >> You're speaking to us.

[1:45:48] >> To us.

[1:45:49] >> My name is Kyle Bentall. I live over on

[1:45:51] Mountain Veil Way next to the dewies and

[1:45:54] everything. Um I'm coming today um to

[1:45:59] make a proposal as you will either of an

[1:46:02] ordinance or of permission um in

[1:46:06] pertaining to archery hunting. Um I know

[1:46:10] this is kind of maybe a sensitive topic

[1:46:12] for Woodland Hills residents. I've

[1:46:14] talked to probably 12 to 15 different

[1:46:18] residents. um some that are already um

[1:46:23] either in the fire department um here or

[1:46:27] in different spaces in Woodland Hills.

[1:46:29] Um Dan Jordan is one that I've discussed

[1:46:32] very heavily um this with and a lot of

[1:46:34] the other hunting community um that

[1:46:37] lives here. So this would be an

[1:46:39] ordinance essentially um with the

[1:46:41] population of deer. My background

[1:46:43] specifically is land management and

[1:46:47] animals. That's that's what I've done my

[1:46:49] whole life. I grew up in New Hampshire,

[1:46:51] very thick woods, low populations of

[1:46:54] deer, but wildlife everywhere. Um, and

[1:46:57] then I transitioned to working in Idaho

[1:47:00] and Utah and land management of how to

[1:47:03] manage populations of animals and how to do it properly. Um, one of the

[1:47:10] concerns that I have with Woodland Hills

[1:47:12] is the overpopulation of the deer and

[1:47:14] turkeys. um specifically the deer and

[1:47:17] also the tick populations right now.

[1:47:20] I've found many ticks on me already this

[1:47:22] year and I've never had a tick up here

[1:47:24] or in Oram or Provo before and I've had

[1:47:27] probably 25 this year just walking

[1:47:29] around. Um I know that a drastic change

[1:47:34] cannot happen overnight to the deer

[1:47:36] population, nor that it should. I enjoy

[1:47:39] the deer more than anyone. I have

[1:47:41] probably driven around for a total of

[1:47:44] like 800 hours, and I'm not joking.

[1:47:47] After work looking at the deer,

[1:47:50] photographing them, I have 25 signatures

[1:47:53] from land owners in Woodland Hills to do

[1:47:56] photography, to walk on their land, and

[1:47:58] to enjoy picking up the antlers and such

[1:48:02] like that. Um, but one of the concerns

[1:48:04] that I have for someone like myself,

[1:48:07] which I know is kind of a a rare

[1:48:08] scenario, I have a muscle disease. So,

[1:48:14] I suffer from back pain. My ankle just

[1:48:16] happened and I broke my ankle. So,

[1:48:18] that's not part of this. But, I think

[1:48:20] there's two parts. one the issues of the

[1:48:24] deer population and that there is times

[1:48:26] where there's 123 deer on the Hanks

[1:48:30] property at a single time and I can go

[1:48:33] around any given night and count 86 to

[1:48:36] 90 deer in this tiny area is not

[1:48:39] sustainable. And I've seen eight

[1:48:42] different um females with either one

[1:48:46] singular baby or two. And that's just

[1:48:48] not sustainable for food.

[1:48:51] It's going to make the tick pock

[1:48:53] population go up and also the car

[1:48:55] crashes increase. The other issue I have

[1:48:57] is the issue with poaching that has

[1:49:01] happened. There's just enough woods here

[1:49:03] that it can be hidden more than an

[1:49:05] elkridge, but I myself have seen at

[1:49:08] least one or two reportings that I found

[1:49:11] of antlers cut off deer, which is not

[1:49:14] allowed in off the side road places that

[1:49:17] I I've contacted the DNR. Um I know in

[1:49:20] Elkridge there was two um young teenage

[1:49:23] brothers that both had poached deer that

[1:49:27] they were not supposed to be on certain

[1:49:28] properties. Um, but the difference that

[1:49:30] I'm looking to is to try to allow at

[1:49:33] least for myself ask permission, but if

[1:49:36] needed a small ordinance as a trial to

[1:49:41] be able to hunt the legal distance,

[1:49:42] which is already it doesn't go against

[1:49:44] any of the hunting policies because it's

[1:49:47] up to the ordinance of the town to be

[1:49:49] able to hunt 500 ft from a home, archery

[1:49:51] only, and you have to be a Woodland

[1:49:53] Hills resident. So, that would be very

[1:49:55] limited people. And then it also has

[1:49:57] taken me five years to draw this tag um

[1:50:01] for this particular area for archery

[1:50:03] equipment. So it's not like someone from

[1:50:05] PAC or another person could come up

[1:50:07] here. It would have to be someone that's

[1:50:09] background checked that has a history. I

[1:50:12] know that it doesn't carry weight

[1:50:14] anymore. But I'm an Eagle Scout. I clean

[1:50:16] up everything that that I've ever gone.

[1:50:19] And I know that there's different

[1:50:21] properties down here that are on city

[1:50:23] land adjacent to the Hanks property.

[1:50:26] I've gone to many different neighbors to

[1:50:29] try to get signatures to originally when

[1:50:31] I moved here to hunt on their land, but

[1:50:34] then I learned that it was not allowed

[1:50:36] um due that to the fact talking to the

[1:50:38] wonderful sheriff here that there's an

[1:50:41] or no ordinance in place to allow that.

[1:50:44] I am used to places where you can

[1:50:46] archery hunt. It can it just has to be

[1:50:48] 500 ft from a property. the fact that we

[1:50:52] can't hunt 500 feet from the homes even

[1:50:54] on the outskirts of the city limits. I

[1:50:57] also don't really understand that and I

[1:50:59] would look to ask for a change in that

[1:51:02] for at least residents because it would

[1:51:04] still be on up to the private land

[1:51:06] owners to allow that. You would still

[1:51:07] have to get the written permission and

[1:51:09] follow all the DNR policies. Um, I would

[1:51:13] much rather that than people going out

[1:51:15] with the DNR to shoot at night with

[1:51:18] thermals or with rifles, elk, and deer

[1:51:20] to contain the populations on the hank

[1:51:23] property and then have a list of people

[1:51:25] that they just give out the meat. I

[1:51:27] don't think that's fair to the

[1:51:28] individuals of the community that spend

[1:51:31] time on the tags, nor do I think it's

[1:51:33] okay for like someone like me who I can

[1:51:35] legally get a handicap sticker to hunt.

[1:51:39] But I if you don't have a tag that's non

[1:51:42] archery, all the deer are up super high

[1:51:44] unless they're on the outskirts down

[1:51:46] here. And

[1:51:48] that's why I think the outskirts of the

[1:51:50] town should be allowed at least for the

[1:51:52] 500 ft, not just in town, because those

[1:51:55] deer aren't dumb. You'll see them,

[1:51:57] you'll stop with a car, and then they'll

[1:51:59] run away. The ones up here, the ones

[1:52:01] that are closer down where I'm at or

[1:52:03] like in Salem, they don't really care

[1:52:05] because they're very used to people that

[1:52:08] I I think all hunters can agree. We

[1:52:11] don't want to hunt deer that are dumb,

[1:52:13] but also there needs to be a population.

[1:52:15] It's hard to manage conservation and

[1:52:18] ethics. And that's why I wanted to

[1:52:20] propose it and bring it up. So, I wanted

[1:52:23] to hear your thoughts. That would be

[1:52:24] awesome.

[1:52:25] >> Well, I'd like to open this up to

[1:52:27] somewhat of a discussion. And I know I'm

[1:52:29] kind of going against tradition. Have

[1:52:31] you in speaking with any of the

[1:52:33] residents that you have, have you had

[1:52:35] any that have expressed any sort of

[1:52:38] resistance,

[1:52:40] um, complaint,

[1:52:42] um, concern, anything like that?

[1:52:44] >> I had one or two that said their one

[1:52:47] concern would it would be the deer

[1:52:49] running based on like a poorly poor shot

[1:52:53] or whatever the case was to another

[1:52:56] property to pass away. What I'd say to

[1:52:58] that is that's the same concern of any

[1:53:01] hunting within towns or cities, no

[1:53:03] matter the size, everywhere in the

[1:53:05] country. I've hunted eight states out of

[1:53:08] the 50. And I've done suburban hunting.

[1:53:11] I've done public land mountain hunting.

[1:53:14] I've done every kind of hunting. And

[1:53:15] what I've noticed, I have not had one

[1:53:17] single deer run more than 100 yards with

[1:53:20] my bow and arrow. And all those deer

[1:53:23] either run down to places where it's

[1:53:25] thick cover 90% of the time I've I've

[1:53:29] never seen nor statistics show that they

[1:53:32] run right to people's yards to just die.

[1:53:34] That's the last place they want to go.

[1:53:36] to cover or they want to

[1:53:38] go to water.

[1:53:39] >> That is what I've seen. And from the

[1:53:41] concern of the residents, that's that's

[1:53:43] been the only thing or they don't want

[1:53:45] to wipe out all the population cuz they

[1:53:47] enjoy the deer. And I've also heard

[1:53:49] concerns of they eat everything I own

[1:53:51] and I don't want to have to have wires

[1:53:53] around every little plant I own could

[1:53:55] protect that. So

[1:53:57] >> yeah,

[1:53:58] >> we if we can keep this, you know,

[1:54:00] somewhat

[1:54:02] dialed in on time frame, but do you guys

[1:54:04] have anything? And we looked into a a

[1:54:07] couple years ago a program where, you

[1:54:10] know, the DNR would come out, they'd

[1:54:13] have hunters and to thin the population,

[1:54:15] but they would actually charge the city

[1:54:18] $500 per deer to dispose of them. So, at

[1:54:23] that time, cuz we've had other residents

[1:54:25] bring it up. um you have the people that

[1:54:28] love the deer and you have the people

[1:54:29] that hate the deer, you know, and so

[1:54:31] we've had we've had it brought up a few

[1:54:33] times and that was that was what we

[1:54:36] found with that. So what you're

[1:54:37] proposing is a hunt where the people

[1:54:39] keep the deer and keep the meat.

[1:54:42] >> Yes. And it it also like something that

[1:54:44] happens in Massachusetts, New Hampshire,

[1:54:46] Maine, and Idaho. A lot of the towns

[1:54:49] what they'll do is they'll have a

[1:54:50] council. So the person, let's say if I

[1:54:54] was in charge of the harvest report or

[1:54:56] the people hunting, it would be me and

[1:54:59] maybe two other people if they even had

[1:55:02] the ability to do a pilot program to

[1:55:04] test it for one year. And then after

[1:55:06] that, there would be like a minimum so

[1:55:08] or a maximum of like there can be no

[1:55:11] more than six people allowed to hunt in

[1:55:14] all of Woodland Hills or the surrounding

[1:55:16] areas. And that's how they do it to

[1:55:19] structure it. That way you don't have

[1:55:21] people coming from other places. The

[1:55:22] whole point is it's for the Woodland

[1:55:25] Hills residents. So you don't have

[1:55:26] people flocking in here and people

[1:55:28] parked in people's driveways or cause

[1:55:30] any trespassing issues, anything like

[1:55:33] that. It's within the town and the town

[1:55:35] can do that. Um, as far as I know with

[1:55:38] the DNR, the only reason why they

[1:55:41] haven't done that is because you have to

[1:55:42] go through a bunch of loops when they're

[1:55:44] the ones that are harvesting it or

[1:55:45] they're the ones bringing hunters. A lot

[1:55:48] of other places the DNR will have to

[1:55:50] hire snipers or people that aren't even

[1:55:53] Utah residents to come in to harvest

[1:55:55] these animals and just take them. And I

[1:55:58] don't think that's good. And I don't

[1:56:00] think it's just one-sided. I hate the

[1:56:02] deer. I love the deer because also I'm a

[1:56:04] hunter and I love deer more than the

[1:56:06] people that like them. And I know that's

[1:56:09] kind of hard for people to understand,

[1:56:12] but if you have a higher population of

[1:56:14] deer, the quality of the bucks goes

[1:56:16] down, the fertility rate goes down.

[1:56:19] There's a lot of other things, a lot of

[1:56:21] other scientific facts of what changes

[1:56:24] based on on those parameters.

[1:56:26] >> So, I would have a concern for my pets

[1:56:29] though, you know, a stray arm.

[1:56:34] And and I would I would argue that with

[1:56:37] how thick the woods are and everything

[1:56:39] else, I personally have been doing this.

[1:56:43] I've I've harvested 25 deer with my bow

[1:56:47] and I have never heard I've heard of gun

[1:56:50] incidents or like shotgun incidents um

[1:56:54] with stray like dogs running through the

[1:56:56] woods that someone thought was a coyote.

[1:56:58] I've never seen a coyote here. Maybe other people have, but we don't

[1:57:04] have wolves. I I've heard them up higher

[1:57:06] near the mines and such,

[1:57:08] >> but I I don't think the whole point of

[1:57:10] hunting and the whole point you have to

[1:57:12] go through a course to know what you're

[1:57:14] shooting at. And even if there was a

[1:57:16] rule like, hey, you have to be in a

[1:57:18] treeand, you can't spot and stock, I'd

[1:57:19] even be willing to do that. So that way

[1:57:22] you're shooting down and you can't just

[1:57:24] shoot out. The whole point of the like I

[1:57:26] have a whole written report that talks

[1:57:28] about like how you would have to shoot

[1:57:30] with obviously like a backdrop and

[1:57:32] everything but it you just not it just

[1:57:36] doesn't happen that people just go

[1:57:37] shooting animals and stuff that just

[1:57:39] doesn't doesn't happen.

[1:57:42] >> I just you know if they mis mistook a a

[1:57:45] larger dog from a distance through the

[1:57:48] woods you know what I mean if you

[1:57:50] couldn't see it.

[1:57:52] >> Yeah. And and it would just be deer. it

[1:57:54] wouldn't be like all animals or all

[1:57:56] hunting. So, I think that's also

[1:57:58] >> Joey, do you have something?

[1:58:01] >> Kyle, I have a quick question. So, are

[1:58:03] you saying that there would be a written

[1:58:05] permission from the property owner? And

[1:58:09] um would there then be any sort of uh

[1:58:12] accountability if they

[1:58:17] um shot too far and it was on the

[1:58:20] neighbor's property where they didn't

[1:58:21] have permission? Is there something in

[1:58:23] your proposal that would have a written

[1:58:26] permission that would be given to the

[1:58:27] city and then also that accountability

[1:58:30] if they went over a property line?

[1:58:33] >> Yeah, that's a great question. So,

[1:58:35] there's a couple different ways to go

[1:58:36] about that. One, you can get permission

[1:58:39] to retrieve an animal without hunting on

[1:58:41] their property beforehand. I've done

[1:58:43] that before. Um, the other scenarios are

[1:58:47] you always have to have written

[1:58:49] permission. And that's just everywhere

[1:58:50] in the in the entire state. But for the

[1:58:54] specific fact of hunting to your

[1:58:56] question, um you're saying if if like

[1:58:59] one runs onto other property, is that

[1:59:01] what you're discussing?

[1:59:03] >> Yeah. Or or if somebody because we don't

[1:59:05] have fences or exact property lines. I

[1:59:08] mean, you know where your property lines

[1:59:09] are, but if you're hunting on someone

[1:59:12] else's property lines, um maybe that's

[1:59:15] part of that application is that you've

[1:59:17] walked the line. um with that property

[1:59:20] owner and you do not shoot over that

[1:59:23] line um unless you have permission from

[1:59:25] their neighbor to cross it because I

[1:59:28] think that's goes to part of what Janet

[1:59:30] was saying. We don't want um somebody

[1:59:32] saying, "Well, I think it was just on,

[1:59:34] you know, a foot on this side and then

[1:59:36] it ran over." Well, maybe, but maybe

[1:59:39] not. So, I think that it would be

[1:59:41] important for neighbors to to be

[1:59:44] notified that someone's shot shooting on their neighbor's property and that a

[1:59:49] deer who's wounded might come onto their

[1:59:52] property, but that the hunter themselves

[1:59:54] will not be shooting on the neighbor's

[1:59:56] property.

[1:59:57] >> Just something to clarify.

[2:00:00] >> Yeah, that's a great question.

[2:00:01] Generally, what you're supposed to do

[2:00:02] when you get property permission is not

[2:00:04] just have the one property, but the two

[2:00:06] adjacent at least um to get their

[2:00:09] permission for approval just in case

[2:00:11] something like that does happen. But one

[2:00:13] of the ways to combat that is almost

[2:00:15] every single hunter that I know has an

[2:00:17] app called Onyx. And what that does is

[2:00:20] it shows you all of the property lines

[2:00:22] to a tea within less than a foot, the

[2:00:25] property lines. I've walked a lot of

[2:00:28] property lines and even if there is a

[2:00:29] stake in the ground it lines up with it

[2:00:31] and that's what you guys have access to

[2:00:34] through like city council like if it

[2:00:37] shows you property lines it's the same

[2:00:39] data is transferred to this hunting

[2:00:41] application but it's also an off-road

[2:00:44] mapping system that shows you the exact

[2:00:46] property line so you can combat that to

[2:00:48] not have a guessing game of where you're

[2:00:50] at.

[2:00:52] >> Okay, perfect. Jody,

[2:00:55] >> so I appreciate what you're saying.

[2:00:59] However, I have a very experienced

[2:01:01] hunter that lives next to me, and I

[2:01:04] ended up with an arrow in my front yard

[2:01:08] where my grandkids play. That's going to

[2:01:11] be a that's going to be a huge concern

[2:01:13] the council's going to have to hear is

[2:01:16] you may be good and you may be able to

[2:01:19] do it, but that doesn't mean everyone

[2:01:21] else is going to be able to. and to

[2:01:23] screen and say yes, you're allowed, but

[2:01:25] you're not. We the council could get in

[2:01:29] trouble with favoritism,

[2:01:31] um liability, things like that. So,

[2:01:35] that's something that you may want to

[2:01:36] consider. But

[2:01:37] >> he's an experienced hunter. He I mean, I

[2:01:41] know he

[2:01:42] has shot a number of things, but to all

[2:01:44] of a sudden find their arrows in our

[2:01:46] front yard.

[2:01:48] >> Were they hunting or archery? because

[2:01:50] you're not supposed to discharge a bow

[2:01:52] up here anyways.

[2:01:53] >> Exactly. Yeah.

[2:01:54] >> Yeah. And yeah, they know it, but um

[2:01:59] those things happen. And who are you all

[2:02:02] of a sudden? So, I think you'd have to

[2:02:04] really be careful of who you're granting

[2:02:06] permission to and how you're going about

[2:02:08] doing.

[2:02:08] >> Yeah. And and that's also the the nice

[2:02:10] thing about even like I said if it's the

[2:02:13] worst case scenario just the outskirts

[2:02:15] that would also help prevent those

[2:02:17] things cuz those people tend to have the

[2:02:19] larger properties um especially near the

[2:02:22] switchbacks up here and all around these

[2:02:25] areas. It's not even the places that are

[2:02:28] right on the borders of the the city,

[2:02:31] you're still not allowed to hunt those.

[2:02:34] um even the properties that are

[2:02:35] thousands of acres um which I can't

[2:02:39] understand but I'm trying to but I think

[2:02:43] that's definitely important that that

[2:02:46] maybe I don't I wouldn't see it as

[2:02:48] favoritism because I'm coming and I'm

[2:02:49] trying to plead the case but but I

[2:02:51] understand what you're saying but the other thing is the state or the

[2:02:56] people aren't li liable if anything

[2:02:59] happens on their property as long as you

[2:03:01] have written permission it's on the

[2:03:04] individual once the person decided to go

[2:03:07] on their property. Once you go on their

[2:03:09] property, the DNR has a law that says

[2:03:11] that they are not at fault. If someone's

[2:03:14] hunting on your property, they're not

[2:03:16] liable. So, I also think that's

[2:03:18] important cuz people might think, oh,

[2:03:20] what if he falls out of a treeand or

[2:03:21] what if he breaks an ankle on my

[2:03:23] property because everybody's sue hungry

[2:03:25] nowadays. I understand that side of it

[2:03:28] where people are worried, but you're

[2:03:29] covered under the the state under

[2:03:32] fishing game once you get written

[2:03:34] permission.

[2:03:35] >> Okay. Do you have anything, Steve?

[2:03:37] >> Um, objectively, are we overpop

[2:03:40] populated in deer

[2:03:43] >> to me or Yes.

[2:03:44] >> No. I mean, is is it a fact that we are

[2:03:47] overpopulated? Yeah.

[2:03:48] >> So,

[2:03:49] >> yeah. without

[2:03:49] >> is that the is that the conclusion the

[2:03:51] DNR came up with as well when when we

[2:03:54] had that exercise a few years ago?

[2:03:57] >> I think it's every year is different.

[2:03:59] >> Yeah.

[2:03:59] >> Right. Our population drastically

[2:04:01] decreased after 3 years ago winter

[2:04:04] >> because it it wiped out a large number

[2:04:06] about what was it 70% of the herd I

[2:04:08] believe I had heard

[2:04:09] >> that that didn't survive which was

[2:04:11] extremely helpful for our herd.

[2:04:14] >> Um so I think it's a yeartoyear basis.

[2:04:18] Um, so one thing that I would like to do

[2:04:20] without us carrying on for because I

[2:04:23] think we could talk about this for for

[2:04:24] quite a while.

[2:04:26] >> Um, and since we are still in the public

[2:04:27] comment section of the council meeting,

[2:04:31] um,

[2:04:32] I would request that, and this is up to

[2:04:35] the discretion of the council, but I

[2:04:37] would request that that we entertain the

[2:04:40] ability to explore this further. Um, I

[2:04:44] think the way

[2:04:47] it would be extremely easy for us to say

[2:04:49] this will be hard and thus it's not

[2:04:52] worth our time.

[2:04:55] I I encouraged when Kyle reached out to

[2:04:58] me, I encouraged him to come and talk

[2:05:01] with you guys, right? This is what I

[2:05:03] want our all of our residents who have

[2:05:05] an idea and a suggestion and and to come

[2:05:08] with a solution and pitch it to the

[2:05:09] council for an ordinance change. Um, I

[2:05:14] would, you know, put the onus back on

[2:05:16] you, Kyle, right? Uh, because I think

[2:05:18] you've gained some probably a little bit

[2:05:20] of feedback here to be able to say,

[2:05:22] "Okay, here's probably what this process

[2:05:25] if we're able to be successful with a

[2:05:27] plan like this, right?

[2:05:29] What are the the the ordinances or state

[2:05:32] statutes that DNR operates under? Where

[2:05:35] would where do we currently fall? What

[2:05:37] would need to be changed on our end? And

[2:05:40] what would a process look like from a

[2:05:43] vetting standpoint, from a commission

[2:05:46] standpoint?

[2:05:47] You know, it's more than just kind of

[2:05:49] like we did, you saw us today. You know,

[2:05:52] we changed an ordinance

[2:05:55] >> if required.

[2:05:57] >> This is a much larger thing than that.

[2:05:59] >> Um, we're going to need to do a public

[2:06:01] hearing on something like this, right?

[2:06:03] We're going to need to do a lot of work

[2:06:05] and there's there's an extreme degree of scrutiny. This is going to get the

[2:06:11] population of Wooden Hills also out um

[2:06:15] on both fronts.

[2:06:16] >> Yeah,

[2:06:16] >> it's a highly contentious issue. I don't

[2:06:19] want us to run away from it because it

[2:06:21] is that. Um I want all cases to be

[2:06:25] fought. Um and so that would be my

[2:06:27] thought is I think I think there is

[2:06:30] potential merit here.

[2:06:33] I think the process could be built in a

[2:06:36] way that does do the due diligence while

[2:06:39] granting uh the rights to be able to do

[2:06:42] something like this. But I think it's

[2:06:45] going to be an uphill battle.

[2:06:47] >> No. Sure. And and that's why I'm saying

[2:06:49] if

[2:06:51] at at the at the worst case scenario, I

[2:06:53] would pitch not just the idea or the

[2:06:56] ordinance, but myself for permission

[2:06:59] because that is something that's allowed

[2:07:00] without creating an entire

[2:07:04] um vote. From what I understand, you do

[2:07:08] not have to create um an entire law and

[2:07:11] get the entire town to approve one

[2:07:14] individual with like a co-pilot to be

[2:07:16] able to hunt surrounding properties if

[2:07:18] it's the own private citizens

[2:07:21] properties that are not right on like

[2:07:23] the city limits. But I don't I don't

[2:07:25] know. Like I said, I'm I'm young. I'm

[2:07:27] just I'm not a politician by any means.

[2:07:31] >> You're getting in the process. that

[2:07:33] >> if if I have to have my company make a

[2:07:35] pickle ball court and sponsor the pickle

[2:07:37] ball tournament to be able to hunt, I'll

[2:07:39] do it. But I'm just

[2:07:41] >> We're talking about some good things.

[2:07:45] >> Sorry, Carrie has a question.

[2:07:47] >> Yes, Carrie.

[2:07:49] >> Yes. I just wanted to say to Kyle, um,

[2:07:52] you know, thanks for bringing this.

[2:07:53] We've looked into this several times

[2:07:56] through the years and at one point DNR

[2:07:59] did come out and do a count and said we

[2:08:02] weren't overpopulated, but to the

[2:08:04] mayor's point, depending on the year,

[2:08:07] you know, some years we have more than

[2:08:09] others. There are years that DNR has

[2:08:11] come and captured turkeys and relocated

[2:08:13] them to other areas. Um, but with that

[2:08:17] being said, there are several cities

[2:08:19] throughout the state who have done this

[2:08:22] urban

[2:08:23] archery permit and I would suggest in

[2:08:26] your quest to find out more information

[2:08:29] is to contact those cities and get their

[2:08:32] policies because several of them wrote

[2:08:35] it the first time and found out, oh, we

[2:08:38] need to change this, we need to change

[2:08:39] that. So, if you can kind of piggyback

[2:08:42] on some of the other cities and their

[2:08:43] best practices and what they've found

[2:08:46] out worked and didn't worked, that will

[2:08:48] help build a different foundation and um

[2:08:51] be able to maybe eliminate some of the

[2:08:54] concerns that um both sides will bring

[2:08:56] to the table.

[2:09:00] >> Thank you, Carrie. Brian, I don't want

[2:09:01] to skip you. Do you have anything?

[2:09:05] Uh, no. I'm encouraged that you came to

[2:09:09] talk to us about this. Um, I would

[2:09:13] I'm going to stick my foot in my mouth

[2:09:15] here and I'd be happy to

[2:09:18] uh

[2:09:21] to work with you on this and kind of

[2:09:24] give you um pointers, give you ideas um

[2:09:30] and and lies with the rest of the

[2:09:32] council and the mayor. I mean, you can

[2:09:34] do that directly, obviously, but um if I I'd be happy to to help point you in

[2:09:42] certain directions. I'm not against it.

[2:09:44] I'm not necessarily for it at this

[2:09:46] point, but um as a as a hunter, well, I

[2:09:49] haven't hunted in years, but as a former

[2:09:51] hunter, um and and Dan, I'm Dan and I

[2:09:54] share a driveway, so I I know Dan really

[2:09:57] well. Um I'd be happy to to help with

[2:10:01] this. And

[2:10:04] if if you if you want someone to help

[2:10:07] you get through this, you're going to

[2:10:09] have to do the leg work. I don't have

[2:10:10] the time, but um I can help.

[2:10:14] I'd be happy to help you where I can.

[2:10:20] » Perfect.

[2:10:22] >> And I guess my last question would be

[2:10:26] >> obviously that route would take forever

[2:10:29] if it's open to everyone. Um, and it's a

[2:10:32] whole ordinance grade and everything. Is

[2:10:34] there a world where let's say you guys

[2:10:37] say nope, we don't want on the private

[2:10:39] citizens, but we have the city

[2:10:41] properties or the Hanks property because

[2:10:44] there's already bylaws in place. If

[2:10:45] there's more than if someone owns more

[2:10:47] than 400 to 200 acres within Salem or

[2:10:52] Woodland Hills, if the DNR allows it,

[2:10:55] you are able to hunt there. So, for

[2:10:56] example, the Hanks property or the

[2:10:58] Woodland Hills Woodland Hills City um

[2:11:02] plots of land down here, is that

[2:11:04] something I could propose for permission

[2:11:06] to hunt without creating an ordinance?

[2:11:10] >> Typically,

[2:11:12] over the last four years of my me on the

[2:11:14] council, um and now as mayor, I've

[2:11:16] always tried to push ordinances that are

[2:11:20] available for all residents.

[2:11:21] >> Sure. Um and so that inclusiveness

[2:11:25] um you know even even with land abudding

[2:11:28] the city center for example right is I'm

[2:11:33] happy to grant utilization of that land

[2:11:36] if it's a capacity that all residents

[2:11:38] could take a part of right

[2:11:41] >> um and so because city resources

[2:11:45] potentially for management or anything

[2:11:47] like that

[2:11:48] it would need to be available for

[2:11:50] everybody. So it can't be so it can't be

[2:11:53] individualized like

[2:11:55] >> other cities have done

[2:11:58] >> the ordinance and and I'd be open

[2:12:01] personally I'd be open now I' I'm not a

[2:12:03] voting member of this city

[2:12:04] >> sure

[2:12:05] >> I'd be open to at least take a look at

[2:12:07] it from what others are authorizing and

[2:12:09] what that ordinance looks like but that

[2:12:12] code would need to be in place for that

[2:12:14] granting to be available.

[2:12:16] >> Got it. So,

[2:12:18] >> but

[2:12:21] >> thank you.

[2:12:21] >> Yeah,

[2:12:22] >> I know that was a lot of time. I think

[2:12:24] it was well worth it for the sake of

[2:12:26] what it looks like for bringing

[2:12:27] legislation to the body.

[2:12:29] >> The only question I last have is, you

[2:12:32] know, it's like 100° outside and you're

[2:12:34] in a sweater, right?

[2:12:36] >> To be perfectly honest, I did not think

[2:12:38] I'd be here for 2 and 1 half hours when

[2:12:39] I was 18 minutes late

[2:12:41] >> after work. So, I didn't know how the

[2:12:44] meetings worked. So,

[2:12:46] >> well, it's cold in here, so you're good.

[2:12:49] >> This will come off immediately when I

[2:12:50] go.

[2:12:51] >> You're good, bro. Bucky.

[2:12:53] >> So, we um

[2:12:59] calls

[2:13:01] if they can and say they have tags

[2:13:04] and I have no idea what any requirements

[2:13:08] are, what the DNR requirements are,

[2:13:11] anything. So, it'd be super helpful to

[2:13:13] know.

[2:13:15] Yes.

[2:13:15] >> Hanks for people that have property.

[2:13:17] >> It's really only Hanks and you guys that

[2:13:19] have square footage or acreage enough to

[2:13:23] make this a question, right?

[2:13:26] >> And that's I think what we really need

[2:13:28] to address.

[2:13:29] >> Um I think

[2:13:30] >> so it's a it's 100 acres or more.

[2:13:35] >> But there was something else that I

[2:13:36] don't have to look at and see. I believe

[2:13:39] the Hanks just split their property.

[2:13:42] It's not under one person. There's three

[2:13:45] separate.

[2:13:46] >> So I know the Davis property was sold

[2:13:47] and everything, but who owns Northern

[2:13:49] Slope LLC?

[2:13:52] >> Okay.

[2:13:53] >> So that's But that's is that even a part

[2:13:55] of the city limit though or is half of

[2:13:57] it? Oh,

[2:13:58] >> a portion of it is

[2:13:59] >> because it cuts into the public that can

[2:14:02] talk about it as well.

[2:14:03] >> Yeah.

[2:14:04] >> There's some complexity here that that

[2:14:06] we need to iron out. I think there's

[2:14:08] value whether it's for this upcoming

[2:14:12] hunting season or future.

[2:14:14] >> I think there's value in us going

[2:14:16] through the legislative process to work

[2:14:19] through this.

[2:14:20] >> Gota sounds good.

[2:14:22] >> Not a quick easy one like we were hoping

[2:14:24] or we were hoping, but I think we've got

[2:14:26] some good things moving forward.

[2:14:28] >> I figured that could definitely be a

[2:14:29] factor, but I was I was like, if I draw

[2:14:32] the tag, I'm going to try cuz I finally

[2:14:34] did. So, I was like, oh, that's all.

[2:14:36] Let's see what we can do.

[2:14:38] >> Okay, thank you so much.

[2:14:39] >> Thank you. I appreciate all of your

[2:14:41] time. It's nice to meet all of you.

[2:14:43] >> Of course. Thank you.

[2:14:46] >> Okay. Um Sherry, I know you had

[2:14:48] something earlier.

[2:14:50] >> G,

[2:14:56] » she might have.

[2:14:57] >> No, she didn't go away. She's sitting

[2:14:59] here

[2:15:00] >> listening to everything you guys are

[2:15:02] saying. Um, just for point with regards

[2:15:06] to what Kyle brought up, um, I have seen

[2:15:09] coyotes on my property. I've seen a pack

[2:15:12] of them walking oh, I don't know, just

[2:15:15] up on the ridge there where I can see I

[2:15:18] saw them from my bedroom window. I've

[2:15:20] seen cougars and I've also had a friend

[2:15:23] tell me walking the trail, she had an

[2:15:27] arrow whiz by her head.

[2:15:30] So, just little bit of information for

[2:15:34] Kyle and what he's presenting. Um, my

[2:15:38] public comment has to do with 10

[2:15:42] 5e

[2:15:44] the hazard study. It specifically says

[2:15:48] homes with regards to

[2:15:51] uh building permit.

[2:15:54] I tried searching uh the PDF document to

[2:15:59] see where else hazard study appeared in

[2:16:02] the city ordinances

[2:16:04] and I'm wondering how hazard study

[2:16:07] appears

[2:16:08] to city owned property

[2:16:11] i.e up by the water tanks and how hazard

[2:16:16] study

[2:16:18] applies to

[2:16:20] a developer

[2:16:23] uh receiving permission to develop a

[2:16:26] certain portion of land, i.e. northern

[2:16:30] slopes above the water tanks.

[2:16:34] It isn't just homes that we're talking

[2:16:37] about. But we're talking about

[2:16:38] city-owned property

[2:16:42] and we're talking

[2:16:43] >> hazard study is only required if a

[2:16:45] structure is about to be

[2:16:47] >> constructed. Right? If no structure is

[2:16:51] being constructed,

[2:16:53] no study is required simply because that

[2:16:56] information doesn't really

[2:16:58] >> so affect.

[2:17:01] So the city did a hazard study, right?

[2:17:03] That's what's identified all these

[2:17:05] potential hazards. So the city has

[2:17:07] conducted a citywide hazard study. It

[2:17:10] identified potential uh I think it was

[2:17:12] debris flows or slides

[2:17:15] >> right seismic

[2:17:18] fault lines stuff like that. All these

[2:17:20] have been identified when you this is

[2:17:23] all done through uh mapping.

[2:17:26] Um it was a geotech engineer that did

[2:17:28] the study. And so from these identified

[2:17:32] hazards, then when it costs to build

[2:17:34] something, you actually have to go

[2:17:36] physically do a uh onsite at the

[2:17:40] location physical study, which is

[2:17:43] basically involves excavation. You do a

[2:17:45] when you like for example, you do a

[2:17:46] fault study, you have to dig a trench

[2:17:48] through the property and look for the

[2:17:49] fault.

[2:17:50] >> Well, my neighbors had it done uh in

[2:17:53] terms of avalanche, so I'm familiar with

[2:17:56] what you're talking about.

[2:17:58] Yeah, we just did on our tank property

[2:17:59] for our new water tank we're looking at.

[2:18:01] We just had a fault study.

[2:18:04] >> Well, that's what I mean. Where is it in

[2:18:06] code that requires the city on city

[2:18:10] property to have a hazard study done? It

[2:18:14] isn't a home that somebody's building

[2:18:16] there. it's city-owned property with a

[2:18:18] structure on it or the potential of

[2:18:21] somebody receiving planning permission

[2:18:24] to have a development put in. Do they

[2:18:28] have to have a hazard study if they're

[2:18:31] in that mapped area prior to getting

[2:18:34] planning permission approval to give

[2:18:37] planning the information that they need

[2:18:40] to determine if this could possibly be a

[2:18:44] big hazard?

[2:18:45] So

[2:18:46] >> that's all I'm asking or not asking but

[2:18:48] commenting on

[2:18:50] >> because 10.5e

[2:18:52] is just homes.

[2:18:54] >> Yeah, Sherry, take a look at uh

[2:18:58] municipal code 11.9.3

[2:19:01] and it'll cover all that for you.

[2:19:03] >> Okay, sweet. Thank you.

[2:19:06] >> Perfect. Thank you, Sherry.

[2:19:09] >> Okay. Um is there anybody else, Bucky?

[2:19:13] >> No.

[2:19:13] >> You sure? said enough tonight.

[2:19:15] >> Okay.

[2:19:17] >> Wonderful.

[2:19:17] >> Didn't say anything.

[2:19:19] >> He said something about northern slopes.

[2:19:22] Um, wonderful. Then we will close close

[2:19:24] the public comment. Um, also for the

[2:19:26] record, I did I I failed to mention that

[2:19:30] in person we have Council Member John's,

[2:19:32] Council Member Lunt, and myself, Mayor

[2:19:36] Hillyard. And then online we have uh

[2:19:39] Council Member Hutchkins, Council Member

[2:19:41] Malovich, and excused is Council Member

[2:19:44] Rooden. Um so we will now move to the

[2:19:47] consent agenda. Um on the consent

[2:19:50] agenda, we have items 21 and 22. That is

[2:19:53] the minutes for the June 9th meeting as

[2:19:56] well as the special city council meeting

[2:19:59] where we spoke about the um certified

[2:20:03] tax rate for June 16th.

[2:20:07] So I will then accept a motion for

[2:20:09] either both for the entire consent

[2:20:11] agenda or each individually if anybody

[2:20:13] has any issues with either of them.

[2:20:25] » We can not

[2:20:26] >> I will make a motion and that we approve

[2:20:28] the entire consent agenda.

[2:20:30] >> Okay. I have a motion by council member

[2:20:33] L.

[2:20:36] I'll second it.

[2:20:37] >> Council member Hutchings with a second.

[2:20:40] Um,

[2:20:40] >> it made me sound nice.

[2:20:43] >> What's that?

[2:20:44] >> It made me sound nice again.

[2:20:46] >> Oh, perfect. Okay. Council member

[2:20:49] Hutchkins.

[2:20:50] >> Yes.

[2:20:51] >> Council member Malovich.

[2:20:54] >> Yes.

[2:20:55] >> Council member Lund.

[2:20:56] >> Yes.

[2:20:56] >> Council member Jones.

[2:20:58] >> Yes.

[2:20:59] >> Okay. Um, consent agenda passes. Um, now

[2:21:03] moving on to the business. Motion to

[2:21:05] approve the May 2027 financials and

[2:21:08] check dispersements.

[2:21:10] >> I'll make a motion.

[2:21:11] >> Council member John's with a motion.

[2:21:15] Do I have a second?

[2:21:19] » I'll second it.

[2:21:20] >> Council member Hutchkins with a second.

[2:21:23] Uh, Council Member Johns.

[2:21:26] Council member Malovich.

[2:21:28] >> Yes.

[2:21:29] >> Council member Hutchings.

[2:21:31] >> Yes.

[2:21:32] Council member Lent.

[2:21:34] >> Yes. I'm

[2:21:35] >> impressed. You got that. That motion

[2:21:38] passes.

[2:21:39] >> Uh, ordinance 2026-12

[2:21:43] vacationing a portion of Eagle's Nest.

[2:21:47] >> Um, I'll make a motion on that as well.

[2:21:50] >> Council member Jones with a motion.

[2:21:54] Do

[2:21:54] >> I have a second?

[2:21:55] >> I'll second it.

[2:21:58] >> With a second.

[2:22:01] Council member Lent,

[2:22:02] >> yes.

[2:22:03] >> Council member Hutchkins,

[2:22:05] >> yes.

[2:22:06] >> Council member Malovich,

[2:22:08] >> yes.

[2:22:09] >> Council member John's,

[2:22:10] >> yes.

[2:22:12] >> Uh, that ordinance passes. Um, ordinance

[2:22:14] 2026-13

[2:22:16] amending the 2026 fiscal year budget.

[2:22:20] >> You wanted to make some changes, you

[2:22:22] said.

[2:22:23] >> Yes. Um, I would recommend um a motion

[2:22:28] for

[2:22:30] an adjustment

[2:22:32] of

[2:22:35] the public safety

[2:22:37] being added. And I'll I'll recommend

[2:22:40] that we pull uh $5,000 from the general

[2:22:45] government fund from the administrative

[2:22:48] line item

[2:22:50] um and add it to the fire budget

[2:22:55] um of $5,000 which will then give us a b

[2:22:58] a buffer from an audit standpoint

[2:23:02] uh to decrease that percentage so that

[2:23:05] we are under the 100% for total public

[2:23:08] safety.

[2:23:09] That would be my recommendation of a

[2:23:11] motion if possible.

[2:23:17] » Okay.

[2:23:18] So, do we need to revisit that or

[2:23:21] approve with your notes?

[2:23:24] >> Can they do either

[2:23:26] >> recommendation or you can revisit it?

[2:23:28] Um, just a real quick thing. Total

[2:23:32] public safety is at 80.78%.

[2:23:36] For the document I have here,

[2:23:39] I am at 100.43%.

[2:23:50] » Gave you earlier today.

[2:23:53] >> This is the one that was on my desk in

[2:23:56] my packet.

[2:24:00] » Do you have the time on that one?

[2:24:03] >> I don't.

[2:24:07] What does Popus say? Do you can pull

[2:24:08] that up?

[2:24:10] >> This isn't

[2:24:12] >> Oh, this thing. This is the May 2026

[2:24:17] financials.

[2:24:18] >> Just ignore me, people.

[2:24:22] » I apologize. I'm looking at the wrong

[2:24:24] document here.

[2:24:27] >> Okay. Then if you're saying we are under

[2:24:33] » say we should be for public

[2:24:36] >> I was confused.

[2:24:39] >> So there there are not recommended

[2:24:42] changes. I mean what I saw in it I'm

[2:24:44] prepared to make a motion to approve. So

[2:24:48] >> if if if Jody is saying we're good um

[2:24:52] then I'm feeling good about it. I've I

[2:24:54] stare at way too many numbers.

[2:25:01] So, I'll accept a motion if you

[2:25:04] >> that gave me three. So,

[2:25:06] >> we're good on that one. Okay, then we're

[2:25:08] good. We did balance it all out.

[2:25:12] >> I'm just over here looking like an

[2:25:13] idiot. That's all.

[2:25:14] >> No, you're good.

[2:25:16] >> No, you just had the wrong document.

[2:25:18] That's all. It's a lot of documents.

[2:25:22] >> Perfect. Okay, then. So, you're you've

[2:25:25] >> Yeah, I'll make a a motion.

[2:25:28] >> Okay. I have a motion by Council Member

[2:25:30] John's.

[2:25:31] >> Do I have a second?

[2:25:32] >> Second.

[2:25:33] >> Council member Malovich.

[2:25:35] >> Um, Council Member Hutchings,

[2:25:38] >> yes.

[2:25:39] >> Council member Malovich,

[2:25:41] >> yes.

[2:25:42] >> Council member Lunt,

[2:25:44] >> yes.

[2:25:44] >> Council member Johns,

[2:25:45] >> yes.

[2:25:46] >> Okay. Thank you. That motion passes.

[2:25:48] That ordinance passes. Motion to approve

[2:25:51] um the mayor to sign the contract with

[2:25:54] Larsson Company for auditing services.

[2:25:58] I would recommend we table that.

[2:25:59] >> Yeah. I thought we were going to table

[2:26:00] it.

[2:26:02] >> Okay.

[2:26:03] >> Table.

[2:26:06] » Okay. And we need to I believe table it

[2:26:08] to a specific date which I would

[2:26:11] recommend is July 14th. It won't be till

[2:26:13] August because we'll have to put it our

[2:26:15] to RFP and that'll have to be out there

[2:26:17] for

[2:26:20] I think a minimum of 21 to 30 days. I'm

[2:26:23] going to have to check really fast.

[2:26:27] >> Okay.

[2:26:28] >> So,

[2:26:30] yeah,

[2:26:30] >> table it to August 11th.

[2:26:33] >> I think we would find to table it to the

[2:26:36] August 11th meeting and then is looking

[2:26:39] at potentially being here.

[2:26:42] >> Perfect. Okay. Would that work?

[2:26:44] >> So move. So move.

[2:26:46] >> Okay. Um a move uh from Council Member

[2:26:50] Hutchings.

[2:26:52] >> The table.

[2:26:53] >> Second.

[2:26:54] >> Okay. Council member Lunt with a second.

[2:26:57] Um Council Member Johns.

[2:26:59] >> Yes.

[2:27:00] >> Council member Malovich.

[2:27:02] >> Yes.

[2:27:03] >> Council member Hutchkins.

[2:27:04] >> Yes.

[2:27:05] >> Council member Lent.

[2:27:06] >> Yes.

[2:27:07] >> Okay. We've tabled that to August 11th.

[2:27:10] Uh, resolution 2026-41

[2:27:13] adopting the Woodland Hills general

[2:27:14] plan.

[2:27:17] >> A motion.

[2:27:18] >> Council member Malovich with a motion.

[2:27:22] >> I'll second.

[2:27:23] >> Council member Jones with a second.

[2:27:25] Council member Jones.

[2:27:26] >> Yes.

[2:27:27] >> Council member Malovich.

[2:27:29] >> Yes.

[2:27:30] >> Council member Hutchings.

[2:27:32] >> Yes.

[2:27:33] >> Council member Lund.

[2:27:35] >> Yes.

[2:27:36] >> Okay. That resolution passes. A motion

[2:27:39] to adopt the Woodland Hills strategic

[2:27:42] plan. Just the cover page.

[2:27:44] >> Just the cover page would be my

[2:27:45] recommendation

[2:27:46] >> because that'll be

[2:27:48] >> public. Correct.

[2:27:50] >> I will I will make that motion to adopt

[2:27:52] the strategic plan cover page as a

[2:27:54] public document.

[2:27:57] >> I have a motion from Council Member

[2:27:58] Malovich.

[2:27:59] >> I'll second it.

[2:28:00] >> Council member Lunt with a second. Uh

[2:28:02] Council Member Lunt.

[2:28:03] >> Yes.

[2:28:04] >> Council member Hutchkins.

[2:28:06] >> No. Council member Malovich.

[2:28:10] >> Yes.

[2:28:11] >> Council member John's.

[2:28:15] » Um.

[2:28:17] >> Yes.

[2:28:18] >> Okay. That uh motion passes. Uh

[2:28:22] resolution 2026-42

[2:28:25] amending the city's fee schedule.

[2:28:28] So, I'd like to make a motion that we

[2:28:31] approve it with one change where we

[2:28:34] change the sewer impact fees to read

[2:28:37] something along the lines. It doesn't

[2:28:38] have to be exact, but I'm thinking

[2:28:40] actual cost charged by pace and city.

[2:28:46] » We don't have to keep updating it. Is

[2:28:47] that why?

[2:28:48] >> Correct. So, every time they change, we

[2:28:50] can automatically change. we don't

[2:28:52] accidentally

[2:28:53] not get changed uh and and have to and

[2:28:57] charge someone a lower fee and then we

[2:28:59] have to cover it regardless of whatever

[2:29:02] patient city charges we're going to get

[2:29:03] that money from.

[2:29:08] » Okay. So, I have a second.

[2:29:11] >> I'll second that. So, I have a motion by

[2:29:14] council member Hutchkins uh with the

[2:29:16] amendment to uh change the sewer pack

[2:29:21] fees to be uh no longer an monetary

[2:29:25] number but uh whatever pace city is

[2:29:29] currently charging. Um and a second from

[2:29:31] council member Johns. Is that a correct

[2:29:32] synopsis there, Council Member Hutchings

[2:29:34] of your motion?

[2:29:36] >> Yes.

[2:29:37] >> Perfect. Okay. Council member Lent.

[2:29:39] >> Yes. Council member Malovich,

[2:29:42] >> yes.

[2:29:44] >> Council member Hutchings,

[2:29:45] >> yes.

[2:29:46] >> Council member Jones,

[2:29:48] >> yes.

[2:29:49] >> Okay, that resolution passes.

[2:29:53] Ordinance 2026-14

[2:29:55] amending city code 10-4-5E.

[2:30:03] I wanted to clarify that, you know,

[2:30:05] based on based on what Sherry was

[2:30:07] talking about earlier, um, about any

[2:30:09] structure or any development. Mayor, was

[2:30:12] it was it um correct in you saying that

[2:30:16] those items are discussed in another

[2:30:19] section, not just in this particular

[2:30:22] section of code? And if so, then should

[2:30:25] we link the two to say, you know,

[2:30:28] something um approving amending this

[2:30:31] code and then also C

[2:30:36] code whatever that um

[2:30:40] that so it clarifies it with people who

[2:30:42] are looking it up that it could be any

[2:30:44] structure or any development based on

[2:30:47] the criteria that the engineers will put

[2:30:49] into place.

[2:30:53] in my opinion

[2:30:55] as I've read um 11-9-3

[2:30:59] now Jody and told me that it's also 1192

[2:31:05] um I believe all of our concerns are

[2:31:08] addressed satisfactory

[2:31:11] within these three chapters and I don't

[2:31:14] think any linkage actually would do any

[2:31:16] benefit would only probably actually

[2:31:18] increase the complexity of our code

[2:31:20] personally

[2:31:22] Okay.

[2:31:26] » But I'm not a voting member, so do

[2:31:28] whatever you guys feel you need to.

[2:31:33] » So,

[2:31:35] with that being said, I'll accept a

[2:31:37] motion.

[2:31:44] » I'll make a motion.

[2:31:46] >> Council member Hutchings with a motion.

[2:31:50] Do I have a second?

[2:31:51] >> I'll second.

[2:31:52] >> Council member Jones with a second.

[2:31:54] >> Uh, Council Member Jones.

[2:31:56] >> Yes.

[2:31:57] >> Council member Hutchkins.

[2:31:59] >> Yes.

[2:32:00] >> Council member Malovich.

[2:32:02] >> Yes.

[2:32:04] >> Council member Lunt.

[2:32:05] >> Yes.

[2:32:07] >> Okay. That uh amendment passes. Uh

[2:32:10] resolution 2026-43

[2:32:13] appointing a mayor or a member not a

[2:32:15] mayor appointing a member of the

[2:32:17] planning commission. Um

[2:32:20] this is a full seated member of the

[2:32:22] planning commission. This is uh the

[2:32:24] final uh need we had there. Um my

[2:32:27] proposal is uh a man by the name of Mike

[2:32:31] Tingi. Um Brian and I were able to

[2:32:35] interview him. Um he has from our

[2:32:39] interview he has exceptional qualities

[2:32:41] that I think will be a great asset to

[2:32:43] the planning commission. uh council me

[2:32:45] or commissioner Francon's also um spoken

[2:32:49] with him um and I believe I can speak

[2:32:51] for the commissioner saying that he also

[2:32:54] uh would approve this appointment.

[2:32:59] >> How many people did um applied? I just

[2:33:02] wanted to know how many people applied

[2:33:03] for that position that you interviewed.

[2:33:07] >> It was four or five. What was it? One.

[2:33:09] >> Okay.

[2:33:11] I'm just happy to see that we have

[2:33:12] people who are interested in serving in

[2:33:14] various capacities and so I I like that

[2:33:18] there were that there's there were

[2:33:21] several. So, thank you.

[2:33:23] >> And like I said in my video um for this

[2:33:26] agenda,

[2:33:28] I think every single one of them would

[2:33:29] have brought something valuable to the

[2:33:31] planning commission. Um, in my

[2:33:34] consultation and and gaining counsel

[2:33:36] from council member Hutchings,

[2:33:38] personally, I feel that the two the

[2:33:41] alternate and this commissioner um

[2:33:44] appointment, I believe these two would

[2:33:46] bring the most value uh for our

[2:33:48] particular mix of commissioners.

[2:33:52] Um

[2:33:53] but we had some great some great options

[2:33:56] and candidates and the others that we

[2:33:59] did not select um have been are helpful

[2:34:02] in the city and we really appreciate

[2:34:04] everything that they currently do as

[2:34:06] well. Do you have anything to add there

[2:34:09] coun or council member Hutchings?

[2:34:11] >> No. Uh again, it was uh you know, it was

[2:34:15] great being able to interview them and I I don't know if Wayne got to

[2:34:18] interview all of them or just the ones

[2:34:20] that you and I had gone through, but um

[2:34:23] I believe this is our best pick for this

[2:34:26] position. Um and I think he's going to

[2:34:29] be a valuable asset to the planning

[2:34:31] commission.

[2:34:34] » Okay, with that, I will accept a motion.

[2:34:38] >> Make a motion.

[2:34:41] One more thing. I noticed on the

[2:34:42] resolution it's effective June 9th if

[2:34:45] we're approving it now. Is that still

[2:34:47] true or

[2:34:48] >> it'll be effective tonight.

[2:34:50] >> Yeah, we don't have another meeting

[2:34:52] until after

[2:34:55] >> it was tabled last time.

[2:34:58] >> So that's probably why it said that.

[2:34:59] >> Gotcha.

[2:35:02] But the content remains that

[2:35:03] >> it was on the schedule, but then there

[2:35:05] was one more person I think that I

[2:35:07] remember that needed to be interviewed.

[2:35:09] Yes, this individual I was having

[2:35:11] struggling uh scheduling issues. Not

[2:35:14] from him, from me. Um

[2:35:18] and so that's why he was delayed.

[2:35:19] >> Gotcha. Okay.

[2:35:22] >> Okay. So, I have a motion from Council

[2:35:23] Member Hutchings. Is that what I heard?

[2:35:26] >> I'll second it.

[2:35:26] >> Yeah.

[2:35:27] >> Okay. And a second from Council Member

[2:35:29] Lunt. Uh Council Member Lunt.

[2:35:31] >> Yes.

[2:35:31] >> Council member Hutchkins.

[2:35:33] >> Yes.

[2:35:34] >> Council member Balkovich.

[2:35:37] >> Yes.

[2:35:38] Council member Jones. Okay. Thank you.

[2:35:41] That resolution passes.

[2:35:43] Um I believe that there is an update

[2:35:46] that we could uh give you legally for

[2:35:49] legal update uh in a close session if uh

[2:35:53] I can get a motion for that.

[2:35:55] >> I'll make a motion.

[2:35:56] >> I have a motion from council member

[2:35:59] >> and a council council member. Second.

[2:36:04] >> Okay. and then we are going to be headed

[2:36:07] into um close session. Sherry, thank you

[2:36:10] so very much. We appreciate your input,

[2:36:13] your thoughts, and your support.

[2:36:15] >> Thank you,

[2:36:17] >> Mayor. Do we need a vote on that before

[2:36:19] you stop the recording?

[2:36:20] >> Probably. Thank you, uh, Council Member

[2:36:23] Jones.

[2:36:25] >> Uh, Council Member Malovich,

[2:36:28] >> yes.

[2:36:28] >> Council member Hutchings,

[2:36:30] >> yes.

[2:36:31] >> Council member Lunt,

[2:36:32] >> yes.

[2:36:34] Thank you. Appreciate all of your

[2:36:36] patience as I

[2:36:38] >> What about me?

[2:36:41] >> Okay, I'll accept a motion to adjurnn.

[2:36:43] >> I'll make a motion. Second adjourn.

[2:36:46] >> Thank you everybody.

City Council Meeting June 23, 2026

Transcript