[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.