City Council - Regular Meeting

I apologize. Don't apologize to us. It hurts you. It don't hurt me.

thank you for having us this first one that we're doing is ordinance 26-13 and it is to do a text amendment and amend title 16 chapters 16.04 and sections 1604 10 1604 15 1604 30 and 1604 50 of the Layton City Municipal Code and we are going to be adopting or asking to adopt the 2024 edition of the International Fire Code with the amendments and appendices. This comes up every three years for the fire code. We're replacing the 2021 edition of the fire code with the 2024 edition. We're proposing that the amendment to Title 16, Chapter 1604 and all those sections and the additional amendments to the 2024 edition of the International Fire Code. The purpose of most of the amendments are to clean up the language, improve consistency and the application of the codes and change the numbering in the new code. We also have a proposed amendment in there that includes the prohibiting of electric vehicle charging stations within parking structures. The electric vehicle charging stations and parking structure presents a risk to life and property, primarily due to the potential for intense, hard to extinguish lithium ion battery fires, which are exacerbated by the enclosed, often poorly ventilated, difficult for fire personnel to access. The low ceiling and densely packed nature of those structures makes it very difficult for us to get into. There have been, we're recommending that we add that to our fire code. We have... two occupancies in town right now that already have them, that they will not be required to remove them. But we want to try to get moving forward to keep those charging stations out from underneath those parking structures. So a parking structure is something that goes up, or is it a parking lot? parking structure is something that's above it. So we have residential living above that. So we have waiting station right now and where theirs is, is fairly accessible. It's not too bad. Whether we have across the street at Case Crossing and one of theirs is accessible, the other one's a little tough to get to, but they're working with us. And then we have the new one over by the mall that It's the same owner as Case Cross, but we're trying to get it in there now to just take them right out from those things.

So you don't have to mess with trying to fix it. The idea is so you can't put it in there, period.

Yes, so we can't put it in there, period. Electric vehicles are popular. A lot of people have them. There is a lot of data out there of that. Once one of those cars goes into thermal runaway, you can't put it out. You have to let it burn itself out. You pull it out in the middle of somewhere and just keep it keep it from lighting other things on fire, they're not the same as a normal car fire. If it's just the car, that's great. The battery, you think, stays intact. We feel that it presents an additional risk to the residents that are living above that if that happens. There's a lot of safeguards that are in those parking structures with sprinklers, water, the doors, two-hour separations, but if somebody goes to find why the fire alarm's going off and they open the stairway door and they charge that stairway full of smoke, we got ourselves a problem. So we had a video for you, but we've been advised we probably better not show it just because we don't know what the ads on the side of the YouTube might come up as. But there's some pretty impressive video on EV car fires inside garages from around.

So you recommend we go look at the video on our...

If you want to.

This is for commercial, not commercial, but... Non-residential.

Non-residential. Excuse me, that's not the right way to put it. Multifamily. Multifamily dwellings.

So if someone lives in a... To your point, I think the Tesla Model Y is the best selling car in the whole country. So we have lots of people who are buying electric cars. And many of them live in multi-level housing. So is there opportunities for there to be charging outside of the structure, still on the ground floor level?

Yes. That's what we're trying to get to us. Just keep it out from underneath. That's hard to access. We can't get a fire truck in there. We have a long pull. If we have to pull that thing out, it's going to be difficult to get it out of there. So we can't regulate or we can't foresee that you've charged your vehicle over at one of the outside vehicle charging stations and then you pull it up inside. Is it possible that it's still going to be a problem? Sure. But we're trying to mitigate that extra point of them actually plugging it in underneath to do that.

Putting them in a different spot is not right by the structure. Correct. Because I've seen, I was in, I was actually noticed that I was in Las Vegas a couple weeks ago and I was at a supercharger station, which was, there was this multifamily place and we were all here. and they didn't have any charging next to the building even the residents were required they had another lot where the residents were off campus they were still able to walk to their apartments but it was to your point it was just outside of the structure which allows them to be able to charge their cars at their at their residence which is what we want but we don't have the potential fire risk for the people who live in

Word is getting out. The research is a little slow. A real telltale sign is that State Farm has taken all of the charging stations out of their corporate headquarters parking garage and wherever they're from. That was a big headline on the thing. So why is State Farm doing that? Because they'll pay for one car, they don't want to pay for 40 underneath that parking garage.

And you were in the lithium aspect of it. What about the heater? Like, you plug it in your truck through the window.

The lithium-ion batteries are the ones that go absolutely... Yeah, I know. Yeah, they go crazy. But regular diesel cars or combustion engine cars, we can put those out.

Well, how? You can't get a...

No, but we would fight the fire the same way. We would pull from the outside. We would get in there and we could extinguish it. But if the lithium ion batteries go into thermal runaway, the best we can do is cool it and do our best to remove it and try to get it out from underneath there and then get it to where it's just going to do what it's going to do. there's documented things of going for days and even putting it out and then taking it to a auto body shop and then it's starting back up so it's we just want it out from underneath where everybody lives i got told yesterday at lunch not pound my uh screw gun the battery don't use that as a hammer

I said, all I do is move boards because they're not lined up right. He says, Dave, that's lithium.

That could blow up. Yeah. One of the things on the video we were going to show you had a guy in a gym that drops the weight on his phone. You kind of see his face like, I can't believe I just did that. And then all of a sudden he throws the phone because it just heated up in his hand and it starts to fire there. Staff is recommending that we, oh, sorry.

I just have a couple questions. So what are other municipalities doing? Are they doing the same thing? Now we're in the state.

We tend to lead out on things. We're trying to lead out on this one. We don't know of anybody else. I don't know of anybody else in the state that's doing it. We're trying to lead out on this because we've got one under construction and there's how many units do we have over at Lane Station? 156 people at least that can live there. And so we're trying to lead out on that. So that is part of the ordinance that we have. Well, it's not part of the ordinance. We've suggested that the people that have those add the blankets. Layton Station has a blanket in there. We've purchased two blankets. They will snuff the fire out. But there's also been some new research on that that has shown that the gases will get trapped underneath that blanket and they can be very dangerous. So it's a tool for us to try to get it snuffed out and pull it out. Layton Station has two, one blanket that's just off to the side so that, you know, we could do that. So yes, we do have those.

right have you you talked to the the builder who's doing the the new construction do they know about these concerns and is there a way for them to not put their charging station underneath

We're working with him right now to try to get the ones over here at Case Crossing. It's the same builder. It's the same builder that's doing both of them. We're trying to get the ones at Case Crossing. One isn't bad, but the one that's on the second level that's we're trying to get with him our building department is working with him and then with the plan over here they're already planned for in there but we're trying to get him to move them out but we can't make him move them out and he's been very good to work with he's a good he's a good partner to the city so we're hopeful he did mention to Paul Bauer, our building official, that this will cause him problems as a landlord because his residents want to be able to charge where they want to charge. But I don't think people think that they, you know,

Well, you got to realize what it can do.

Right. And, you know, we brought, as we were discussing this internally, we brought, Mr. Jensen brought up a very good point. We wouldn't allow a gas tank underneath there and you'd be able to fill your car with fuel. Right. Anyway, we are recommending that we pass this ordinance that will give us the 2024 International Fire Code with our amendments, which this happens to be one of them.

And you said these are the only two that we currently have in the city?

We only have two right now with the third one being built. So they're moving forward if it's passed? Right, yeah. Anything else that comes in after this will be... Okay.

I'm just thinking about how the conference center did their retrofit, right? They just put it across the street in their other parking lot. All their stuff's over there. And they're open anyway. Yeah. I'm just trying to think about any other opportunities for that.

In their parking lot.

IHC has them. The Seasons of Layton apartment complex is over behind Firehouse. They probably have a dozen of them scattered out around the outside of their parking lot. They're out there. They're just not under there.

Any other questions on that? Just one more. It says, electric vehicle charging stations should not be located within a parking structure. And I already asked that question, but it's obviously outside of that. But is there any benefit, Clint, Drake, to having that definition of parking structure be So it says that the structure, because I looked at that here, pursuant to automatic, the structure is located within these certain conditions. But I didn't see what that actual definition was. So maybe, I don't know if you think there needs to be some, if it's just implied.

like covered parking structures.

Yeah, because I mean, I just don't want there to be someone who maybe reads this and says, you know, I want to be able to provide this in the parking structure, and they maybe don't know what that means. So I don't want it to make it larger in scope than it needs to be.

Right. That's all my concern. I don't have a car. I don't have a car. This guy does. Me either. Are the charging stations, are those... dangerous as well? Or is it just the hookup with the car or the battery?

No, it can be both. Non-maintained one, secondhand ones people people that aren't people that don't have them grounded or they try to do it on the cheap right these outside ones they are inspected they are somebody somebody has to inspect those and if they have to replace them again they have to they're permitted all of all of that stuff those ones and people's holes we've I know of in Davis well not in Davis County but that we've responded on we've responded on to cars one was in kaysville one was here um and in somebody's garage they do they do they make a big mess but we can you know hook them and pull them out right the other lithium ion batteries that are going that are out there they're the ones that are causing a lot of fires and that and mostly because they're using second hand Chargers, you know, you think, well, I just burnt up my charger, so this one works. But it's rated for different things. So it's not, there's just more of an opportunity when you're having to connect and you're hoping that the prongs on the one end are intact and everything. There's just more of an opportunity to further a problem while they're charging. Thanks, Chief. Okay. Any other questions on that one?

Just one. I'm confused. Parking structure? Are we talking height? Or are we talking a garage? A house garage? No. We're talking... You're talking like a parking lot? Parking lot, yes.

Oh, okay. Not in somebody's garage.

We can't get there.

And I think Gavin's looking in the fire code. Clint's looking to see if the definitions of parking structure. Okay. Okay.

Let's go on to the next item.

Oh. Oh. You got something else? Well, this will be an effect. This will go into effect July 1. Okay. Sorry. All right.

The next item also with fire? Yes. You're going to take this one?

I've got this one too. Okay. All right. Go for it. Thank you. All right. So this is another similar one, and this is going to, for a few of you in here, this is going to sound like we just did this because we did. We did. We are doing a text amendment for to amend, again, Title 16, Chapter 1610 of the Latent City Municipal Code to adopt the 2024 edition of the International Wildland Urban Interface Code, including the appendices. And this will be ordinance number 26-14. What was it? Last December, we did this. We did this, and we had to, by state law, we had to adopt in 2006, and we had to create the WUI area. And in the WUI area, that also affected our firework area. um and so then this legislative session the legislature passed another bill that required us to adopt the 2024 version of the wildland urban interface code which is you know a lot better than the 2006 it's good most of that code is related to building and improving the ground was in the WUI area. One of the big things that they did to us is that they told us that we had to adopt a WUI map. Will you put that up for us, our current one? We had to adopt a WUI map that we had to have done by January. We did that. We did this. This is exactly what we did. We decided that based on the rules that the state gave us then, that this is what we needed. The legislature convened again and they changed the rules on us and they did a severity scale and they made suggestions and said, hey, in your community, we think this is where your high-risk stuff is. They still leave it to us to do, but we would have to then petition to amend what we decided to do. I'm going to pop up the URAP map real quick. This is the map that they gave us. It's a little hard to see, but if you can zoom in. Are you on that smooth structures thing? We'll zoom into the ridges. If you look down at the very bottom of the map, you'll see something that says six of eight high exposure. Where Gavin's pin is, the state, cursor is, the state has said that's a high exposure. If he moves west and moves down towards Highway 89, it moves down to a 4 or to a 3 or something like that even. The state is telling us that anything that's five or higher is a high risk. Now, we disagree with their assessment because they're basically just giving us the top end of Layton Ridges, basically Orson Neff Drive, and the very top of Twin Peaks up there. We believe that we have more of a problem. Historically, we've had two fires up there that have taken us days to put out, lost a lot of acres. So we are proposing to create our new WUI map of back to everything east of Highway 89. And everything west of Highway 89, the state has called that into a 4 or a 3. And we feel very comfortable leaving this as our wildland urban interface area. Like I mentioned before, the state law requires that anywhere that we designate in the city is the WUI, the Wildland Urban Interface. That is also a no-firework zone. So our firework map would go back to what we've historically had as everything east of Highway 89 is no fireworks, no open burning. Yeah, that's the old one. and everything west of Highway 89 to Fairfield and all that orange up there is going to be the no aerials. Back to what we've had historically for the last 15, 16 years-ish, something like that. We feel like we have very good compliance with the fireworks because people know, they understand what this is. So instead of us trying to change and you know, have to enforce small little fingers going down Sunset Drive or small little fingers going down Kays Creek where You can light them, but you can't because you live just, we just decided to go back to this. It's more defined. We're comfortable doing it. It doesn't change any help that we get from the state. If we have a fire down below like we did last year off the Case Creek Trail and we call in state resources, they're coming. And because we participate in the CWS and the CWPP, we bring in big heavy tankers they're going to help us pay for it and so it doesn't change anything so this is our recommendation to do everything east of highway 89 is our wildland urban interface which then takes our firework map back to this i have two questions i just what's the little square down there unincorporated that's unincorporated county just above the temple that's not our land we can't do anything about No, that might be the turkey sheds too, I think. Yeah, I'm sure. We'll go, but we can't enforce our fireworks there.

So somebody could sit there and shoot out fireworks.

Don't get any ideas, Councilman.

I'm not allowed to touch.

What's that? The county has no fireworks at all. So they can't, but you got to get a deputy to go up there and take care of that.

So when did we, we did this before. When was that effective?

The last time we made January, January, January 1st of 2026 this year.

And when we, when we did that, it was because we wanted to participate in the where the state would pay for, et cetera, et cetera.

To be considered to be a partner with the state on the Cooperative Wildfire System, we had to adopt the 2006, and we had to designate WUI zones, which is what we did in December. But now... We still have to do that.

But we're able to do that and still go back to what we had before?

Yes, because we're still participating. We are still designating that section of ground as the WUI, so we've met that statute. That's the only thing we have to do to meet the statute, the rules to get into work with the CWS and the CWPP. So we're doing the exact same thing, but now we have to go to the 2024 code, which then gave us the opportunity to change our WUI. Because we would have to appeal to the state And they would have to come out and do a better assessment because they do not like to do anything that's less than a four on that hazard scale. And that's being consistent across the state. We know the Provo's doing it. Bountiful's doing it. North Salt Lake's not doing it. But other agencies are doing it, and they're finding it's – we just got approved this week for what our – what our edits wanted to be so that we could do that. Because like I said, what the state said was just the top end of Leighton Ridge is just the top end of that. We got everything approved to 89.

Interesting, because when our first discussion was, it was a lot of this, we got to make sure we protect our liability, and we got to make sure that we play ball with them. We have a map that's more aggressive, and they're the ones that said, actually, your maps doesn't need to be that aggressive. It can be less stringent, which Think we had a discussion before they're that little spot you go to the other map I Remember because there was going to be someone that said, you know one of us you go to be to yeah one of us lives That one of us lived right here And that's what we really want to do fireworks that you just carve that out so I can make sure that you can shoot right and So I do like, at least for the residents, that they're used to the 89 east, no fireworks, anything west, no aerial. So I actually... I'm grateful that you didn't try to get this map back. Just say, okay, it's what you guys want. We can do the minimum threshold. We still want you guys to help us if we have problems financially and with help with the fires. And this will help the residents, I think, be able to feel the consistency.

And it sounds like your risk assessment of it justifies the map that we're going to approve.

Yeah, yeah. You know, they're... If we don't get any rain between now and September, which I mean, you've lived here for your whole life, we're gonna get some. But if we didn't get any, then we're gonna have a big problem in those areas, right? And we've had fires there before. We've had fires caused by a lawnmower. We had the one last year right by the Lake Christian Academy. We're going to jump on them as fast as we can and get there as fast as we can. There are risks because of the topography, because of the vegetation, because of the access. But one of the conversations we had internally was anybody that starts a fire there with a firework is probably doing something wrong. Like the fire that was at the bottom of 1450 East there.

And we'll continue to advocate throughout the entire city. If you have oak brush near your home and stuff, to advocate, try to plan and keep setbacks. Distance of five feet around your home, very hardened and secure. Many ember flows that might come. So try to prevent any type of catastrophe.

We do have quite a few mitigation projects that Gavin has been working on and in the budget we set aside a little bit of money to help us offset those a little bit because that also helps us get some matching funds from the state.

there any other questions on the 26-14 clint drake and i were in uh lpc when this came up again back in january and we were looking at each other like we just did this so yeah yeah we we did and it it there's i'll just leave with that it's it was yeah I just hate that we went through all that we went through to do it and to explain to residents. I mean, it's good education for them, I think, however. But just to do all that and be like, oh, well, actually, less than six months, we're going to go back. I mean, I know it's not anything that was prompted by us. It's not, you know, I blame or fault. It's just that when you do a lot of work to try and get residents on board with something they aren't really interested in, And then you're like, well, never mind.

At least we haven't had a July 4th or 24th.

Exactly. Right. So it only affected New Year's.

It only affected New Year's.

And maybe Chinese New Year's.

Our new map will be the same as what we've done in the past. We've got that, our IT guys and GIS guys are working to make that interactive. So when they pop it up on the city website, they can type in their address and it'll pin them and they can say,

no aerials or no you know whatever else is there that map that same map that the same type of map will be available uh then also at the firework cell sites will be the map there'll be a QR code on there to link them right to the interactive map that's on the city website so it's very easy for Are we allowed to require them to put that out? They have to.

That's required, right? Yes, it's required. And when you buy fireworks in South Ogden, you're going to see the South Ogden map, not the Leighton map. We get that a lot, too. When we stopped and said, well, I bought mine at the Walmart in South Ogden, I didn't see any Leighton map. They're not going to be there.

What? what in heaven's name is going to stop tomorrow as far as changing i mean is this done for a while because in what are we at five months they changed it this was this was definitely pushed i know it's not you guys right it was definitely pushed by the state legislature and they'll convene again in january and and who could so you could we already have another map so okay i mean it's kind of like I don't know what it's kind of like. I won't say because somebody will complain. I don't care about the camera and my wife.

Any other questions for us? I've got one. Go ahead. So the governor today declared drought, state of emergency, all counties. I don't know what that means exactly and how it relates to You mentioned up there we're going to have lots of kindling. How does that help Lake and Fire Department having this state of emergency and state resources or county resources?

What does that really mean? I don't think there's anything that's going to help us with anything. The authority-having jurisdiction can... We can shut down open fires. We can shut down all fireworks in the whole city if we want to. That's state law. We can do that if we feel like there's a need. I'm not sure what a declaration by the governor does for the fire department. What I can see as a negative is that Because the whole state is dry, we've already got fires going down by Fish Lake a little bit further south at 1,700 acres that was 90% contained. Texas is burning and they just sent two EMAC task forces to Texas. What I can see this being a problem is that if it continues to be dry everywhere, federal and state resources coming to us may be very delayed or non-existent. That could be a detriment. But as far as what the governor did, A, I haven't seen it, but I don't think it does anything for us as far as the health resources.

I think one of the things that we'll help is expedite what we have usually is a power order restrictions through the state. Usually goes to a stage one and then a stage two, that could escalate that faster, which would help also support local fire chiefs to provide restrictions in their

those fire restrictions would be for state lands and then the county fire warden can come out and put their thing out but it still it's anything inside the borders of us would be the decision that we make i had a similar question just that a lot of times i think when states declare you know a state of emergency so they can get federal funding yeah so i think the question was if we we if the state has declared that if that somehow flows to the local jurisdictions i think i think when that i mean if we had a natural disaster that that that's how the federal funds come down is that we then declare one which then the state then recognizes then the state declares one which then the feds will recognize and that that's how that money trickles this way yeah i think i do have since the chief's in on see if i do have a question i was going to bring it up during the comment section that i drove by

this smith that near the smith's warehouse today on both on what is that king street and on west hillfield road the weeds are a little tall so i was going to mention that to alex but since you're on the hot seat i i believe and correct me if i'm wrong City code only requires that property owners do the edges. I've burned enough fields in my time. If that field does catch on fire, that's going to be a big problem. So is it something that we could look at the code and say they can land? And basically, I'm asking your guys' opinions. that whole vacant piece of property needs to be mowed and maintained in a condition to reduce fire risk. Your opinion.

If it's the one I'm talking about, you've got the tracks on the east and then Hillfield Road on the one side. I would say right now it's probably green enough that I wouldn't be overly concerned with it, but come August, if they haven't kept it ground and if they're not pulling hay off of it or something, then I would be concerned for... not so much as the fire spread but as the embers where they could go they could go any which way right and then we could be off to the races at smith's kroger or anything like that so i think that properly you know groomed or maintained is that something not this point is that something we can look at the city code and then that code so it covers the vacant property not just the the edges of the property yeah

Because they're not wrong. If there's a consensus in the council to make that happen, we're happy to talk about that.

Because it's four foot tall. When you walk on the sidewalk on King Street, it'd be above 90.

Which is a good thing. You can ask if we have a consensus.

I was wondering if someone complains, like we're complaining. talk to the property owner and say, what you got here? That's just kindling.

It could light up without having to. I would say right now that's probably code enforcement, but it's not something that we can't stop by and say hello to. But I imagine they, I think there's a big building project about ready to see.

Well, they said they were going to, but that was too.

The current proposal for Kroger is they wanted to enhance their access Hopefully not too distant future here. But anyway, yeah, I think that would be a good thing to discuss.

And there's more than just that vacant piece of property. If it's being actively grazed, I can understand that. But if it's not being maintained at all, I think the whole property needs to be maintained, not just the edges around the roadways. They're not even doing the edges. Yeah.

They get reminded of this every year. Yeah. The enforcement thing. From the staff in the past, there's been an object of what you're talking about, Mike, and I think it's not a negative, but I think the issue would be how do you define so you can apply it consistently. That is kind of a unique one to a degree because of the proximity of the homes and because of the scale of it and the proximity of their own structures. Staff is not against that. My question was just, you know, if there's a consensus in the majority, obviously, then we're happy to look at that.

I mean, could we ask them?

I mean, are they... Yeah, just ask them and say, hey, they seem to be good...

neighbors well no i'm not just saying just smith's i'm saying to try to cover it no i understand what you're saying but smith's is the worst i've seen in late you know i mean both fields are yeah and it's not like corn or something growing wild it's just flat weeds and

generally again we have uh i'm not aware of this year but generally we have this discussion every year every summer and the encouragement i've asked the same question several times as why aren't we cutting the whole thing but the ordinance the way that it's written allows them any business if they choose to to meet the minimum which is the 10 feet around the edges basically i'm asking hey let's expand yeah we understand and respect that ordinance

doesn't accommodate that except through the volunteer nature of the business but the reason i'd like to see the ordinance change then it's clear that it doesn't give any yeah a wiggle room to a property owner that you need to maintain your property i'm i'm all for it i don't know what we're looking for here but you know 10 feet that to me doesn't mean anything

I'm sorry. I'm not a fireman. You know, I'm sure it's better than no feed, but it's still that kind of thing.

I understand the concern. I probably wouldn't, at least at this point, be in favor of changing it unless we had some sort of reason that the fire department was coming to us.

The one thing I'll add is that you do have that residue from the year before, so your fuel load is actually growing if it's not maintained. Yeah.

I maybe, again, if the fire department came and said, we need to do this as something we need to update, then I think I'd be more in tune with doing it, mostly because it's not being used. So I don't want to have some sort of landscaping where we have to meet certain minimum standards for a while and it's not being used. I don't want to overly burden people with property because it's not being used, but they have to be good stewards. So I would more be in favor of more rigorously enforcing when we have and then if we have issues maybe uh expanding it if the fire department says hey we're getting lots of people who are growing and they're not cutting it they're not listening to us they're not being you know good neighbors then maybe we do need to have a little bit more forceful approach that's just what i think don't we have an ordinance that requires anything over a certain item

that needs to be cut? I mean, I don't know. It seems like, I know they do a tree. The tree hangs down, hits the person in the head, you gotta cut it.

Yeah, it's the same standard except that there's a place where it breaks based on the acreage. It's a larger lot. If you have 20 acres, then what the ordinance says is that you just have to take the, where it butts against some kind of a structure that could burn, you only have to cut 10 feet on every side, and that's what Mike's talking about. So it has to come down. I've seen that at Ron Layton's property, they cut a swath. It's all based on an acreage standard. We can do some works and talk about it internally in terms of what we think some of the sites may be that would be, if there's an interest in doing that.

I would be interested in seeing how many sites that would be. To Zach's point, I think absolutely we are concerned about fire safety. But at the same time, if this is something that we're we're saying we need to do this but even your assessment when the question was asked was that it's okay right now type of thing and i just think that if we don't need to if we don't need to create an ordinance or modify an ordinance to make that happen i'd rather see code enforcement just go out and talk to them that said i know code enforcement is I know they have a lot to do and so that's the other thing if we do change the ordinance we already know how strapped code enforcement is now so then we change the ordinance does that mean that they're more strapped and they're not able to actually get to you know, the things that need to be done. So I just think we need to be aware of those things.

And I'm actually thinking of the wrong piece. You guys are saying King Street. It's the piece that's... There's both of them. The type of fuels that are in there are, I mean, they look heavy. We would consider them light. And, you know, if we had something like this that was full of

cedar or well yeah scrub oak or something else that and and and surrounded on both sides without a good fire break then i would be a little bit more concerned about that and like you know we have but well at least i haven't cut it they're not how high does it have to be before you're supposed to cut it 18 inches well that's this is 48 easy so i mean just to say cut a fire break

I will say, if you want, I did a little research on your request, but I'm not sure exactly what you want, Council Member Bloxham, but I've got a potential destination for you that would work, and I've got two of them for you. One of them just contemplates strictly multifamily, which is what we've talked about here. As I was doing it, I realized that there, I couldn't think of any within the city, but you could have an office building or something like that with parking underneath where you've got large amount of people assembled above so I'll read this part going out west or something like that so anything that you have it's just says this is what this is that so let me give you both of them you guys can tell me what what feels better and then of course you guys chime in if you have any concerns for the purposes of this section 611 so we're just going to limit it to that section The term parking structure shall mean any parking garage or carport that is attached to a multifamily residential building and has dwelling units or other habitable space directly above any portion of the parking area. and then if you wanted to expand it a little bit more it would be same thing for the purposes of this section parking structure means any parking garage or carport that is attached to a building in a manner that the occupied space including dwelling units tenant spaces offices and assembly areas is located directly above any portion of the parking area you guys contemplating businesses as well right it can it can so that number two suggested be better

For me, number two is better because if this is even in a business, and usually those businesses are occupied by people that are going to be able to get themselves out, the same thing would apply. Somebody just needs to go down the wrong stairwell to get to their car and pop a door, and now we're off to the races with toxic smoke racing the stairwell. So I like number two.

if we do get a business park or something like that yes and i i don't have an electric vehicle um but i see them more in business and whatnot we have some that may be coming so sorry another question just popped up so multi-family that where's the line or duplexes or Well, he said carport.

So yeah, you got carport there.

It's encompassing. It's more of the, but it's, carport is just from research. It's hard to imagine a carport with a space above it, but I can see somebody saying, no, that's a carport. Because it's open, kind of like a carport that, yeah.

But it's the dwelling space above it, so I don't think that that matters.

If it was one unit above it, that would be no different than a parking in your garage, in my opinion. Okay, good.

Okay, thank you. Yep, thank you, Chief.

Let's move on to our reports.

You would like to start us off? Just really quick, sorry, I'm interrupting. Our municipal code defines multifamily as three or more families.

Perfect, okay.

I'm gonna go real quick.

Parade applications, May 4th through June 5th. 25 bucks. Probably depending on what you're doing. $25 for a month. Surf and swim. You want to ask a question? I was going to ask Dave a question, but I can move our two to the park. I'm Dave. The other Dave. Okay, you can ask the other Dave. It's price.

The Dave with the suit coat on. Oh, that's not me. That's not you. I think Bettina and I talked about this last year, and I don't know if it's been addressed, so Dave's just highlighting. recording we had a situation I think it was this last year or the year before about some politically charged parade information and again this is First Amendment zone right and so we want to make sure we are making space for that but I didn't know if with the parade floats application if we

discussions about that to try to prevent maybe some of the stuff that happened before within the confines of the person in obviously we have and so two years ago there was a situation where a person self started on the parade he just walked in from the crowd and joined the parade and was offensive not only in the type of message, but how it was portrayed. And so at that time we did have the police escort him off the playground. Since then we have changed the application process. So we take all applications, and then we jury them and we let them know which ones are accepted into the parade. That allows us to have a quick look to see who's coming. Again, if someone self-deploys under the parade, we'll ask them to leave.

We have a lot of political candidates, and obviously they want to have their place in the float. It's much easier for us when we're running because it's not a partisan, it's just a good person. But I know we have had partisan candidates, which we invite that. That's totally fine. And I just didn't know if we had made any sort of restrictions on who can actually do that, because I know we're in tough territories to do that. But we want it to be family friendly. It's a parade. You know, we had another situation a few years ago where one of the floats was a little interesting for a family-friendly parade on the Fourth of July. So I appreciate that. Thank you. I was just trying to remember exactly what we had done.

We also, in the past, we have had groups that have come out and let us know right off the bat that they are here to protest. And we have worked with the police department to find a protest zone. Thank you. Sorry, did I just mean that?

Bayview was a good protest zone.

You never ask me where to send people, right? Out of all these places.

The only other thing is if residents want to buy a Serpent Swim Pass for the year, a family pass is $150 for a family up to five, and that's residents only. And if you've got six, it's an extra $25 for each person.

individuals 50 per person and this has been a very popular thing the last couple years so an individual or family can buy something just through the school summer time and it's been good for the kids i'm going to buy it so my grandkids can bathe

their neighbors thank you we do have our convention conference coming up June 10th through the 12th so that will be taking place i think we are moving closer to getting south weber on board with participating with us we had one of our executive board members presented at their city council meeting last week And it went well. They've actually asked for our CTC to, I think it was have a, either have a booth at one of their summer days events. I don't know if it's the 4th of July or the 24th or something. um anyway they've asked us to come and present that in their city and that would just kind of help to get their city on board and why we care about this for those who don't remember is because the south weaver kids go to northridge and our ctc dollars and programs support all of our high schools in layton and if we can get the south weaver city folks on board then that is resources that help to support what we're currently supporting on our own, and so that's looking favorable. That's all.

Nothing from the UIA. Maybe I'll, do you want to, Clayton and I had talked on the phone earlier today about a lot of the emails that we received about the dog park. which i am grateful that we have been kind of coming to the table with people who maybe are opposed to the dog park just so we can have a more vigorous discussion because when we had the idea of the eastridge nature park as the potential discussion point it wasn't We haven't had a debate or discussion about it. We just have the parks and rec experts give us some recommendations about where this thing might go. And now that we have kind of both sides of the community involved in the discussion, I think it will be very helpful. And so I think we're going to have many of them here today who oppose. uh the the park there that again we haven't decided on it's just part of the fact-finding mission um but it's one of those things that as councilman morrison talked on the phone today and just to share with you guys a good opportunity for us either in that setting out there or sometime in the future meeting to actually hopefully the mayor can put it on the agenda for us to actually discuss it in an open meeting out there so that we can actually talk about it instead of just kind of being on the receiving end of public comment after public comment where we just kind of sit there and tell them thanks for sharing your insights when we haven't really even talked about what our opinions are on the dog park and whether that's a good place for it to be. So I just think it's something that we need to have discussed sooner rather than later instead of just having kind of being on a receiving end of a lot of public comment.

It was my understanding that when we agreed to have that ramp funding kind of cover the last portion of that, that we were like, yeah, we'll do an off-lose trail site, not necessarily a dog park in the sense of what a lot of people are calling a dog park. But that was my understanding and I do think that we need clarity and discussion about if that means that there's a portion of that off leash that is for off leash or if it's the whole thing. If it's, you know, there are times where folks can come with their dogs without leashes versus others. I think a lot of those details haven't been discussed at all we've discussed this at length but if you're you didn't remember that you know that was a part of what we did then I do think we definitely need to have more discussions about it so that it's understood by all of us what it is we're trying to do and then I think those details need to be discussed and decided upon really because folks are Folks are on either end of this spectrum, and we just need to be able to have one answer for what that means.

And the ramp project, that application was, to your point, to finish the infrastructure, the amenities for the park. And whether we're going to have spots or not, The things that were on that list of benches and gazebos, well, the bathroom's already there, but dog stations for baggies and water stations, those would be there anyway. If it's going to be a trail and we're going to use it like we have in our other parks, that would be there anyway. To a point, we've got to figure.

Yeah, I guess my understanding with the ramp funding, and you can correct me if I'm wrong, Dave, is that We went for the ramp funding to get the park finished, to get the nature park finished. And the idea of whether that was going to have an off-leash dog component of it was still up for discussion.

We left those meetings with a basic understanding that that was the direction we wanted to move forward, was that this nature area would be open to dogs off-leash. If we've misunderstood that, then please...

No, I don't think so. I just think that it was, and maybe other people can chime in as well. We were receiving a lot of discussions about it, and you guys did all the yeoman's work to get all that information to us. My, I guess, the way I stood, and Clint, you could come in on this too. Our idea was that the park was obviously why we were funding, and the idea is if we needed to have that component of the dog park added as part of the park's finished look was something that we were going to discuss if we really had a chance to discuss it.

And in the part of the application of the project, it does mention that it's city council mayor's priority, the dog.

but yeah what it looks like we don't know what it looks like yeah and to your point um a lot of the programming that will occur in this area we have not brought those details to yet and so some of that those finer details we can still discuss. But again, the funding is in place to finish the park, unless we misunderstood to move in this direction. But of course, we're always up to your correction.

so that means we need to put it on because i think we're still thinking about it in whatever ways we're thinking about it i'm thinking of it as there's an off-leash element in this because that's what we discussed but maybe zach's not thinking that and i don't know so i think we need to still have that discussion um and we will likely hear tonight about why yeah with all the emails that we've all received today

was going to reach out to dave and joe ellen and say okay brief me on where we're at because now i'm here and yeah you guys heard different stuff that sounds like so and i think another portion of this is that people who really want the dog park those residents and then we've listened to them and we've tried we're trying to be responsive to them right um Ironically, a lot of their discussion has been, we want this to be more of a social place, which is why a lot of the folks who have come have said, we know that this idea of this park being, that's not what we wanted. We wanted something that was different. And we're trying to meet them in the middle, and now we have a group of residents who are saying, well, we don't want this nature park for the reasons that they all mentioned. This isn't meet our criteria, too. And so I think the idea is, hopefully we can get it on an agenda item where we can actually decide you know is this the spot for it or is it something or is this another place that we need it to be um because i want to have those discussions well we need to yeah yeah we could do that okay next day thank you yeah okay i attended uh open doors

board meeting yesterday morning. They moved into their new facility. They had their board meeting there. Really nice facility. Nursery, everything's right there. Really good. They should close on the transaction to sell the clear period. property this august the day on that then yeah on the home they actually made the last payment last month on that property so they're just going to take the funds that they received to pay put towards the note on the new facility the lake facility is for sale and then the other highlight item i thought i'd mention it looks like the trans transfer of their food bank to That should be done in place by Christmas is what they're shooting for so then they don't open doors won't really have a portion Interested

take down which they're actively looking for another distribution center up here and ironically I ran into the gal today and I gave her a lead on it open doors

what the location was oh no that they that one was too small they've already put that because that was initially on the table and they're on that the existing one on 193 is way too small for what they want to do more storage yeah that's all that's good thank you mike i've got one item and turn the time over to the mayor mayor we've gone through we had all the discussions the text amendments and so it's got one one last item here the ramp commission continues to meet and they are working on recommendations for the ordinance some changes yeah so to the actual ordinance they're also still working on updates to the application process to try to make it even easier than it has been and so taking it serious once again i think i think they'll bring it to us and then it's gonna be up to us to figure out what we wanna what we want to do and our ideas as well. I just don't want, I mean, they're going to come up with a recommendation, but it's up to us. And they've been having some discussions about policy-type issues that's not their lane. And so it would be good for us to jump in after these recommendations show up and help out. If we need to, it could come back and say, yeah, this is exactly what we want. Go for it. But we have to do it.

We have to say that's okay.

I have one more that I forgot to bring up. This is probably to staff and Alex. When we discussed a couple of meetings ago, and I think even brought it up last meeting, about changing that landscape ordinance to be in compliance with the state water saver situation. I don't know, I guess I thought we might would have seen that in the last meeting and we didn't. So is that something that's coming to us in the near future as in next meeting perhaps?

Yes, it is. Because of the, that's the earliest we could do it because of the notice timelines. Both the planning commission and the council. So, Clint actually asked about that today and Weston and I talked a few days ago and I couldn't remember the details but I called Weston again And that item will go to, on the 24th of May, to the Planning Commission, and it will come here on the first meeting in June. Okay.

Do you want to see it?

No, I just voted it. I had the same question. Yeah, that's for the Planning Commission first. That makes sense.

Yeah, that makes sense.

It's staggered, and we were hopeful. Pretty easy.

I think we were moving as fast as we could, but thank you for asking about that. That's good. It's a priority. Yeah.

Maybe I'll just say one thing to Dave and you guys. Sometimes when we get the head nods, sometimes that can mean, head nods don't mean a lot, right? And so you guys did not do anything wrong. I'm not trying to say that you guys took the direction the wrong way. Sometimes I can say, head nod, you guys are going the right direction. I don't want the dog park there, but do the research because these guys do. We never actually vote on it, but the head nod's the same. So sometimes maybe that could be us, maybe me personally giving better direction about where I actually stand on things. Because I'm just one, I'm not three. in new three to move it forward. And so I don't want any of my comments to mean that you guys didn't listen to what we were saying, because my understanding was it was to a point where, to your point, Clint, we can make the final determination as the council as to the scope of the dog related amenities at this park. Not that the parks not going to be there. We funded the park That's what I voted for the land commission to fund the park and then if the amenities at that dog facility are It's a full off leash and we let dogs run wild or if it's just we have some baggies or whatever For people to pick stuff up. That's what we decide, but we haven't decided that yet. And that's what I wanted to get on Yep Okay mayor, it's all yours

So you guys have gone through the first four items, then, is what I'm hearing.

Just wait for your report in the closed session.

Well, I don't have a lot to report on. I did last time, but this time I do not. I really don't have a comment other than I will say that we're getting closer to the July 4th holiday, which means also the 250th celebration, so I think we all need to kind of amp that up a little bit. I think it would be great to do a quick video of all the different things we're going to be doing and what we've got on the store, which I'd like to do it like we did the water, where each one of you guys take just a little spot. And I'm going to highly encourage us that we all get out and decorate our houses. I'm planning on doing mine, hopefully, this weekend, if the weather works out, because, you know, I mean, that's one of the activities, so.

So I can do one more, and then you'll be okay. Just put a big flag.

That's what I'm doing. Yeah. Every year, just a big flag the whole side of the house.

I have one from the Capitol. Maybe we can pick what activity we do.

That's the whole purpose.

There's plenty for anybody to do.

I got a Quick Book item that I have. We've got to get it in.

The deadline's passed, but it's not. I intentionally said we extended it to the end of July. Initially, it was the 15th of this month.

Are you going to have us dress up as founding fathers and mothers? Yeah, that's a good one.

Really?

Good idea.

Was that a request or was that?

If that be the case, I'm stuck with them.

If that's the case, we're going to have to call you right now. All right.

You just got us a remake of Hamilton or something? No, that would be fun.

That would be good. Anyway, so yeah, that's my report. What?

No, after the UL Utah League, the guest speaker. I don't think we should dress up as panelists.

Yeah, that's true.

We all killed each other. Long story.

Yeah.

Yeah.

Okay, well then that just leaves us on the last item, which is a closed-door session. And I know Patina needed to step out and give her husband something, so...

I'll entertain a motion that we go into that closed-door meeting. So in the meantime, we can work on anybody who's not part of that meeting. I'd like to go ahead and call our Layton City Council meeting this evening, which is May 21st order. We appreciate everyone being here in attendance tonight. And as customary, we do like to continue with a opening ceremony. So I will now turn the time over to Council Member Bloxham for leading us in the pledge and the prayer.

Thank you, Madam Mayor. I'm going to open with a prayer, and then we're going to stand and recite the Pledge of Allegiance. Heavenly Father, we're grateful for our many blessings. We're grateful to meet together as a community to be able to discuss the issues that affect our city and its residents. We're grateful for the freedoms that we enjoy. We ask you to please bless those who work for the city, those who protect us, who make sure that our lives are benefited and we're grateful for their service to the city. We're grateful for our residents and ask you to please bless them with safety and with all the things that they desire. We're grateful to live in a country where we can discuss issues and for the freedoms we have and we ask you to please bless the discussion and dialogue today that it can be conducive to good citizenship. We're grateful for all we have, and we say this in the name of Jesus Christ.

Amen.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Okay, thank you, Councilman Bloxham. I'd like to acknowledge a special guest we have sitting up here on the stand with us tonight. As many of you know, we have an active youth council, and I've got with me Mr. Jack Groves, who is part of our youth council. So, Jack, would you want to take a moment and tell us a little bit about yourself? I'm going to have you come forward and speak in the mic so people can hear you.

I'm Jack Groves. I'm a council member, and I joined just because I love watching all the things happen in the government. And right now, we're taking a little break for the summer, and we'll continue meetings in June.

Awesome. Well, thank you. And along those lines, we want to acknowledge all of those that have graduated as well. So I know we've got graduations that have taken place this week, and I want to just wish all of our seniors the best of luck and continued education, hopefully. Okay, with that, then I'll go ahead and come back to our agenda item, which we have one set of minutes that needs to be approved at this time. So, Council, I'll turn it over to you to take action, providing they are written correctly.

Madam Mayor, I move that we approve the minutes from Layton City Council meeting April 16th, 2026. Second.

It's been moved and second that we approve the minutes as written. All in favor, please say aye.

Aye.

Any opposed? Aye. Okay, thank you very much. We'll now go on to our municipal announcements. And I know that we have several folks here that sit, several of the council members that sit on different bodies. What am I trying to say? Organizations as well as our own parks and recs. So I'll turn the time over to them for announcements.

Yeah, sorry, I was reading the... The movies. See what I could go see. This is on the pool for those of you that are swimmers. They have a resident only swim passes. It's 150 bucks for a family of five and then $25 additional for each person. An individual pass costs $50 per person, and that should take that. You can pay for it at the Parks and Rec offices. Also, if any of you are desirous to build floats for July 4th or walk or whatever, applications are due by June 5th. And what they do is they take all the applications, adjudicate them, and then call you back and say, yeah, go for it. So that's how that'll happen. It'll cost you $25 to get it processed. That's what I got. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. Anyone else? Councilman Smith-Edmondson.

Thank you. I just have a reminder from the last meeting. We have a Layton Communities That Care, and this is our local prevention program for youth. And we also have adults, and we have a community board. And this board... It puts on programs and services to help prevent youth from substance use, drug use, and suicide. And so with our CTC, we have a joint Davis community survey that we're participating in right now for North Davis, South Davis, and our Layton CTC. There is a link that you can go to to fill out this survey. We're looking for information from parents. And the survey link is tinyurl.com forward slash North Davis parents. If you go to that link, that website will give you the Davis Community Survey. And we want to know what parents in our area think, what's going on, and how you feel that you can help with prevention efforts for our CTC and for our youth. the other announcement I have is that we are hosting a snack drive because in the summer here in Layton we have three schools where we participate in summer activities for our youth like a summer camp and that snack drive will commence on May 30th or end on May 30th you can drop your donations off in the parks and rec building just right over here as you're entering into surf and swim and we're expect excuse me accepting those donations through May 30th, and they will go to support Layton kids who are participating in the summer camp through the summer months.

Okay, excellent. Anyone else? Okay, seeing that there's none, we'll go ahead and move on. Tonight on item number three, we do have a verbal petition, and that would be presented by our Davis Arts Council.

Good evening, mayor and council members. Lisa Zamora, Davis Arts Council Executive Director, Layton, Utah. On behalf of the Davis Arts Council, or DAC, I would like to briefly update you on this summer's programming at the Ed Kenley Centennial Amphitheater and thank Layton City for its continued partnership. Our Summer Nights with the Stars concert series has now been fully announced and tickets are on sale at davisarts.org. Community response has been good. With the Marshall Tucker Band nearly sold out, we encourage residents to purchase tickets soon while seats are still available. Our Layton City Ramp-supported Free Friday Films series begins May 29th with Wicked for Good. Other featured films this season include K-Pop Demon Hunters, National Treasure, Tron Aries, and the live-action version of Lilo and Stitch. These Friday night films are designed to give residents an easy and affordable way to start their weekends together in Layton. In Layton. Sorry, excuse me. Each event will feature themed activations, including trick-or-treating and costumes at the Nightmare Before Christmas and children's book giveaways during Paddington and How to Train Your Dragon. We are also hosting the Heritage Museum of Layton, Davis County Libraries, Layton City Parks and Recreation, and others this season to help patrons connect with additional amenities and resources in our community. Residents can finish their weekend strong with the ramp-supported free Sunday night concert series featuring local musicians and other performers from throughout the region. This year's series will also include two America 250 community events, including a special Flag Day event featuring USO-inspired entertainers, America's Sweethearts, and patriotic giveaways. Beyond DAC's amphitheater programming, Davis Arts Council is proud to support Layton City events throughout the summer, including Liberty Days and the 4th and 24th of July celebrations. We appreciate the city's continued support as we work to provide a well-attended, all-ages events that bring residents together and keep the amphitheater active throughout the season. We are proud to be Layton City's Arts Council. Thank you. Thank you very much.

That was good. So if anyone in the audience wants to understand or look at the different movies, the website?

Davisarts.org. D-A-V-I-S-A-R-T-S dot O-R-G. We have all of our free programming and paid programming detailed there.

OK.

Thank you very much. Thank you. We appreciate that. OK. Our next item on the agenda is our citizens comment portion. But before I open that up, I do know that I want to acknowledge the fact that we have received several emails in the last week. And just by a show of hands, how many people are here to speak in regards to a dog park? Very good. Okay, I hope you can appreciate this, but that's basically the majority of the folks here. So what I would like to do is go ahead and exercise a personal privilege here and adjust our schedule. so that we go ahead and take care of our business items first, and then we'll come back to our citizens' comments so that we allow enough time for you folks to go ahead and express your feelings and that. So if you wouldn't mind, I'd like to go ahead and go on to item number five then, which is our consent items. And just for the record, on our consent items, we have three items listed this evening, and all three items, once they are presented, then we can actually vote on them in one single action as a governing body. So at this time, I'd like to go ahead and turn the time over to Chief Alan Swanson to go ahead and talk about an interlocal agreement between Layton City, Clearfield, Davis County, a whole bunch of us, basically.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. Thanks for having me. Resolution 26-7 pertains to a proposed interlocal agreement between Layton City, Clearfield City, and Davis County in order for the three entities to share program funds under the Justice Assistance Grant, known as the JAG Grant. Layton City, Clearfield City, and Davis County have submitted a joint application for this grant in the amount of $29,207. Layton City completed the grant application and will administer the grant for all three agencies. Latent City has administered several of these joint applications for Davis County area and is familiar with the procedures required by the Department of Justice. And this grant does require this interlocal agreement regarding the distribution and use of these federal funds. Just to give you the amounts, Layton City, it's in a direct ward. So Layton City gets $16,736, which we plan on using for modular training walls, with your permission. Clearfield's portion is $9,551, which they're going to use for a surveillance camera. And then the Davis County Attorney's Office gets $2,920, and they want to use it for computer equipment. Staff recommends the council adopt resolution 2627, approving the local agreement between the three entities for this 2025 grant. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions the council or the mayor has about this grant.

Okay, any questions? Very good. Thank you. Well presented. Okay. Thank you very much. We'll go ahead and move on to item number B. Our other chief, Scott Maughan, will be presenting actually the next two items. So the first one is in regards to international fire code and amendments.

Thank you, Madam Mayor, Council. I can't decide if I want my glasses or not, so I'll try without for a second. The first one is Ordinance 26-13, which is a text amendment to amend our latent city code, Title 16, Chapter 16, 04, Sections 010, 015, and 030. The city has maintained a fire department for the purpose of protecting life and property within Layton City from fires and other dangers. The city has previously adopted and utilized the 2021 edition of the International Fire Code with its amendments. The fire department is proposing an amendment to title 16 chapter 1604 to amend the latent city municipal code and additional amendments to the 2024 edition of the international fire code. The proposed amendments are meant to clean up the language, improve consistency of the application of the codes and change the numbering of the new code. Staff recommends the Council adopt Ordinance 26-13, approving the amendments to Title 16 of the Latent City Municipal Code to adopt the 2024 edition of the International Fire Code to be effective as of July 1, 2026. I'm happy to answer any questions the Council or the Mayor may have.

Any questions, Council?

I don't have any questions except for would you be able to expound on something you mentioned in the back about the electric car chargers just because that wasn't included in your summary?

Okay, yes. The proposed amendment also includes the prohibiting of electric vehicle charging stations within parking structures. Electric vehicle charging stations and parking structures presents risk to life and property primarily due to the potential for intense hard to extinguish lithium ion battery fires which are exacerbated by the enclosed often poorly ventilated and difficult for us to access places where those vehicles are. our recommendation is that we prohibit EV charging stations in parking structures that have residential living above it to protect the life of the citizens that live there.

Thank you. And just to clarify what that means, well, not what that means, what the impact is presently, we only have two locations currently?

We currently have two locations that have these electric chargers installed. in their parking structure. This ordinance, this amendment does not change that. We'll work with them. Most of them are in locations that are accessible to us. But moving forward, it will eliminate the possibility of somebody being able to charge their electric vehicle underneath that enclosed space.

And so the idea is that new development, they will know if this ordinance is passed tonight that they can't put an electric charging station in that location where you've got three or more homes above that parking structure space.

That's the definition that we're going with, yes, yes.

And so that doesn't prohibit them from putting it outside of that location. It doesn't prevent them from having another parking lot, per se, that doesn't have dwellings over it. But we just don't want them to be enclosed. Correct.

We encourage the construction and the use of the electric vehicle charging stations outside, well-ventilated, with good access. having a fire there is not going to stop it from getting to the next car over, but we don't worry about 300 occupants above it. Thank you.

Madam Mayor, in the work meeting we discussed the definition with the city attorney, so when we move forward with this motion, do we just mention the language that was discussed during the work meeting as part of the motion?

Yeah, if that's what the council wants to do, then I can just read it into the record for you.

Very good. Any other questions? Okay, seeing that there's none, let's go ahead and go on to the third item.

thank you. We are here to recommend the council pass ordinance number 26-14. 26-14 is a text amendment amending again title 16 and chapter 1610 of the latent city code and adopting the 2024 edition of the international wild land urban interface code including all of the The fire department is proposing an amendment to the wildland urban interface map. We're proposing to change it from the one that we adopted back in January. We have the map of our proposed changes up on the screen right now. we're proposing that the that we designate pretty much everything well not pretty much everything east of highway 89 as our wildland urban interface as we talked and for those that weren't there and just for everybody in the room. we designate the wildland urban interface that also has a direct correlation to fireworks restrictions and so when we anything that the city designates as the wildland urban interface we will it will also require zero fireworks in that area so our it will be a total restriction for fireworks east of 89 no aerials no ground blooms the firecrackers the sparklers nothing east of highway 89 and then west of highway 89 to Fairfield and so this this ordinance has two different uh... two different dates uh... staff recommends the council dot ordinance twenty six dash fourteen to approve the amendments of the title sixteen chapter sixteen ten of the latest city municipal code and adopted twenty twenty four edition of the international wildland urban interface code which will be effective january first of twenty twenty seven and the amendment to update the will we map will take effect on july first of twenty twenty six Happy to answer any questions that council or mayor may have any questions at this time

Thanks, Madam Mayor. So the state legislature had us do some changes the last legislative session, the one before. This last legislative session, they changed it again. And so this map here is the same as it's always been. We're back to where we were before. Correct. For the fireworks restrictions.

that is the map for the firework restrictions we can use that same map everything in red east of highway 89 is now our wwe area it correlates and so we don' t have to go back and forth so by doing this we were compliant with the state law were also compliant with the rules and the guidelines that we have to have by adopting the 2024 wwe code and a WUE area so that we can participate in the CWS and the CWPP projects. And if we ever have a problem in town, we're compliant. We're going to get the help we need from the state.

Okay. Very good. Now, this is a lot of work, and we appreciate that because it's well needed. Any other questions?

Okay. Thank you. Very good.

Thank you. Okay, that was our three items on our consent item, so I'll go ahead and bring it back to the council to go ahead and take action regarding these items. And if you could, you can briefly state what the item is in the resolution or ordinance. Okay. Okay.

Madam Mayor, I move that we approve Resolution 26-27, Ordinance 26-13, with the definition for parking structures as read into the record by the city attorney, and Ordinance 26-14.

Very good. Is there a second?

Okay, I'll acknowledge the second so now we'll go ahead and take it to a vote so all in favor and accept before we do that I'll go ahead and read that into the record before you vote the definition so that so that Kim's got it and yes So it'll be for the purposes of this section 611 parking structure shall mean any parking garage or carport THAT IS ATTACHED TO OR INTEGRATED WITH A BUILDING IN A MANNER THAT THE OCCUPIED SPACE, INCLUDING DWELLING UNITS, TENANT SPACES, OFFICES, ASSEMBLY AREAS, OR SIMILAR USE, IS LOCATED DIRECTLY ABOVE ANY PORTION OF THE PARKING AREA.

THANK YOU. WE'LL NOW BRING IT BACK AROUND FOR A VOTE. SO I'VE HAD A MOTION AND IT'S SECOND. SO ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE SAY AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? Okay, thank you very much. It passes unanimously. We'll now go on to item number six, which is our public hearing portion of our meeting. So at this time, I'm going to call up Mr. Morgan Cloward, who will present the Development Block Grant Annual Action Plan.

Good evening, Mayor and Council. Good evening.

the Latent City Community Development Block Grant Annual Action Plan. This covers program year July 1st, 2026 through June 30th, 2027. The plan outlines how the city allocates allotment of CDBG funds from HUD. This next slide shows the proposed activities that we would like to fund for the upcoming program year. If you're familiar with the current program year, the funding amount on this is nearly identical. It's only about $5,000 less for the upcoming program year. We have administration and planning, homebuyer assistance, that's our down payment assistance program, critical home repair and rehab, that's our partnership with Habitat for Humanity, and we have a fair amount set aside for that just because currently there's a critical need for home repairs and rehab within the city limits, and HUD's mission is to provide decent housing THAT'S A TOP PRIORITY WITH HUD. AND THEN WE HAVE OUR PUBLIC SERVICE PARTNERS OUTLINED BELOW THAT, AND THOSE WILL HAVE TO FIT UNDER A $58,000 CAP FROM HUD. SO THERE'S A LIMITATION ON THE FUNDING FOR THAT. SO THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE PROPOSED. THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TO OUR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT COMMITTEE. AND THEN IF THAT LOOKS ACCEPTABLE TO THE COUNCIL, THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COUNCIL ADOPTS RESOLUTION 2621, ADOPTING THE ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR UPCOMING PROGRAM YEAR 2026 AND 2027. Are there any questions about that?

Okay. Council, any additional questions you have here? Seeing that there's none, then I'll go ahead and entertain a motion to open up our public hearing.

MADAM MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I'LL NOW OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. SO ANYONE WHO WISHES TO SPEAK REGARDING THIS ONE ITEM ON THE COMMUNITY BLOCK GRANT, MORE THAN WELCOME TO. IF YOU COULD, JUST COME UP TO THE MIC AND STATE YOUR NAME. YEAH, WE'RE JUST ON THE LAST OFFICIAL BUSINESS ITEM.

That's okay.

So anyone who wants to speak regarding this public hearing item on the block grant, please state your name and what city you're from.

I'm John Russell. I represent Habitat for Humanity and we offer the critical repair program specifically for this community development block grants in Layton City. So all Layton residents that are low to moderate income can apply for the program and for any deferred maintenance items. We appreciate our relationship with Layton City and the CDBG funds allow us to continue this funding and this critical home repair. It offers housing stability for those that are current homeowners. We know that housing affordability is one thing. Housing stability is another that we need to address. So we just wanted to stand before you guys and appreciate your time. And we appreciate Morgan and all that he puts into that. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate that.

Me again. Just kidding. Emily Hilstead, representing Safe Harbor Crisis Center here in Layton, Utah. And this is Mona Benson.

I oversee our housing and shelter services at Safe Harbor.

And we just wanted to be here and not only thank Morgan, but all of you guys for helping this critical service needed in Davis County and in Layton, Utah. Our partnership with this city is phenomenal, as you guys well are aware. And to anyone who needs, who doesn't know safe Harbor crisis center is the only domestic violence and sexual assault center in Davis County. So we are the only center of our kind here in this County. So we do appreciate the partnership that we have with you guys. Thank you.

Thank you all. Housing funding is hard to come by. So we really, really appreciate the partnership and the support of the city. Okay. Thank you very much.

Carlene Kidman with Layton Community Action Council at Youth Court. And I just want to ditto, thanks Morgan. He's great to work with. I really enjoyed working with him. And thanks Mayor, City Council, Attorney's Office, and Alex, everyone. Because without your support, we couldn't run our Youth Court. And we have been really, really busy. and hopefully keeping kids out of trouble and going further in the juvenile justice services. So thank you again. Thanks for your support.

Thank you for all your time. Okay, anyone else? Okay, seeing that there's no other comments then, I'll go ahead and bring it back to the council to take action on our public hearing item. Included in your motion, we need to close our public hearing.

I'll make the motion close public hearing. And I also make the motion to approve the Community Development Block Grant Annual Action Plan for 2026-2027, Resolution 26-21.

Perfect. Do I have a second? Second. Okay. It's been moved and second that we approve the community block grant. Being that this is a public hearing, I will go ahead and do a roll call vote. So I'll start with Council Member Morris. Aye. Okay. Council Member Kalindianas.

Aye.

Council Member Smith-Edmondson. Aye. Council Member Thomas. Aye. And Council Member Bloxham.

Aye. Aye.

OK, thank you very much. That is unanimous regarding our public hearing item. So now we'll go ahead and move to our item number four, which is the consent item. And I think before we get into this, I personally just want to go ahead and read a statement that I feel like I need to address at this time. Again, I appreciate everyone reaching out to us. But as Mayor Layton, I appreciate the thorough input. that I have received and I know the other council members have received regarding the possibility of creating a designated off-leash walking trail in our city at the East Ridge Nature Preserve. This discussion reflects the passion of our residents for our community, our parks, and the quality of life that we want to maintain here for everyone. This issue has generated strong feelings on both sides. And I believe it's important that we continue to have the conversation respectively, productively, and with a focus on the solution that serves the broader community's interest. I have a couple of quick thoughts and comments regarding this, and hope that we can have a productive dialogue. But first and foremost, I think it's important to note that Our early discussions on this are going to be ongoing and a couple of things to consider. There are residents who strongly support the idea of a designated off-leash space for dogs and would welcome this proposal. There are also residents with legitimate concerns regarding the safety, maintenance, noise, costs, and the preservation of our shared public space. BOTH PERSPECTIVES DESERVE TO BE HEARD RESPECTFULLY. MOVING THIS CONVERSATION FORWARD REQUIRES COLLABORATION, PATIENCE, AND A WILLINGNESS TO LISTEN TO ONE ANOTHER. RATHER THAN APPROACHING THE ISSUE AS A DIVIDED OPPOSING SIDE, WE SHOULD CONSIDER THE PRACTICAL SOLUTION AND THE BALANCE THAT SUPPORTS OUR RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES WITH RESPONSIBLE PLANNING. SO WITH THAT, I HOPE YOU GUYS WOULD UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT LAYTON IS A COMMUNITY THAT VALUES THOUGHTFUL DISCUSSION, RESPECTIVE CIVIL ENGAGEMENT. I APPRECIATE THE RESIDENTS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THIS PROCESS SO FAR. And we want to approach this conversation with mutual respect, with the focus of a solution, and we put ourselves in the best position to make the right decision benefiting our community as a whole. It's not easy to sit up here on this dais to make these decisions, but I have full respect for the elected body that we have, and I can honestly tell you they do consider all sides. So with that, I'll go ahead and turn the time over to our citizens for comments. And I need to add one more thing, sorry.

You're okay. You get to be first.

So typically, just so you guys all know, we do like to keep the comments to, you know, within three minutes. However, if you do have a spokesman for the greater good, then certainly you're welcome to... We will entertain a longer period of time for that, providing you guys let us know that. Otherwise, I would say, you know, respect the process and know that if... If the topic's already been said or covered, we don't need to hear it 20 times, okay? But again, we want to show our respect for our citizens. So, sir, you're up.

I WOULD JUST ASK THAT YOU ALLOW ME BEFORE MY SPEECH OF THREE MINUTES JUST TO, BECAUSE I REPRESENT DOZENS IF NOT HUNDREDS OF OTHER HOUSEHOLDS THAT WERE NOT ABLE TO BE HERE TONIGHT TO JUST MAKE ONE QUESTION AND ONE OBSERVATION. SO THOSE THAT ARE IN OPPOSITION TO THIS MOTION BY THE CITY TO HAVE AN OFF-LEASH AREA IN THE EAST RICH PARK, WOULD YOU PLEASE STAND UP? THANK YOU.

OKAY, SO WITH THAT, Are you guys all willing? You said that you are planning on representing hundreds.

Of those that are not here. There is dozens more households along Case Creek, up off of Cherry Lane, in and around East and West Layton that use these areas and are planning to that were not able to be here. And I represent them. But there are others who would like to speak on behalf of this.

I was going to say, we want to respect those that are in attendance here tonight. So with that, It looks like you have several pages, so hopefully you're not going to read them. This is a handout for you. All right, that's fine. I'll go ahead and allow a few additional minutes here. But again, just be respectful of one another and understand that. And also, just so you know... We don't really appreciate it when you get a lot of, hey, rally behind me, shout outs or anything like that. I understand what you just did just now, but just know that that isn't the proper decorum here.

Sure, and I apologize if that was not appropriate. We just wanted to show a silent majority of those who are here for this, and that's as far as we hope to take it.

Mayor, before we start, can I just say one thing that might be helpful for the public? Just so everybody's aware, there's a Utah law that requires anything that a city council to have open discussion about to be noticed. So OUR COUNCIL REALLY CAN'T BY LAW HAVE DISCUSSIONS TONIGHT ABOUT THIS. THEY WILL AGENDA THIS AND HAVE A FUTURE DISCUSSION AT SOME POINT. THIS IS JUST TO LISTEN. SO DON'T BE FRUSTRATED BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO OPENLY DISCUSS THIS BECAUSE IN ORDER TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW, THEY NEED TO PUT THAT ON AN AGENDA, PUBLICLY NOTICE IT. SO SOMETIMES PEOPLE, WHEN THEY DON'T KNOW THAT, GET FRUSTRATED. SO JUST LETTING YOU GUYS KNOW. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THE ATTORNEY ON THE STAFF. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. BUT BEFORE YOU GET GOING, I DO NEED YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME.

Yeah, a full name?

Your prerogative. First and last name.

First and last name, okay. Landon Bickley. So, here's my thoughts. Good evening, Mayor and members of the City Council. My name is Landon, as you know now. I grew up on the Case Creek Gully. I went to East Layton Elementary, Central Davis, and Layton High. My pride in this city runs so deep that I recently moved my family back from Ogden to build our forever home in Layton. I wanted my children to have the exact same childhood I had, exploring the creek, discovering nature, and feeling safe in their own backyard. When we heard a nature park was coming, we were thrilled, and for others to come enjoy as well. but the current proposal for an unfenced off-leash area directly conflicts with what I believe the city stands for. In an effort to create an inclusive space, this design accidentally excludes everyone else. Let's be honest, an open concept off-leash space is not a multi-use space, it is a dog park. Once the leash has come off, families, the elderly, and children are effectively pushed out. Once the leash has come off, true multi-use ends. This design doesn't include families, it displaces them, which is why every city around us has found a suitable solution to this. A dog park in a central area on a main road, limiting disruption in residential neighborhoods. Is it at all concerning to anyone that we are modeling our city after the only other city on the Wasatch Front to do this? This is a massive safety concern for any vulnerable population who wants to use this area. It is not dog bites alone that are the main issue in areas of such, but also high speed collisions. This isn't just about my neighborhood, this is about the integrity of one of Layton's finest natural ecosystems. We chose this area because of the wildlife. My children watch the deer and foxes that call this gully home. Introducing a high concentration of free-roaming apex predators will permanently drive the wildlife out, destroying the very magic that makes the area special. Governmental immunity protects the city from personal injury lawsuits, as you know. However, it will not protect from the State Division of Water Quality or Davis County Health Department when Case Creek or Hobbs Reservoir test positive for fecal coliform bacteria. Precedent and case for that is 2023 in Salt Lake City at Rotary Glen Recreation Area. In Salt Lake City's official public lands master plan, off-leash dog issues and uncollected dog waste consistently rank as the number one most frequent complaint and point of conflict across urban parks and natural areas.

I'm not anti-dog.

In fact, I hope to be here as an advocate for others that are here to propose a dog park in this space. I want our community dogs to have a place to play, but location is everything. I urge the council to look at alternative sites, such as the underutilized second tier of Andy Adams Park behind the tennis courts. It's an area already designated for active recreation, not a delicate, natural gully. I'VE ALSO INCLUDED IN MY HANDOUT FIVE OTHER POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION BELOW. THESE ARE FOUND FROM THE DAVIS COUNTY PUBLIC LANDS RECORD, AND I APOLOGIZE FOR OBVIOUSLY MY UNKNOWING OF WHAT THOSE MIGHT BE USED FOR. THEY JUST SEEM TO FIT THE BILL FOR HOW OTHER CITIES HAVE USED LAND IN ACCORDANCE WITH WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED HERE. Every community member I've spoken to shares these exact same fears. So I ask you tonight with all respect, and this is rhetorical of course, what is it going to take for you to reconsider this location? If you need a formal petition signed by a certain amount of people, tell me tonight and I will bring it to the next meeting come hell or high water. Excuse me for the language. If you need us to collaborate on alternative site studies, we are ready. To further support this initiative, I want to pledge $1,000 of my own money to building a dog park once a suitable location has been chosen. Please do not ruin the best natural area Layton has left. Let's find a suitable solution that protects our neighborhoods, our kids, and our environment. And I recommend to any neighbors to make that same pledge as well of a financial donation to a dog park if that's what the council sees fit to build in this city.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. I DON'T WANT TO TURN THIS INTO A DATA CENTER. SORRY. BUT HONESTLY, THAT'S JUST WHAT I'M SAYING.

THAT ISN'T TYPICAL THAT WE HAVE IN HERE.

SO AGAIN, THERE'S TWO SIDES TO EVERY STORY, AND WE'RE HERE TO LISTEN. SO THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. I HAVE BEEN ASKED TO REPRESENT OTHER PEOPLE HERE THAT ARE CURRENTLY HERE, SO I'LL BE USING THEIR TIME AS WELL. MY NAME IS MICHAEL HILLS. AND I APPRECIATE THE WORDS, MAYOR, THAT YOU SAID AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS MEETING. And thank you all for the opportunity to comment on the proposal to allow off-leash dogs on and near the nature trail behind the residential homes in Eastridge Park near Case Creek. I have lived 21 of the last 24 years in an apartment and have visited many unleashed dog parks with friends and neighbors. I am not against an unleashed dog park, but I am against the location currently proposed. Finding the right location for unleashed dog parks is critical, as I understand you are aware and have been thinking about and working on for years now. In addition to the information I emailed all of you yesterday, I respectfully urge the council not to approve off-leash dog use at this trail and postpone action until the city completes site-specific analysis analysis of public safety, neighborhood impacts, wildlife impacts, stormwater and water quality impacts, enforcement capacity, and alternatives such as a fully fenced dog park located away from homes and waterways. This location is material different from a fenced dog park. It is a nature trail directly behind homes, near private backyards, near wildlife habitat, and adjacent to a stream. Layton's current public-facing park rules welcome dogs on leash in neighborhood parks, pocket parks, improved detention basins, and established city trails, while stating that owners must maintain control. Dogs must be attached to the owner at all times. Leashes may not exceed a typical 16-foot retractable leash, and owners must clean up waste. The same Layton sign directs concerns or violations to Davis County Animal Control or Layton City Police. Davis County Animal Care also states plainly that dogs must be leashed in public areas, including parks, trails, bench and shoreline trails, school and church properties, sidewalks, roadways and other public areas. It states that the only place a dog may be off leash in Davis County is within fenced property. Utah law also creates significant liability concerns because a person who owns or keeps a dog is liable for injury caused by the dog, regardless of whether the dog was previously known to be vicious or mischievous, subject to statutory exceptions. You may be aware of the case with Francis v. State that happened here in Utah. Once you have been made aware of safety issues and have not made appropriate changes, you may have a situation where you no longer have immunity. The concerns are not theoretical. Off-leash dogs can frighten children, elderly walkers, runners, cyclists, and people with disabilities. They can approach or enter private yards, trigger barking from dogs in adjacent homes, create conflicts with leashed dogs, chase wildlife, and create an enforcement problem because the burden falls on neighbors, trail users, animal control, and police after an incident has already occurred. The proposed location also raises water quality questions. The trail and proposed off-leash area is next to a stream. The Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, stormwater guidance explains that stormwater can pick up pet waste left on the ground and carry it directly into streams, lakes and rivers. EPA also states that pet waste in water bodies can make people and animals sick, promote weed and algae growth and damage aquatic ecosystems. There is sometimes a suggestion that dog feces are no different from deer feces already present in the area. That comparison is incomplete. The key distinction is that dog feces typically comes from a rich protein omnivore diet and is more likely to create public health and water quality concerns, while deer feces comes from a wild herbivore diet and is usually part of a natural nutrient cycling in the landscape. All animal feces can contain pathogens, however dog waste is different in this context because the city would be inviting and concentrating domestic animals and their waste on a public trail corridor immediately adjacent to homes and a drainage to a stream. That is a new controllable source of pollution and nuisance, not merely a background wildlife condition. Dog waste is also a recognized urban stormwater concern. EPA identifies pet waste as the leading source of nutrient and bacteria pollution in urban streams and waterways. The American Veterinary Medical Association notes that common intestinal parasites in dogs include roundworms, hookworms, whipworms, tapeworms, coccidia, and giardia, and that some can affect people. infect people. CDC explains that Giardia germs are found in the feces of infected people or animals and can spread through contaminated water surfaces, food, or objects. For these reasons, I ask the council to preserve the current leash requirement for this trail and not convert a neighborhood trail, nature trail, into an off-leash dog area. If Layton wants to provide off-leash opportunities, the safer and more responsible approach is a purpose-built fenced MANAGED DOG PARK WITH ADEQUATE SETBACKS FROM HOMES AND STREAMS, SEPARATE AREAS FOR LARGE AND SMALL DOGS, DOUBLE GATED ENTRANCES, WAY STATIONS, SIGNAGE, MAINTENANCE FUNDING, DRAINAGE CONTROLS AND ENFORCEABLE HOURS AND RULES. AT A MINIMUM, BEFORE ANY APPROVAL, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE CITY REQUIRE A WRITTEN WATER QUALITY stormwater review addressing fecal bacteria nutrients parasites basin overflow and stream discharge a neighborhood impact review for homes bordering the trail including barking trespass privacy odor waste parking and noise a public safety and enforcement plan including who responds to off-leash violations bites dogfights wildlife harassment and waste complaints a wildlife and habitat Four is a wildlife and habitat review. Five, a comparison of alternatives, including fenced off leased facilities away from homes and waterways. The issue is not whether dogs are valued members of our community. They are. The issue is whether this specific site behind homes along a nature trail next to a stream where feces and urine runoff directly runs into a natural stream is the appropriate place to invite off-leash use. I respectfully submit that it is not. Please keep the trail on leash and evaluate the fenced purpose-built off-leash facility away from homes and waterways. If the council proceeds anyway, I am requesting a written environmental review, setbacks, fencing, waste stations, maintenance funding, and water quality monitoring, enforceable rules, and a sunset trail provision. I appreciate your time and your consideration.

Thank you.

Good evening. First of all, my name is Shari Wade and I am here to oppose the proposed dog park within our nature area behind our homes. First of all, I want to make clear, I am a dog owner and I love my dog. A few years ago, however, we did watch our dog get attacked by an off-leash dog. It took four grown adults a phone to get that dog off of our dog. And then several hundred dollars to repair and save our dog's life. That dog, by the way, ended up having to be put down by the city ordinances because it had attacked another animal. I would hate to see any Other member, whether they are a dog owner or someone who does not have dogs, have to realize that they have to put an animal down that does not deserve to be put down. They deserve to run free, but it needs to be in a fenced area that protects the children and the adults in the area. Every year in the United States, there are 4.5 million dog bites due to off-leash dogs. Half of those are children between the ages of five and nine. 25% of those are adults over the age of 65. That does not include the individuals, the elderly who are tripped, knocked down, and injured due to those dogs being off leash and them being unstable. This should remain a family area where all families can enjoy the areas. Just today, I watched an unleashed dog run through that area and chase a deer. That to me is not the perfect area for a dog park. I do, however, and I would love to have a city park where we can take our dogs to roam free. Thank you for your time. Thank you.

My name's Larry Todd. I live on Emerald Drive, right very close to this, where this planned park is supposed to go. When we bought our home, One of the biggest things was saying that there was a natural park that had already been approved by the city and that we would go in. And this was one of the main drawing areas in going into that area. There would be an area we could go and we could walk through, we could see nature, and we've done that many times going down there and seeing deer, foxes, and other things. That would all be eliminated. One of the greatest, one of my biggest concerns is the access. There's been probably almost 100 new homes built in that area and there's one access into the area and that's Emerald Drive. And what this is going to do is this going to compound the problems now is that Traffic going in front of my home right now is very, very large. moved into the area five years ago and the traffic's probably doubled or tripled since I moved in there and because of the lack of access going into the area one area on Emerald Drive one area turning right to go down to where the access to the park would be is going to be completely impacted and so I would encourage you to think about to see the access area of the traffic this already a problem in that area. Thank you very much.

Anyone else.

Good evening, Madam Mayor. Good evening, esteemed city council members. I would like to speak on behalf of the youth and children living in the Eastridge Park area. My name is Caden Sweetin, and I live off of Sagalilly Court on Emerald Drive in Utah. My family and my siblings and other kids in the area have been severely looking forward to this area being proposed as a nature park. This area, we always love biking near and seeing the progress that is being made. Sadly, when it was proposed to be a dog park, Although, I love dogs. If I could have a dog, I would, sadly, because of allergies, I cannot. But, sadly... This would no longer be an area just for families. It would be an area just for dogs. And I'd love this area to be an area for kids, where they can enjoy themselves, especially during the summer days, when you have the time off. And also, with environmental impact on kids' lives, it has been found that kids who enjoy the environment and go outside often do better in school. Sunlight provides an essential vitamin called vitamin D that is very important for mental health and success in school. And by getting this vitamin D and having an area close to Eastridge Park would allow these children to succeed in school and better improve their lives and mental health. I thank you for your time. Please consider moving the dog park to a new area. Thank you.

Very good. Thank you. Anyone else?

Hi, Madam Mayor. Hi there. I apologize. This is a lot of our first rodeo here at a council meeting. That's fine. I just want to share a couple thoughts. As a mom, I think it's sometimes valuable to have a lot of perspectives. I need your name.

What?

Oh, my name.

Ivy.

Thanks. Bickley. Yes. Okay. And I'm going to try really hard not to beat a dead horse because we talked about we don't need to reiterate all the same concerns over and over. OKAY. I'M A CURRENT RESIDENT OF LAYTON CITY, A MOM OF THREE YOUNG CHILDREN. I'M AN AVID USER OF THE CASE CREEK PARKWAY PAVED PATH. I WALK OR RUN ALONG THAT PATH THREE TO FOUR TIMES A WEEK, SOMETIMES MORE, OFTEN WITH MY CHILDREN. IT IS AN ABSOLUTE JOY SPENDING TIME ON THAT TRAIL AMID THE PLANT AND ANIMAL LIFE THAT THRIVES SO BEAUTIFULLY. I know I speak for many of us when I say we've been looking forward to the extension of the paved trough along the south side of Antelope into the East Ridge Park area. As stated, when we heard about the off-leash proposed dog area, I just had some concerns. First and foremost, safety. ONE OF MY VALUES AS A MOM AND INDIVIDUAL IS SPENDING TIME IN NATURE. WE MAKE IT A PRIORITY IN OUR HOME TO LEARN ABOUT PLANTS, ANIMALS, ECOSYSTEMS, AND WHEN WE'RE WALKING OR RIDING OUR BIKES ALONG CASE CREEK PARKWAY, THOSE THINGS OFTEN COME ALIVE FOR MY KIDS. IN FACT, JUST THE OTHER DAY, I HAD TURNED AROUND AND MY SON WAS LAYING FACE DOWN ON THE PAVEMENT, AND I THOUGHT HE HAD CRASHED, AND SO I RAN OVER TO HIM, AND HE'S LIKE, MOM, LOOK, IT'S A LADYBUG. AND I JUST THOUGHT THAT WAS SUCH A SWEET MOMENT OF HOW ALIVE THIS AREA IS. UNFORTUNATELY, IF THIS AREA IS PUT INTO PLAY, I CANNOT SAFELY ALLOW MY FAMILY TO VISIT THIS PART OF THE TRAIL. BECAUSE OF CHILDREN'S SIZE, IT PUTS THEM DIRECTLY IN HARM'S WAY IF APPROACHED BY A DOG OFF LEASH. MY CHILDREN LIKE DOGS. THEY'VE BEEN TAUGHT HOW TO SAFELY APPROACH A DOG. THEY WANT A PET. THEY KNOW TO ASK THE OWNER AND TO BE VERY GENTLE. However, in this proposed section of the area, no matter how much I teach them about dog safety, I nor my child can control the safety of the area dog running up to them without the owner maybe even in the area or nearby. And then just want to reiterate that there are ways we can work together to identify alternate areas to support Dog Park for those that feel strongly about that. And I love the idea of coming together as a city to do that. And I thank you for your time. Thank you. Thank you.

Hi, my name is Linda Cordero. I wasn't planning on speaking, so I don't have anything printed out. I'm just going to make a quick statement. Something that nobody has mentioned yet is the flight path for Hill Air Force Base over our section of homes and the nature trail is the planes fly low and loud. I wasn't aware of this when I bought my house. I'm new to the area. My dog has not been the same dog since we moved in. And I am that dog owner where my dog goes to doggy daycare. She goes to boarding. She's perfectly fine. She's a nice dog. But she went after my neighbor's dog. They're here. Luckily, nothing bad transpired of it. But because... She's so startled by the noises, as many dogs are, she's just not the same. But I never in a million years would I have thought my dog would have went after my neighbor's dog. So if this dog park is unleashed, plenty of people will think that their dogs are well-behaved, well-trained, will be fine. As soon as that plane sonic boom, we hear often dogs get scared. And a scared dog is a dangerous dog. And I also have a two-year-old granddaughter, and I don't have a fence in the back because that wasn't our intentions when we bought our home because we wanted to live in the city but still live within nature, and that was the reason we selected the home that we did and moved out of Saratoga Springs where it felt just too much like the city and not like nature. So that was the input that I wanted to get. Thank you.

Thank you.

I'm Blake McKinley. I'm also opposing to have the open leash policy. I'm going to keep things short because I know a lot of things have been said. But I wanted to at least just pass out the points that I have prepared. And I wanted to at least emphasize a couple additional things that were not brought up already. It was mentioned that the CDC you know lists approximately 4.5 million bites per year. What wasn't mentioned is that one in five of these bites are it's proposed that these need to be seen by a medical professional. I myself as I'm a board-certified internal medicine physician, and I would propose that even more than one in five bites probably need to be evaluated. And so my questions are, is counsel, who's responsible for these bites? I know that the Utah law itself recognizes serious risks associated with dog-related injuries. And under code 1811, Utah has a strict liability state for dog attacks, meaning owners are legally responsible for injuries caused by their dogs regardless of prior behavior. But I would ask a few questions. What is the plan if an incident does occur? If a child is bitten, who is responsible? If the person with the dog walks away, is the mom's tending to the child? What is the vaccination status of the dogs? That's not always something that we can easily do. And then your kids have to go and be vaccinated a lot of times with pretty extensive vaccinations that can be pretty extensive. How will ownership be verified? And then is there any family support for child experience, physical injury, emotional trauma after these attacks? So I think these are all things that need to be thought about. One other thing that has been kind of mentioned but not fully talked about, I'm a runner on the trails, and I will mention the dogs that I pass, even on a leash, when you're running on a trail, The instinct of a dog is to protect their owner. And so even on a leash, the dogs kind of come for you. And so I don't think I would be able to fully run. I'd have to just stop every time and walk past slowly for a good portion of my run if I was worried about dogs being able to do what they would like not being on a leash. So things to consider. And the rest of my remarks are on the handout. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Go ahead, sir.

I'll also keep it brief, but you need more reading.

In addition to our emails.

Oh, yeah, pass it down. It's not all for you. He's the attorney, though. No, no, it's okay. Yeah, I got it. Yeah, one's for you. One's for you, though. So I guess I would just say... Do you mind stating your name first? Yeah, thank you. Josh Burns.

Okay.

The reason we're all here is because there's something worth preserving in Eastridge that's already there. You might not know about it, but we'd invite you to come and check it out for yourself. And a lot of people are here. I'd say a lot of people are here because of fear. Some people are afraid that this beautiful area is going to be taken over. Dogs are going to run wild. It's going to echo through the bowl shape of this hollow into all our homes with no natural barriers between the homes besides a six-foot vinyl fence. and all the trees are not mature. Our houses just went in. So none of us knew about this dog park till just now. That's why you're meeting us. We're all new. So a lot of us have fear of that, right? We have fear of losing out on a safe space. And then there's gotta be others here and not in attendance who are afraid that all of their efforts to obtain a dog park in Layton are frustrated by all these residents finding out that the dog park's going in and what are we doing, you know? All of us, I think, would agree that a dog park is great in Layton. We'd love to see a dog park. I had a dog when I was a kid. My son is begging my wife for a dog. Maybe we'll get one. I'm not very convincing with her, but we'd love a dog, and we'd love a safe area for dogs in Layton. I'll just acknowledge that we have here in the audience the former owner of all of this land who's seen it before it was all developed and appreciates so much the beauty of this land. and the wildlife that's there. It's a very special place. It's worth preserving. And before we moved in, we were debating on whether or not we should buy a house there or not. And we were walking on the Case Creek Trail, because our trail wasn't done yet. And it's just right down the road. And we're like, should we buy this house? And we were amazed by the beauty. And then all of a sudden, a fox walked across the trail. And we said, this is it. We have to be here. That dang fox hasn't come back yet. We love the area. We've seen a couple foxes behind our house, mostly deer, every day. But we love the area. We'd invite you all out to come see it. If you haven't been there, I'd invite you to just come early morning, come late in the evening, sit out there for five minutes and say, should this be a dog park? If you sit on a bench out there or you sit out there, you might change your mind. Or you might have some different thoughts. That might be a great place to go on a date night. So I'll leave these thoughts with you, and thank you for your time. and I would just say that dog owners deserve better than Eastridge Park can offer for them. They deserve a nice fenced area where they can feel safe, the dogs can run, they can have easy access and I would also advocate for a nice dog park in Layton. Thank you.

I'm Jennifer Bozzano, Leyton City. Ironically, I think we're all on the same side, right? I'm here to advocate for a dog park. I think the reason the trail system came up is because it's been so successful in Salt Lake City, behind the Capitol, no problems with the watershed there. It's been very successful in Park City, so I kind of think that's why that was maybe one of the proposed options. But as dog owners advocating for a dog park, it's not that or nothing. We just want somewhere for the dogs to socialize, for humans to socialize, to create community. It's just one more benefit to living in Lincoln City. I've lived in many cities all over the country, and I've never been in a city that has been so dog unfriendly. It's shocking. What do you mean there's not an off-leash dog park? In the two years we've been working towards this, Syracuse opened an off-leash dog park. North Salt Lake and Woods Cross last week opened an off-leash dog park, and they're already planning a second one east. It's that important to the community to have something off-leash. Animal control was there. Their director, I think, met with Dave Price, right? Michelle Hicks. She's a huge advocate for dog parks, and this is why. Less dog bites... Less barking, less nuisance calls, less dogs off-leash. If there's an off-leash dog park, if there's somewhere for them to go, it decreases the workload for animal control. They're huge advocates for dog parks. They're begging for dog parks to be put in. Dave knows that. He's talked to Michelle. It doesn't have to be there. That's not what we're asking for. We're asking for something. I pay a lot of taxes in Layton City. I built new construction. That impact fee goes 100% to Parks and Rec. That's my understanding via Parks and Rec. I don't have kids. I don't play pickleball. I don't have a trail system anywhere near my house. There's so many parks in Layton City that don't even allow dogs on leash. I respect that. I understand that. There needs to be something for all these multi-unit housing situations that are going in right and left as fast as Layton City can build them. Apartments townhouses, what are we doing with all these dogs? We're just creating more and more problems the benefits far outweigh far outweigh I just don't understand. It doesn't have to be there, right? It doesn't have to be there. We're all on the same page. And little kids should never be in an off-leash dog park anyway. It should be a fenced-off section for dogs and their owners with them with current vaccinations, right? No little kids should be in an off-leash dog park. They are completely separate issues. That should never be one and the same. I RESPECT THE WORK YOU GUYS DO, AND I'M SO THANKFUL THAT WE HAVE A GREAT COUNCIL AND A GREAT MAYOR WORKING TOWARDS MAKING EVERYBODY HAPPY. WE APPRECIATE YOUR WORK.

THANK YOU.

JENNIFER SHEPHERD. Great comments from all you guys. I appreciate it. Great points being brought up. And we have been working with Parks and Recreation and the City Council in trying to get a dog park anywhere in Layton. We've gone through many alternate proposed sites, including the ones that have been brought up today, that have been rejected. IT WAS YOUR PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND YOUR CITY COUNCIL THAT WANTED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION. AND A COUPLE POINTS I WANT TO BRING UP IS THAT DAVIS COUNTY ANIMAL CONTROL, THE DIRECTOR, IS CONFIDENT THAT THIS AREA CAN BE MADE SAFE WITH STRATEGIC PLANNING, AND SHE IS PLEADING TO BE INVOLVED IN THAT. AND THIS DOES NOT INCLUDE THE WHOLE SIDEWALK AREA THAT YOU GUYS ARE JOGGING ON AND WRITING TRIKES ON. IT IS A SEPARATE AREA THAT IS, THAT HOPEFULLY CAN BE CONTAINED STRATEGICALLY. DOGS AREN'T GOING TO RUN WILD. THEY'RE GOING TO BE WITH THEIR OWNERS WHO ARE RESPECTFUL, WHO WANT IT TO STAY NICE. And parks and rec and city council knew there was going to be pushback when this place was proposed. It's going to be, there's going to be pushback anywhere. We all want a dog park except for where we don't, when it's next to your house. I think we, we owe it to move forward with this plan and try it. If it's, If too many problems arise, we can shut it down and move to something else. But right now, there is nothing else. There is no plan B. This has been happening for the last decade. A place gets proposed. It doesn't work out. Nothing happens. We're finally to where something might work, and now pushback is happening, and I'm fearing that now nothing will happen. So I just, I think we owe it to... The years-long effort to move forward with this, working with animal control and making it safe. We all want it to be safe. It can happen. And I just... Thanks for listening.

Elise Hales, thank you for your comments, and I absolutely empathize. I've read a lot of the things on their Facebook page. They have been going after this for years and years, and I can only imagine the frustration. However, I do want to point out one fallacy. When she says, we owe it to go forward, because the dogs couldn't be injured, but do you see these kids out here? One child is injured. Is it worth it? Then we then we do it plant like she says then we we decide to regroup You we've heard many statistics you owe it to drive the wildlife out and then say they're gone It didn't work. They will not come back read the statistics. It's permanent So you owe it to give it a shot because you've gone this far But I would like to be clear and firm at what is the cost? You see these faces? They're not her kids. They're our kids. And we live right there. That's my backyard. That's my baby who said, I won't take the kids there anymore because I won't feel safe because it's a liability on me. So she doesn't want to babysit for me or take them in our backyard. It affects more. I'm not saying it's probably really frustrating that she has gone through these hoops and hoops and nobody wants it. But guess what? This affects us. And to just simply say, well, we owe it to ourselves to give it a shot. What is the cost? You want somebody injured? You want lawsuits? You want people putting down dogs like she mentioned that was terrible? You want our wildlife that is so beautiful? We were going to live in Utah County. We had heavily looked. We had houses picked out. And just like you heard from that man, we saw that gem. And I said, I don't care what it is. We need to be here. My kids, we go on nature walks. They actually said they look at the wildlife to preserve. It's beautiful. We love animals, but not an unleashed dog park. Not I, is it worth it to take a risk? It's not her kid she's worried about. So it's okay for her to roll the dice. So let me be firm. What is the risk? to just, let's just see how it goes, and then we'll reevaluate. You can lose your entire habitat, you have an injured someone who lives there, and a lot more problems. I propose, as so many here have said, that we look at another dog park, and she did mention those dog parks, just so you know. Have you looked at those? They are far away from residential homes, they're near a highway, and they're awesome, they're fenced in. That is not what we're proposing here. Where in Layton can we find those? That's great, we're all for that. But I'm sorry it hasn't worked out. But at what risk? I ask you. I persuade you with ethos, pathos, and logos in my rhetoric and all that you've heard tonight. These people are here because they will rally against it. We don't want to just roll the dice and hope that we can reallocate or go back again. That's a really big risk. And not on my watch. Because I will move. Because these kids, and all of them, not my kids, I know these kids, we're all a community. I love them. And I will fight for them.

Hi. Hi. My name's Paul Bickley. I do not live with Landon. However, I have lived in that area for 34 years. We raised our children there. And so what we're talking about is a very beautiful area. Our children have played down along the creek and stuff and enjoyed that for years. for a long time. And if I were a dog, I would love to be there. I love dogs. We have one in the family and I love to walk it on the beach when we go to visit our kids. But I also am aware that there are some real big concerns because we are outdoors people. And we love being out on our bikes and stuff. And I can tell you that if I will not use that area at all on my bike, being concerned whether I can go down in there to use the restroom. are you going to put signs up and if so you're accepting liability because if you're concerned enough that you think we should put signage up that there's dogs unleashed then you're accepting some liability and does latent city really want to do that so i'm concerned about that i'm really not sure is is it the right fit of a location and if you go walk around there and look around there it's really probably not the place to take it from the people give it to the dogs we probably should find a better location would probably be my my point because of the it's such a beautiful area for and and anyway I'm not going to argue about having dog parks or not I like dogs okay but I just think we have to address that and I would appreciate your really being you know and I'm sure you will give it some good thought because the area I think is probably better for usage for the people as we walk and hike that area all the time and we're doing it for the joggers the hikers the bikers and everybody with strollers and everything else and Anyway, it's my opinion that it's probably not the best location for that. And the other side of this is when the people bought their homes, And their dream was to be in a location looking down into there with the deer and everything else. And now after they're moved in, do they have the money to pick up and now find that same place again? Cause there's not that many of them around and that's really not, is that really fair to take and turn around and tell them that the hiking area is now really not for their family and they live right there on top of it. And I'm grandpa. And I'm concerned for myself and for these little ones stepping out that back gate. That's a risk. And I want you to really think about that. Because that's my grandkids. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello, my name is Daniel Enriquez. I live in Layton. I'll make this quick because I don't really like talking in front of a bunch of people. So I think everybody up here has a valid point. We want to see a dog park. We don't think this is the right spot. Every morning, I get to wake up before work where it's nice and quiet, dark, and I get to see the deers grazing on the grass across from my back window. Every day, my daughter gets up, eats breakfast, in her high chair, looks out those same windows and screams, dear, dear, dear, and before anybody else gets to see those. I'm not a stranger to wooded areas. I love Layton for that. When I was young, I grew up in a very foresty town. We had a plethora of off-leash trails, especially behind my house. I actually, one of the reasons why I don't approve of this is because when I was young I was bitten by a dog on a trail playing with my friends because it was right behind our house and the owner of the dog called the dog back they walked away. I was a child with my friends we went back to my house I was bleeding my mom said what happened had to take me to the hospital get stitches and there is no accountability for that person if there's a chill there's plenty of children running around the streets. I love that about lean feel safe feel good about the town that I feel great that the kids can go down to the park good down to that place play explore But they do it as kids. They go out there and enjoy the space without playing around by themselves with their friends. If there's dogs running around and a dog gets away from their owner, that's that child. And there's not going to be accountability. I do accept that there are responsible dog owners and there are responsible people, but not everybody is. People, I hate to admit it, are not always going to take responsibility for their actions. They're going to grab their dog, they're going to get into their vehicle, and they're going to drive off. And that's what I fear the most, is no accountability for that. And the kid has to limp home, go to his mom, and with tears in his eyes say, the dog bit me. I don't know who it was, what happened. I just don't want to see another child go through that. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Roger Lambert, LA 36 in Layton. As a dog owner, I enjoyed taking my dog to dog parks without admitting any culpability. I may have snuck it into Yellowstone National Park and other national parks periodically. But this is the wrong location. And I want to point out a slight misstatement Most of these houses that are recently built and are still being built in the area do not have gates. They skew young, right? We've got lots of little cottages with young families. And people are spending all that they can to get into a house. The last thing they can afford is another house you know, $3,000 to $5,000 to put in a fence. And so a lot of the 60-odd houses that back up to this area have no fence. And so you're talking about an area 1.7 miles from the end of Hillfield Runway where we have F-35s and B-17s large jets landing every day at 10.30 and taking off. So we have a bad combination of area and location. You have the steep ground with the creek, with the monitoring that's been mentioned. You have lots of young families with no fences. you have the next section of the trail which is not off leash and in fact people aren't even allowed to go off the trail onto the grass their signs posted and so you're setting it up for failure because you have different rules in different sections of the trail and and it's it's just not the right location numerous studies have shown that the presence of dogs drives off wildlife. And it's what we've moved there for. And so I'd leave that. And as I think everyone here has expressed, we want the dog park in the right location, similar to what other cities have done. And I think that's the key point. Thanks.

Thank you.

My name's Jennifer Wixom. I just, I don't know if this is a place to ask questions and I'm not tech savvy, but is there a map that we can see what's actually proposed with the trail system that isn't completed yet? I mean, are you guys familiar with what's going on with the trail system there? Part of it's closed because it's unsafe. between Antelope and the end of the cul-de-sac where the entrance to the dog park is. So I'm kind of concerned, along with the dog park being there, if this is an unfenced dog park, we also have an unfinished trail system that nobody seems to really have any answers, am I correct, on to what that finished project is going to look like. as it is now and has been kind of changed over the last five years. Do you guys know what I'm talking about? You're nodding your head yes. Yeah, and I don't know if you heard the beginning statement.

You're not going to get an answer tonight, but go ahead and ask your questions and we'll make sure they get addressed.

Well, my question is, is there somewhere that we can go as citizens and see that trail system that would intersect with that dog park? If we can see what this proposal actually looks like, so that we can see what we're talking about and then the safety of that whole trail between antelope that would fit into the dog park then come up It comes out almost at Emerald Drive. There's kind of a loop in there and nobody has a clear idea of what that is supposed to look like. It's been moved several times as that area is developed. And I would like to see what that looks like. If there's something in a website, can we come down to the city and look at that? I don't want to see the dog park there, but I also want to see what the proposal is for that area because it's been really unclear for the last five years. And to put this into the mix is just making it really difficult for the homeowners in that area to kind of... understand what's going on. So anyway, so I just go to the city. Can you answer? I mean, how do I get that information? Real quick. Do I go to the city? Do I come down here and knock on a door? You can't answer that?

Yeah, I will. So again, this is only citizen's comment. It's not a public hearing. However, this forum that's been going on is very similar to a public hearing. So in protecting the council here, they cannot answer. But I will tell you, you're welcome to go ahead and contact our Parks and Rec folks. We do have a plan. It's an unfinished plan because we haven't finished it. Okay, that answers me a question right there.

Okay, so it's still all in limbo, right? And hopefully, I think everybody in here is frustrated with it, right? Okay, thank you.

Good evening, Madam Mayor, ladies and gentlemen of the council. My name is Troy Bags. I live in the East Ridge area. I'll keep my comments very brief. I bring up three points that have maybe not been discussed enough tonight. The first one is, if this is the only dog park that is on the plan, my biggest concern is it is going to be the go-to site for all the residents with dogs in Layton. And I think that area, and I... WOULD WONDER IF THAT AREA, THE ROADS GOING IN THERE, THE PARK ITSELF, THE PARKING LOT WAS DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THAT AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC TO BE THAT ONE SINGLE DESTINATION FOR ALL DOG OWNERS. ANOTHER THING TO CONSIDER THAT WAS MENTIONED EARLIER IS DOG OWNERS ARE RESPONSIBLE, SOME ARE NOT. WE CAN'T GUARANTEE WHO IS like responsible or not, but the big thing is when you have a nine-acre site that is in this proposal, there's no way that one person can monitor one or even multiple dogs to ensure that the waste is being cleaned up, that they're staying within a reasonable distance and not interfering with other hikers, children, elderly, disabled. Another thing to consider is when you put an off-lease dog park in this area, you're placing the burden of policing that area on the local residents. Is the animal care, are they going to post extra patrols there to make sure everything is being handled correctly and safely? Or is the police department going to patrol that area more to make sure dog owners are cleaning up their waste and not having noise and other nuisance complaints? I have asked the council to consider those three points when they're considering this future dog park. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Are there any others?

Thank you. Matt Kister, Layton Residence. As I listened to everyone here, my worry, and maybe it's just piggybacking, so I'm not meaning to just kind of repeat things, but nine acres, if I'm correct. So the minute a dog jumps out of a truck... and goes nine acres away, and as one of the women who's the pro dog leash for this area, let's see what happens. My logic, and I would think everybody would agree, nine acres that dog runs where I'm there with my two-year-old granddaughter. A jet flies by. My granddaughter runs to me because a jet scares her. The dog attacks. That probably a good dog owner, nine acres away. What's going to happen to my two-year-old, to your grandchildren, to your children going to that park for nine acres for that dog? I COULD ONLY IMAGINE HOW HORRIBLE THAT DOG OWNER WOULD BE FEELING AS THAT DOG IS TEARING APART THAT TWO-YEAR-OLD, THAT TEN-YEAR-OLD. IT'S NOT A MATTER IF, IT'S WHEN. WE ALL KNOW IT. THEY'RE WILD ANIMALS. AND EVEN THE BEST OF DOG OWNERS, AND I LOVE DOGS. It's going to happen. They're off leash, no fences. We are told to bring our children there. This is a multiple use. We're told it's safe. We will believe you that it's safe. We will have our two-year-old grandbabies there. Our 10-year-olds riding their bikes there. We all know what's going to happen. Please, let's keep it in a fenced area.

Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Doug Shepard of Layton, and as a dog owner, I do advocate for a dog park. And I love the comment of get animal control involved. They've had experience. They've seen these things. They have expertise in being able to help mitigate the risk. None of us, dog owners, non-dog owners, we want to minimize the risk that bad things happen. But it's amazing that there are a number of cities around that have been able to make it work And so I would advocate you not to drop the ball. Let's keep working on it, figure out a way, mitigate the risk. Wherever the site ends up, let's make it work for everybody. Thank you.

Thank you. Okay. I think that's a good note to end on there because that's exactly what we hope to do is to be able to... AND EFFECTIVE FOR EVERYONE. AGAIN, THIS IS JUST A CITIZEN'S COMMENT. IT'S NOT AN OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING, BUT WE WANT YOU TO KNOW THAT WE RECOGNIZE IT AND WANT TO HEAR YOUR INPUT. AND I KNOW THIS COUNCIL WELL ENOUGH THAT THEY CERTAINLY WILL CONSIDER ALL OF THESE I GUESS COMMENTS AND GOING FORWARD WE WILL READDRESS THIS WE'RE ALSO YOU KNOW WE HAVE LOOKED AT OTHER CITIES AND WILL CONTINUE TO LOOK AT THAT BECAUSE WE DO WANT TO MAKE IT WE'VE TAKEN OUR TIME BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE IT RIGHT AND THERE'S A LOT OF COSTS INVOLVED IN A PARK AND THERE'S THIS IS JUST ONE PART OF OUR ENTIRE CITY, AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE PARKS AND REC DEPARTMENT, WE ONLY HAVE SO MANY FUNDS, BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DO IT RIGHT WHEN WE DO IT. WE'LL CONTINUE TO ANALYZE AND LET YOU KNOW, BUT I BELIEVE THAT I want to just say thank you. Thank you very much for you guys being respectful to one another because that's what really makes and shows that Layton is different and that we do want to have a good, safe community for all of us to live in and to be proud of where we're from. We actually, that was our last item on our agenda, so I will go ahead and ask if there's no other comments or any unfinished business from the council. We can go ahead and wrap our meeting up.

I move that we adjourn our meeting.

Okay. Is there a second? That's okay. That's great. Okay. All in favor, say aye. Aye. Any opposed? Okay. Thank you again. And like I said, we appreciate the emails. We will reconsider everything. And before I adjourn, I just want to say we need to appreciate our military families that are out there that are protecting us right now. I've been briefed on some situations, and this is the first time that you guys have probably noticed there isn't a lot of jets flying in the air. Typically, we always have one out on deployment, one in training, and one that's just come back. At this point, all three are deployed. So if you could, keep them in your thoughts and prayers, and have a very safe holiday weekend. It's a long weekend, a memorial weekend. So again, thank you very much. Good night. Good night.