Town Council - Regular Meeting

Okay. Okay. Are you ready? Oh, wait. We don't have Randy. Let's give it a second. Sorry. Take your time. [laughter]

I have to run. Okay. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Springdale Town Council. Today is Wednesday, January 14th, 2026. We're at the Springdale Canyon Community Center with us and the time is 5:10 p.m. With us from the town, we have Tom Danzy, Rick Wixom, and Robin Romero. And we have Greg Hardman, our council. On the dis from council we have Pat Campbell, Randy Eton, me, Barbara Bruno, Jack Burns, and Kyla Topham. And I think we're going to start with the pledge of

allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation indivisibley andice for all.

And the next item on the agenda is the oath of office for Randy. All right, Randy, if you'll raise your right hand. You can stay seated, too, if you want. [laughter] Okay, repeat after me. I state your name. Having been elected to the office of town council, having been elected to the office of town council, do solemnly swear solemnly swear that I will support, obey, and defend I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the [clears throat] Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Utah. and the Constitution of the State

and that I will discharge my duties of my office with fidelity. I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity. Thank you very much. [applause] I would entertain a motion to approve the regular meeting agenda. I move that we approve the regular meeting agenda. I'll second it. Okay, we've got a motion by Kyla and a second by Pat. Pat I. Randy I. Barbara I. Jack I. Kyla I.

Okay. And we will start with general announcements. Are there any Thank you. A couple things on the calendar. Um on Friday, January 16th, that's this Friday, the CCC will be hosting a blood drive from noon to 5:00 p.m. Watkins are welcome, but people are encouraged to um register on redcrossblood.org. On Thursday, January 22nd, uh the town of Springdale is partnering with the library to bring a dark sky lecture in stargazing. Uh that will be held here at the community center at 5:00 p.m. here in this room for the lecture. And then we'll be moving out to the ball field for some telescope viewing. And that's all part of the effort of our uh dark sky reertification and education. So, and then lastly on Saturday, January 31st, we'll be having a revitation project at the George A. Barker River Park at 100 p.m. where we will be planting uh willows along the banks of the Virgin River and anybody is welcome to come. The more the marrier.

Will it be cold? Probably. So, we won't get you in the water though. Maybe. [clears throat] Any questions? Okay. Thanks. Thanks, Ryan. Anything else? See nothing. Okay. Um, Superintendent Bradybot, do you want to give us an update on Z National Park?

Good evening. Um, didn't have much time to prepare, so I'll certainly um entertain any questions, but a couple of things I did want to mention. Uh we do have our final visitation numbers for 2025. That number is 5 million 6,425 which is up um less than 1% from last year but um 2021 was uh still the record is a bit higher than that. I think it was 5.1 million. Um off to a pretty good start this year. Um it's rel relatively quiet visi visitor-wise right now, but uh Christmas holidays were fairly busy. So uh we'll see what our our January numbers look like here at the end of the month. Update on our uh fiscal year 2026 uh budget. Um we're part of Interior Department is part of a threed department um omnibus um act that's floating around through Congress. It's been approved by u the full House of Representatives. It's been approved by the Senate Appropriations Committee and we expect a vote in the full Senate pretty soon. So, we're hoping that that uh gets done before the January 30th uh uh termination of the current uh continuing resolution. Not sure if all departments will have a budget by then, but we're sure hoping that interior and therefore the park service does. We want to avoid shutdowns if at all possible. Um we are still um under a hiring

freeze. uh for our our um for anything other than uh seasonal employees or emergency services personnel. So, we're hoping that that may be lifted once uh Congress passes the budget and the president signs that into law, but uh we expect there will still be some hiring restrictions. Um and exactly how those are going to come together uh we don't know. Um but I expect that we will be down uh significantly in terms of our permanent staff um in 2026. Um as you know um the fee schedules have changed a little bit. Entrance fees uh particularly for non-resident uh visitors. that was announced on December 1st and went into place on January 1st. So, it's kind of been a bit of a mad scramble um getting that set up and trying to get the public informed um exactly how that works. Um if folks have questions about that, be happy to take them now. Um or give us a call at the park. Um there is a new pass um a new annual pass for non-residents um that is multi- park. It's America the beautiful uh non-resident annual pass. It's $250. If folks come to the park um that are non-residents and don't have one of those passes, they would pay the re the regular entrance fee

plus $100 per non-resident in that vehicle or in that party in the case of a walk-in. Same deal for a roadbased tour or a commercial permit. um if they if the folks don't have that non-resident pass um then that $100 non-resident fee um will be charged. It's a little bit confusing to say the least. Um, we've been trying to get our folks uh trained on on that and um and communicating that to the public and um when we're only allowed one month to get things put in place over the holiday season, that just is complicated. So, um with that, I'd be happy to answer any questions folks have.

And by non-resident, you mean what exactly? Non-resident is someone that um may be an international visitor or they may be a non-resident of the United States, meaning um they don't have identification which um um identifies them as a US citizen. So that could pertain to someone that holds a green card, could be uh someone that's here on a work visa. Um so that's been the confusing part. Originally, this was supposed to be when it was first proposed was for international visitors, but it's kind of expanded a little bit because we do have folks that are here in the US, but they're technically not a resident of the United States.

Incard holder would be a non-resident in this definition. Yep. What about folks who hold like annual passes right now? Does that change at all? Or somebody has a lifetime pass. Does that change at all? Yeah, that's that's one of the things we're still trying to get verification on how to deal with that. If they're a non-resident with a lifetime pass, that's where the confusion is right now. And I don't have a direct answer on that yet. Um, this is part of the thing that we've struggled with and keep trying to get answers on. To be honest, lifetime pass for somebody who is a resident.

Yeah, that's still good and and has been. So, um, again, you can buy a America the Beautiful lifetime pass if you're a resident or America the Beautiful annual pass as a resident. Um, all those um are still in place. Yeah. Question about the the non-resident pass, the $250 pass. Is that just does that just cover one person? It covers four people older and three others. Okay. However, it could apply to more if they have children under 16. So that Okay. That total of four is four adults. Okay.

And that's if they drive in or walk in. Mhm. Yeah. Or come in on a commercial vehicle. So regular fee plus 100 bucks is four people. Got it. Or adults. That's good for seven days. It is Justin Zion. Justin Zion. That's correct. Was there an additional $100 charge for kids under 16? No. Bet you're having fun at the gate.

Those folks are more patient than I am. I can guarantee you that. Do have you heard the numbers from the other parks yet? Do you know um are you number two in the country? Again, haven't seen all the statistics yet. Okay. Usually, you know, these are these are our actual counts as you know, they go through a statistical evaluation. Usually the the announcement on what the actual final numbers from our national statistics office, those are usually announced in March. So, yeah. Are you getting many questions on the upcoming tunnel closure or restrictions?

We're getting some questions on it for sure. Um, as you know, we started in this process four years ago and the last two years have been about uh getting the information out to folks. Um, again, if people have questions, please let us know. Um we um we've done several press releases over the last two years. One we just did, I guess is last week. Um we've got a couple of um uh social media spots that we're going to get out over the next couple months as well. But if there's confusion, you know, please let us know. Is there an expectation that a lot of people will be going through Coral Pink Sand Dunes?

Well, um I think there will be for sure. Um at least eventually. Right now, um uh Kain County is seeking funds to upgrade that road. Um we and BLM are pro providing some support. PLM needs to um um extend the right of way in terms of its width in order to to engineer um safer uh turn radi on some of those curves, you know, that kind of thing. So, that's in process right now. In fact, um I just drafted a letter this afternoon that's that's going up to the Department of Interior. Uh, so BLM is working on that right away change. Yeah.

Any other questions? Thank you. Okay, bet. Our next item is council department reports. Anybody have questions about the council reports? No, but I have a just a little addition. There was no fireboard meeting this month, which I said in my report. Tyler Ames, you all know who here. Yeah, Tyler's got something to present, so we'll let him go.

And and I want to introduce Dave Harmon. Dave is the new wildland chief for the Hurricane Valley Fire District. So, if you have any wildland urban interface questions, he demand. And if he doesn't know it, he'll find out. That That's what you have. Tyler, do you want to come to the podium and make your announcements?

Um, I just want to give a couple updates we've got going. So, uh, the end of the year, um, we finished with just over 6,300 calls on the year. Um, about 70% of those were EMS. Um, as far as, uh, patients, because we kind of track where patients are from, uh, districtwide, it was about 30% were from outside of the district. Um that number is a little bit different up here. It was it was closer to 70% of our patients from here were from out of the district. Um let's see with our EMS. Um we're looking to actually expand and add some services hopefully here in the future. Um I don't know if you guys know we have a potentially another hospital coming into Hurricane, the Zion Regional Medical Center, and then another standalone ER. Um it's a non-inter mountain company that's coming in. But, uh, just with that, that kind of increases our inner facility transports. And so, we're looking to kind of expand our paramedic capabilities with that. And so, we have about 10 individuals going through a critical care uh, paramedic program right now. Um, so that'll essentially just set them up to help a little bit better with ventilators and pumps and stuff like that that we don't typically deal with in the EMS setting. Uh, you see more in the clinical setting. Um, and then the other thing going is right now West Valley City is doing the trial run for carrying whole blood. um they're they're the first ones in the state of Utah uh to do that. Carrying it on the actual ambulance. Um they're working with Inner Mountain to kind of have the it's more the logistical side is the the difficult part in that. Um and then we're actually looking uh hopefully be the next agency to start doing that. Uh we just feel we have a lot of calls um that uh where if we had blood we'd be able to help a little bit more. So, um, and then lastly, they're still kind of working on the architectural design of our station going out to Sand Hollow. Um, and that will be our administrative, uh, station as well. So, currently, it's

the one there in the middle of Hurricane 202 State. And that station will still be staffed, but once the San Hollow opens up, our administrative offices will be moving over there. So, does anybody have any questions for me? I can answer on anything. You mentioned the percentage of EMS calls is what? I missed it. Um it's a roughly 70% of [laughter] Could you tell um the number the 5,000 number? Um is that up from last year or similar to last year? Are the calls?

It is up. Um I think it it was roughly like 7% increase. Um last year it was a a really big jump. Um it was about 25% call volume increase. This last year was 10 and that's typically what we see. We usually see about 12 to 13% every year. So that does it do the numbers you get of number of calls correspond with the number of visitors to Z national park. Can you see a direct correlation? I don't know. Okay.

That's hard to tell because we get we have the visitors here. Uh then I'm sure you guys are aware Sand Hollow State Park was also the number one. I think it had We go to Sand Hollow probably at least once a week, if not a couple times a week. So, okay. Thank you.

Okay, the next item on the agenda is community questions and comments. Um, we will be starting since it's the first of the year, we're making a few changes. One is that we will really time for three minutes and Robin's the timer. Um, when you come up, if you'll state your name and make your comment, ask your question. Please make sure that you've signed in for minute purposes that we have your name correctly. Cliff, you want to go first? Sure.

Hi guys. Cliff Roseman, a resident here. Um, I have to acknowledge uh Robin real quick and Tom real quick and uh JJ all who have been responsive in trying to take care of the issues that I've had with the hotels. But what I'm coming back for today, gentlemen and ladies and gentlemen, is simply 15 minutes on the agenda where I can expound upon what's going on. Seven issues. They've all been cited, but they haven't been enforced. The police department can't. We've had meetings with them. They've been very available. Robin has been over backwards. Tom, seven, eight, nine times over the last 10 months now. So, I'd like the opportunity 15 minutes, no more, to be put on the agenda to make more of a complete sentences on we can wrap this thing up for my myself and my other six tenants owners, excuse me, up there that this property and their blatant dis excuse me, blatant disregard to the city, the police department enforce enforcement. and he's here tonight uh to Tom's request to to remedy it. This is not cliff against them. It's not the hotel. It's the management company. There isn't anything. I'm in the hotel business as well. We own hotels in Texas. This is the management company of CSU. So, I'd like to expound upon that. I'm asking the council for please put me on the agenda 15 minutes. We can wrap it up and see what you all think. Thank you.

Thank you. Anybody else have any I' I've given you all these things five times. I'm not going to burn it. all with them anymore. So, Cliff, we typically don't get involved in code enforcement issues, right, as council. Um, I don't know. I I think what would be best is if you submit something to the council on just a proposal on what you want to come to council and present like like Mr. McKe did and we can consider that.

I've done that. It was suggested to me, I think a long time ago by Robin. I did just that. It's pa it's page number one. It's very succinct on what I'd like the council to look at and to examine. I cite the codes. I had my attorneys at at my expense but they're on staff anyway for me uh make sure that I was within the codes. Police department was very helpful but limited on what they can do because of the code. Want to talk to you all about that. Robin was very uh helpful. Uh Tom was trying a thing. Jeff went down there a dozen times and with impunity and the disrespect. Forget me. I'm in a tough business and I I can water off my back, but the disrespect for everybody else sitting in this room is just blatant. I haven't seen anywhere else.

Well, submit that to us. Um, we can't make any It's in writing. You all have it. I sent it to you individually and I gave it to you at the last meeting, but I'll be happy. Would you like me to do it? It's just a piece of Excuse me. I'll be happy to do it again. Yes, please. My pleasure. Thank you. And send it Robin or who's the lucky person or Tom? You can send it to Rob. Okay. Thank you. Thank you all. Welcome.

Cutler. Uh just so everyone who is here knows, the public can only give input for items that are marked public hearing um on the agenda. So when items are being discussed like C1, C2, and C3 on today's agenda, um you can come up when they're t when they come up and and make comments. But if they're not public agenda, then now is your only time to make a comment. Um therefore, if you want to talk, for instance, about the community oversight committee, now's when you do it. Um at this time, therefore, I would like to voice my strong support for that proposal. When it was first brought up, I doubted its need, but felt it was worth considering. All the examples I've been able to find about mun municipalities who do that were positive. The leadership liked it as well as the community. It seems like it can only help. Second, Mr. Wixom and Mr. Hardman have clarified for me in their emails, thank you, by the way, that the town automatically puts agenda items as public hearing only when mandated by law. I would suggest the opposite. put all items in as public hearing ones unless forbidden by law or at least give some thought as to whether things should be public hearing even if they do not have to be. Um I've come three times and every time there were at least three other people there expecting to be able to comment so not commenting at this point but then they weren't public hearing so we couldn't. Um but I also in addition to that feel adamantly that labeling more things as public hearing would be tremendously valuable. It would encourage public involvement. It would enhance transparency. It is much more logical to make the discussion of for instance the oversight committee when it is being discussed by council rather than at the beginning of the meeting when it is more likely to be forgotten by the time the top topic actually comes up. Also, I want on the record a quick thank you to Kyla Topam. I emailed town council members, each of

them individually. She responded quickly after she referred the question to Mr. Wixom. He copied all the other members who then would have seen no need to respond. So perhaps some of them would have eventually done so. But Kyla was prompt, professional, polite, and it is very much appreciated. The reason I could even reference Mr. Wixom and Mr. Hardman earlier in my comments is due to her responding to a citizen's question. In summary, yes to a community oversight committee. Yes to making more item agenda more agenda items public hearing. And if anyone else wants to comment about an item not marked public hearing today, it's now or never. Thanks.

Thank you. Any other comments or questions? Okay, then we'll move on to the consent agenda. I would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda uh which includes the 2026 council member committee assignments. I want to point out that Jack Burns is the new mayor prom and seated in the appropriate position for that. Um, second is review of the monthly purchasing report, appointment of Jack Burns as mayor prom, reappointment of Bob Carlton to the Springdale Historic Preservation Commission and reappointment of Rich Leven to the Springdale Historic Preservation Commission.

We have a motion to approve the consent agenda. I move we approve the consent consent agendas. Got a motion by Randy, a second by Pat. Randy, Barb.

Okay. Next item on the agenda is a public hearing. And before we start, we have three public hearings. I'm going to go over the process for a public hearing before the first one. So, the rules of order. Those who intend to speak are asked to sign into the meeting. I mentioned that before. Uh time will be allotted on the agenda of each p open public meeting for three minutes to and allow a opportunity for the public to provide verbal that is germanine to the issue. When a public hearing is not scheduled as Elizabeth mentioned public participation will be limited to the uh participation segment of the agenda. Public comment whether during the participation segment of the agenda or a public hearing shall be limited to three minutes. mentioned that if others have already expressed the same view, you may indicate that you would agree. If you've already written a letter, we have certainly read that. And uh if you have something to add to that, we're happy to hear it. To encourage and respect the expression of all views, meeting rules prohibit clapping, booing, or shouts of approval or disagreement. And attendees leaving the meeting before the end of the meeting, please do so without disruption. So, we'll follow the public hearing format on the back of your agenda. And the first public hearing is for ordinance 2025-9 amending chapter 10-18 of the town code by adding a requirement for enhanced buffering and screening on commercial properties adjacent to residential uses. And this will be Tom Dany.

Thank you, mayor. Um this is a an ordinance that has been developed by the planning commission in response to direction in the general plan that uh talks about additional measures to protect residential development adjacent to commercial properties. And in particular the strategy that's being proposed is to add a requirement for what's called a landscape buffer yard on all new commercial development. Landscape buffer yard is essentially a an area of um enhanced landscape screening, fencing, and other materials designed to buffer the negative or or potentially negative impacts of the commercial use on the on the adjacent properties. The ordinance that the planning commission has developed contains three different types of buffer yards that could be employed um to provide flexibility for a um property owner, a commercial property owner that's developing their property. Um all three of those buffer yards are intended to to however mitigate those potential negative impacts of the commercial use. um the prop the the way the ordinance is currently drafted that commercial property owner can select which one of those buffer yards um works best for their property. Um but before making that selection needs to um uh attempt to coordinate with the surrounding residential property owners. Um, so the residential property owners don't have a say on what buffer yard is selected, but there is a a um requirement for the commercial property owner to at least consult with them to get their their thoughts and input. Um, when this item went to the planning commission, the commission discussed a a public comment letter that um suggested that landscape buffer yards may not be necessary on commercially zoned properties that are developed with a residential use. in our village commercial and central commercial zones, we allow residential

uses. And the comment was, well, if you're developing a residential use on a commercial property that's adjacent to a residential use on a residentially zoned property, is there a need for a buffer? Um, and the commission uh considered that and and agreed. And so, um, during the meeting, they amended the ordinance to make it clear that these landscape buffer yards would only be required on a commercial property when that property is developed with a commercial use, specifically including transient lodging. Um, so that's the version of the draft ordinance that's in your packets tonight. It contains that modification as suggested by the planning commission. Um, that's a a brief overview of the ordinance. Are there any questions from the from the uh council?

The one thing um that I was kind of looking uh at in review of it, it um in one section it it stated that there would be a requirement for a taller fence. And I'm not quite sure what taller means. And so I was in scanning through that and I will admit quickly I didn't really see any height standards. and and perhaps I missed it.

Um yeah, so I think this is um in Let me see if I can find that really quick. Um this would be section proposed new section 1086.5 C one C right [cough]

uh oh I apologize this is about the tree this is about trees Jack um there there's a provision that says tree there's a certain requirement for height of a tree, but at the property owner's request, that can be lowered if if the adjacent property owner requests a lower tree. Is that what I I can send it to you later. It takes reference and it it just says a taller fence may be required [clears throat] and I I didn't know were we talking about an 8 foot, 10 foot, how how much are you know how tall?

So, you I actually I think I have it highlighted. Yeah. So, so in in in like I said there are three different buffer yard um options and here actually I found that that long citation that I was giving you. I found the one that I that's true. I won't give you the whole long citation again but in in the first option for a buffer yard um that buffer yard consists of an 8 foot tall fence and then um a certain amount of tall vegetation. However, the or the as proposed, it says the wall or fence must be eight feet in height unless the adjacent residential property owner requests a lower height. In no instance shall the wall or fence be less than six feet in height. So essentially what that says is the wall has to be between six and eight feet. No taller than eight, no less than six. It's actually on.

Well, I mean, I guess we could be clearer about it and say uh would be would need to be taller than six feet. Um Tom, I have a question about as I was um looking over the agenda just right before I left the house, uh the actual agenda item mentions residential uses uh by adding a requirement for enhanced buffering and screening on commercial properties with res adjacent to residential uses and I saw that and I thought are we are we mixing those terms in the code too? I didn't catch that but I I'd read the agenda like five times too and hadn't caught it till right before the meeting. So, I'm wondering if in the if in the code are we if there's a commercial property with a residential use adjacent to a commercial property with a commercial use, is the is the residential use protected?

Good question. And and the answer is no. So the the the requirement this is from the the initial section of 10186.5 um says that a landscape buffer yard is required on all properties of a property in the CC or VC zone developed with a commercial use that is adjacent to any property in the FR or VR zone including FR and VR sub zones or any overlay zone with a primary primarily commercial use. So it does not it does not call out the central commercial or village commercial zone. So you are correct if there were a central commercial zone property developed with a residential use even even as it's currently drafted even though that that CC zone property has a residential use. The adjacent commercial property would not be required to develop a buffer yard. Tom, you mentioned it already, but we're we're talking. [cough]

That is correct. Any other clarifying questions from council?

Yeah. So, um I'm I'm going to say no, it was not arbitrary. Um however, there's there's no there's also nothing magic about six. So, so the the Yeah. Okay. Are there any clarifying questions from the audience? Cliff, please speak. Um please state your name. This is just for the accuracy of the minutes.

Uh thank you. It's to uh Tom. I might have heard it, but it went right over. You said there are three different types. So, if it's imposed, what are the materials that they would have to choose from? Is are we talking a wood fence, a metal fence? Is that is that defined? And also, I guess you just answered it. Is it it's only applicable moving forward, not retro? Correct. Yeah. So, to answer your Thank you.

the the second question, you know, land use ordinances are always uh looking forward Um it's it the land use ordinances except in very very rare instances are they cannot be retroactive. Um but to answer your the second question, there are three broad categories of uh of buffer yards and within those buffer yards, there's different requirements, fencing, vegetation, and and they are spelled out. And the the fencing that's required in um two of the different buffer yards can be wood, metal, um or a like a solid wall, a block wall. Any other questions?

Okay. Um, I would Oh, sorry, Elizabeth. What is considered commercial if you have like apartment buildings? Is if you had a apartment complex, is that commercial or residential? And yeah, good good question. Um, so multifamily residential is residential and not commercial. So

Sure. Now, again, this gets back to Kylo's question. Um, uh, you know, 10 apartment units could could really only be developed um in in certain zones, primarily the those commercial zones or or an overlay zone or something. Um but well I guess the the answer is yes. Th those are those are considered residential and not commercial. Other questions? Okay. I'll entertain a motion to open public hearing. Move to open public hearing. Got a motion by Jack and a second by Randy. Pat I. Randy I. Barbara I. Jack I. Hila I.

So we're in public hearing. This is a time when you can say comments. They don't have to be clarifying questions. Seeing none, I'll entertain a motion to close the public hearing. I move to close public hearing. Motion by Jack, second by Randy. I Randy. Barbara. Jack. I

I deliberation. I think it's interesting that there's and I'm not I'm not saying I'm for against but it's interesting that the property owner the commercial property owner is required to talk with the residential owner but not required to to do what they want. Just an interesting observation because it impacts the future. if that owner sells it and impacts the future and the new owner could not go back and and request more. But but that's that's how it goes. So

yeah, and that was done in intentionally because with with land use regulations, you want them to be um predictable and and consistent and and the land use authority is the is the town. And so if we say, well, you know, the the adjacent property owner gets to choose, that takes away the consistency and predictability of the ordinance. And it also takes transfers that land use authority from the town to the adjacent property owner which which would be pro problematic. Understood. And I do like that there are three different options depending on what works best on that individual property.

I I I think we all track the the progress of this through planning and hats off to the amount of work they put into this. I mean it's very detailed. I listened to them consider a lot of different options. What about this? What about that? I think they did a really good job on this. I do too. And I'm glad that they put transient lodging in as a commercial activity instead of residential.

Yeah. And I feel like because of that last minute change, it opened up a few questions for me. Um I am concerned that if if a residential use is on a commercial property um and at the time of construction they are building a residential use, they uh may not have left enough room for all of the buffer options. Um, and you know that's that that part is not exactly here nor there, but at that point the conversation with the neighbor is actually a mute point. And if a property has the potential to be a commercial use, should there not be some allowance made to just go ahead and incorporate um some of those buffer options. And that's just kind of food for thought. Um, and my second issue is I feel like it's not super clear. The way the way it ended up getting worded at that like 12th hour is not as clear as I think it could be um about commercial uses but excludes transient lodging or yeah the wording that got thrown in at the last minute. And I would kind of actually like to see um staff just make a few clarifying uh changes to the code to make sure that it's not questioned. Um and then the third concern I had was there aren't very many if just maybe a handful of issues where the commercial property is actually surrounded by residential property even on the front side. And I have a concern that this ordinance actually maybe incentivizes or not not

incentivizes but kind of leads an applicant towards the um thought that they should fence their property 360 or maybe include a gate in their property. And I I'm not sure if that's what we want either. So I just thought those were three things that maybe we could discuss and see if they needed to be refined a little bit or if we were good with how it actually is right now. I I have a hard time seeing a situation where a commercial property would want to put a fence completely around the property. That's a bit of a barrier to customers. Transient lodging. Okay.

I in my opinion, I think that's where it would come is that somebody's built transient lodging. um probably a house that appeared to be a residential use was later turned into a commercial use and um then it turns out to be kind of like a comp like looking a little bit like a compound gated situation and maybe that's what the neighbors would want. I don't I can't speak for

So are you saying that could potentially happen based on the conversation with the neighbor? Well, I think just based on the co, right? Could neighbors say, "No, I want you to fence your whole thing off. I don't want to see your transient lodging ever at all. Go ahead and put a a fence around the whole thing." I don't That's what I wondered. The code doesn't really say much about uh fencing on the front side if it's adjacent, but you could on a residential property, you could fence the whole property and I I don't see the difference.

Well Well, yeah, you could fence, but you can't gate, right? You can't get a subdivision. You can gate an individual property. Yeah. So, maybe this is like not really Maybe it's a non-issue. It's just something that kind of occurred to me. Are we the only word I can think of is incentivizing, but that's not the right word. Are we encouraging? And is that what we No, I don't think we want to encourage,

but I don't think that's what we're doing here. Any other thoughts on that? No, I I mean, Kyla is always you you think about things really well and you bring up good points and you know, I had not thought about that scenario and I know I'm not sure it would bother me that much. Uh, but like we said, people can fence all around their whole property and residential if they want to. I do agree with your comments about clarifying language and if you

if you were the one to make the motion, you could add that in your motion as a as a recommendation. Well, my my recommendation would be to table it and ask staff to really clarify that uh the commercial use, [clears throat] I'm sorry, residential use on a commercial property excluding or and and clarifying that we do consider transient lodging a commercial use. Um, and for them to bring it back, I think the reason it got muddy is because they tried to do it on the fly. Um, and for good reason. And did it really come through in the in the way that it needed to?

Do you want to make a motion to table it? I can. if I mean I wanted to know if I was the only one that ended up feeling like it was not very clear or if um other people had the same concern. Tom, can you give us some feedback here? Do you feel like do you feel like it's clear? Do you I think the planning commission did a really good job, but as Kyla mentioned, it was kind of in the heat of making a motion and and trying to towards Smith at the last second. Um, I always think it's it's good to put a little bit more thought into ordinance language. So, I I think it's probably fine as it is, but it definitely could be clarified. Okay. And and that it's not time sensitive particularly.

That's correct. There's no So, it can come back.

Okay. I'll try a motion. Um, I move I move to table ordinance 2025-9, which it's weird to say 2025, but um 2025-9, amending chapter 1018 of the town code by adding a requirement for enhanced buffering and screening on commercial properties adjacent to residential uses or res yeah, residential properties. Um the council would like to see a few clarifi or a clarification in the code referencing residential uses on commercial properties and transient lodging um not applying as a residential use. Um yeah. Do we have a second?

I'll second motion by Kyla. Second by Randy Pat I. India I Barbara I Jack I Kyla I. Okay. Next public hearing is a zone change from Valley Residential to public use on parcel S-137- C, a 2acre parcel immediately adjacent to the east of the town hall property. The applicant is the town of Springdale and the staff contact is Tom Danzy.

Thank you, mayor. As you mentioned, this is a proposal to um change the zone on the two acres on Lion Boulevard immediately adjacent to town hall. The property is currently in the valley residential zone and the proposal is to change the zoning designation to public use. Um the uh specific reason for for this project right now is the anticipated development of a medical clinic on the property. However, um once in the public use zone, there are a host of other public uses that could be developed on that property. Um and if developed, the medical clinic will not occupy the entirety of the site. And so, um in addition to consideration of the medical clinic, the council should also consider whether or not the property in general um or excuse me, the public use zone is a good application or a good fit for the property in general. Um in the town code there are um three criteria that uh the council needs to consider for making zone changes. One of which must be met in order to justify the zone change. Those are first that the proposed zone change would promote the goals and objectives of the general plan and land use ordinance. The second being that the proposed zone change accommodates substantial changes in conditions. And the third is that the proposed zone change would correct a manifest error. Um, and so if the council wants to make a motion on this, um, you should do so couched in terms of how well it complies with one or more of those criteria. Um, the there was at the planning commission meeting, there were uh several public comment letters submitted prior to the meeting. In addition to those, the com the council has received three additional public comment letters. Those have been distributed to the council and are posted on the website. Um, so I wanted to um acknowledge those and make sure that the council has had a chance to review each of those.

Okay. So, are there any clarifying questions from council for first step? Tom, I do have a few. And I wish I could look at you when I'm doing this, but I can't. So you might ignore it. Um when the planning commission made this motion um they cited the three requirements only one of which is necessary and one of the ones and I think it was mentioned in the motion that was approved that this change would accommodate substantial changes. Did did the planning commission mention specifically what those changes were and how they relate to a medical center?

Um so their their motion uh states that the substantial changes and conditions are due to a growing community of residents, businesses and visitors providing needed services as a result. And I I think that has reference to in the in the the um request for the zone change, the town's justification referenced some of those changing conditions and the the changing um needs of the community for a medical clinic. And so I believe that's what what the commission was referencing,

right? And in in the staff report or the planning commission, did they specifically talk about what those changes were and how they relate to the the need for a medical center? Um it was just was it just a general we kind of need it thing? So in in in terms of like quantifiable object, you know, objective data or statistics, no. Um, in terms of is this something that that um that we we think response to those changes? Generally, yes.

And and in the staff report, it mentions um a change of zone specifically um for a medical center that that's what's in the staff report. Was the planning commission involved at all on a decision about a medical center at all? Did they have discussions about whether we need one, don't need one? If so, what does it look like? Was there any discussion like that? Um, in in this specific instance, no. In in in as much as the general plan references the need for expanded medical services, yes. But but in terms of this specific proposal, no.

Okay. One of the planning commissioners um referenced that the the medical facility uh matched the design I can quote it specifically but generally matched the design of buildings in the area. Um and the staff report and the report we had shows photographs of buildings in the area. any documents the planning received that we didn't see that showed what that design looked like what the depiction was. So the the other than the the the two-dimensional diagram with a square on it.

So the the the planning commission received the same packet material that was council's packet. Right. So, so when the when the commissioner motioned that one of the reasons this is a good idea is because it matched the building matched the surrounding architecture, but in fact there was no basis for that, right? Because there was no depiction of what that would look like. Um so again to the extent that that let's just to to um perfect. So so just to clarify the this is this is the Yes, this this is the packet material that the planning commission received. So this is what you're referring to, right? Pat Commissioner looked at that and concluded that looks like the rest of the buildings around it.

So So you you are correct that that comment was made in the in the uh context of the discussion. That's that's not a specific finding that was in the commission's motion of approval, but that was a comment that was made during the the commission's Brian made the presentation. Uh you specifically asked if the commission had any questions. Never asked about the actual medical need, the level of care that we provided, the case load that the current medical center has. Um they never asked about smaller alternatives um and or alternatives for public use. In fact, when you asked that question, nobody asked a single question. Is this a question, Pat, or is this

Yes. Is it My question is, did anybody in the planning commission ask any questions when you asked if there were any questions about this design? Uh, I none along the lines that you said. Questions.

Sure. Um the Stanford board mentions the future land use map and quotes directly that it's for high higher density residential uses including multif family as well as smallcale commercial development. Um, in your professional and and extensive educational experience, do you think a 4,000 square foot building is small scale compared to what we have here? Um, so putting that in context of uh what's allowed in say the residential zones. Um, so we in residential zones we allow um uh 3,000 square feet structures which can be increased up to 5,000 square feet with a with a design bonus. Um in the commercial zones we allow buildings like in the central commercial zone we allow buildings of 8500 square feet which can be increased to 12,000 square feet. In the village commercial zone we allow buildings of 5,000 square feet which can be increased up to 8,000 square feet. So um in the context of of the other allowable building sizes in Springdale that is on the lower end.

Okay. Um, is there a committee or I I know that there is. I'm just curious. Was a planning commission aware of a committee that was talking about the design of this medical facility? I'm I I don't know if they are not. They they've not specifically been informed of that. To your knowledge, is there such a committee? And if so, who's on it? Sorry.

If there is one, who's on it? Um yeah, so there there's a committee that's composed of u the mayor, Randy, uh Lori Wright from family healthcare, uh Rick, myself, and Ryan Goobler. Nobody from planning and and no residents at all. Uh well, to the extent that Randy and the mayor are residents. That's all I have. Yep.

Where are we in the medical center process like design build out not build out but design architectural drawings?

Yeah. So, so the council is aware that the towns received a um a grant to do that and has um engaged VCBO architect to to help with that. Um and the VCBO has has done an initial draft. That's what is shown in the in the council packets. Um and um so that that's that's the final design has not been done. a final final development has not been done at this point. It's it's um kind of concept and getting close to a a draft floor plan and elevation.

Are there any clarifying questions in the audience for staff? Have we got any commitment from family health about being in the medical center the new one? Are there any commitments from them? Brett, do you want to take that one? What's your as far? What do you mean commitments? Medical center. We're saying family health is going to be there running it. Have they committed to that? Do we have anything? The lease we the lease we have with them for the small building, the old building, they they understand that lease is the same lease that will transfer over to the new building.

How long is that lease? I don't recall. Tood five years, 10 years. I'd have to look that up. We can look it up. It has it has a term and

also I think there was the assumption that increased park attendance means increased need but increased park attendance has not shown up as increased uh overnight rental usage. So is there any other data to support the statement that our growing community needs the growing medical center? I think they based that on just the park attendance is increasing. I I don't know what they based it on but with that assumption there is no increase in in fact somewhat of a decrease I presume because of all the competition in overnight rental usage. So what was that statement based on or did anybody know that the planning commission

Yeah. Again, as as as Pat mentioned earlier, this is this is essentially a repeat of Pat's question of is are there objective data that supported that um that conclusion? No. Are are there general um general observations? Yes. So as much as very much in the in the form or in the realm of a

Yeah. So, so that was a finding of the planning commission and and to the extent that the record speaks for itself, I'm going to let the record speak for itself. I'm not going to try to Well, I know the park attendance is increasing, but I'm not seeing that showing up in overnight rental usage. So, I'm not sure that means there'll be increased medical need. And I just think there ought to be something other than that. And there is nothing. Is that what you're saying? I'm I'm just asking. Yeah. And again, I think it's the same question that that Pat asked and it and and it's the same answer. Other we're still doing clarifying questions.

I'm not sure if this is technically a clarifying question. So, I'm sorry if it's incorrect, but um I asked some questions to uh to Rick who was nice enough to respond with the information from family healthcare and the architect with the answers to the questions that I had. But one question that I don't know who to ask is if family health care either bails out or gets in this arrangement and then says, "Okay, this isn't working for us. We're out." Then what what's the what's the plan?

So there are other providers. I mean, the one thing with working with Family Healthcare that we we appreciate is they're a community health organization. You know, they're not Rever Health and they're not IHC. They're not who are also nonprofit institutions, but they're not exactly a community health organization. Uh we've had discussions, the Pyute Tribe operates clinics in Cedar City. We've had we've had some discussions with them that if they've they've said, you know, if you have a clinic opportunity, we'd love to bid on it. We'd love to to be down there. Uh but there are opportunities to work with the reverts and the IHC's and the other to to fill it. The thing that we own in the building gives us is that option. If family healthcare owns a building and they walk out of it, it might be nothing. But if the town owns the building and no operator is there, then the money that was spent on the purchase of the land on the architectural fees, even though it's grantbased, the grants are coming from us, right? As

that grant taxpayers, sorry, it's coming from the state of Utah. So, so taxpayers, I mean, one way or the other, one way or another, I suppose. So, I mean, I appreciate that it's not directly coming out of our pocket, but it is coming out of our pocket. Um, and there's a substantial amount of money still to be spent on this entire thing that that Robin, this is this is a time for questions. In just a minute, we'll we'll entertain comments. If you have a question, finish, and if not, we'll open the public hearing. I thought I was That's what I thought I was doing, but Okay. [laughter] Thank you. Don found it, too. How how long is the lease?

Okay. in terms basically building.

Any other questions? Entertain a motion to open public hearing. Move to open public hearing. Second. Motion by Jack. Second by Kyla Pat I or India or Bri Jack I Kyla I um if you have comments step up to the microphone state your name and make your comments.

Rob and Chansy. Uh thank you mayor and council members. I want to be clear about my position. Uh I support access to medical care in Springdale. I support maintaining a clinic here. What I do not support, at least not based on what has been presented, is the assumption that our town requires a brand new 4,000q foot medical facility on newly reszoned land. In my view, the town moved too quickly to a preferred solution without adequately evaluating alternatives. modifying the existing medical building, renovating it, expanding it, or even replacing it on the same site all appear to be viable options that were never meaningfully analyzed in a public data-driven way. Instead, the town appears to have decided first that a new facility was necessary, then proceeded to acquire land, pursue resoning, and amend public use zoning to allow additional uses. That sequence puts the cart before the horse. I have not seen clear metrics presented such as resident utilization rates, projected resident demand, or costbenefit comparisons between renovation and new construction that would justify a per permanent zoning change and a new municipal campus. I am also concerned about who this facility is primarily intended to serve. Springdale is a small town. While we host millions of visitors each year, our residents should not be expected to bear the long-term land use, financial, and policy consequences of facilities designed primarily to support tourism demand. That distinction has not been clearly addressed. My concerns were reinforced by the planning commission's review. Although the staff memo encouraged analysis of impacts, scale, alternatives, and long range implications, the commission's discussion focused almost entirely on whether the proposal met a minimum legal threshold under the general plan. There

was little examination of whether a zoning change was necessary at all or whether less permanent tools could achieve the town's stated goals. A zoning map amendment is a permanent legislative act. It runs with the land and sets precedent, particularly when viewed alongside the future land use map, which designates multiple valley residential areas as mixed use. A conditional use permit or a phased sightspecific approach tied to demonstrated resident need appears to be a more proportional and responsible option. Yet, it received little to no consideration. I respectfully ask the council to slow this process down, to reconsider whether renovation or redevelopment of the existing site has been fully explored and to carefully evaluate whether this proposal primarily serves residents or shifts the burden of tourism infrastructure onto them. Regardless of the outcome tonight, I ask that these concerns be clearly reflected in the record. Thank you. I wish I had said that, Elizabeth Cutler. Um, I watch the planning commission meetings almost all the time. I'm constantly astounded at how much time they spent careful attention to so many details talking about the rebuffering the buffering zone. They spent several meetings on that. They were very, they were so good. and they spent more time deciding whether um a portable sign could have a balloon on it than they did deciding this public use land zoning change. It was not their finest moment. Um I also would urge you to slow down. They never did discuss whether we should have

the zoning change. Just did that building fit it. They never discussed whether it was necessary. Slow down. Thank you. Anybody else? Entertain a motion to close the public hearing. Move we close public hearing. Second. So we got a motion by Randy, second by Pat. Randy I. Barbara I. Jack.

I. We're in deliberation unless the applicant has something else to say now. Okay. So, I think the next item is whether we add medical offices to the zone if we vote to change the public the zone to public use. The property is owned by the town of Springdale. It is not an upzone. It's a public use is more restrictive than the current use in my opinion. And this is about we acquired a property to use it for public use. And I think it's in my opinion a no-brainer to make this zone change to public use. We acquired it. We made we all made a decision to acquire it. We financed it. We we can build a medical clinic. We can build a town hall. We can build council chambers. We can build pickle ball courts. We can do something with that property. We're futurep proofing this campus. So the issue with the zone change is not right now about a medical clinic. It's about whether we want to change a property the town owns to public use. As to the need for a medical building. We are in the process of planning a medical building. We are hoping to get some funding from transient room tax which is geared to visitor amenities but would still benefit our residents in the community. We've had a medical clinic here for a lot of years, decades, and to lose that when we were losing it seemed seemed hurtful to the residents. So, family healthc care was recruited by Helen and Mike McMahon and they stepped up and there were willing to work at our request in this building until we could build an appropriate building. Um, so right now we're talking about a zone

change to a public use and I think we want to focus on that first. But I will say one more thing about a medical clinic and that is that if I 20 years ago owned Blockbuster video stores and I were designing a Blockbuster video store and suddenly Redbox came along and streaming at home came along, I might have the plans done. I wouldn't go ahead and build the store, but I would still own the property and I could build something that made sense at the time if it were I I just think this issue here before us right now and I'm pretty passionate about it. It's about reszoning a property that is owned by the town and clearly in my opinion should be zoned public use. I will agree with you that um we own the property and and it makes sense um for the uses that we have identified, you know, are the things we need that it would be uh the best fit would be public use and that it is a down zone. It's not um an upzone. you know, we're not upzoning our own property. Um, I do, um, value the comments about the medical center and, you know, 4,000 square feet and I I've kind of been saying that for a little bit now that I'm not sure what we need. On the opposite side of that, when we built what we built in um this building in the 90s in the our town offices in the '9s, we thought that was well I wasn't a part of that, but that

was thought to be sufficient for a long time and it ends up it's actually not. we're we're in a room that should be entertaining and providing um amenities to residents and instead the kids activity is crammed in the tiny room instead of in here because we're in here. So when I think about that issue, I think about maybe 4,000 square feet isn't needed today, but will it be needed in 10 or 15 years? And in 10 or 15 years when we're ready to build it, it's almost too late. The problem with that thinking is we don't have a crystal ball. We didn't have a crystal ball when we built what we're in now. and what's not working. But we do have to take steps um to create the future we want to see for the people who will live here um at that time. You know, we're going to we're building the future for them. And could we look closer at the existing clinic? I mean, it's a trailer. I don't see expanding a trailer. However, could the proper D be utilized differently? And I think that the team that's working on this with a um I almost said assist and that's not the ones they're working with, but the firm that we're working with, I hope they're keeping an open mind and looking at all the options. So, um I say all of that to say it's this is a mixed bag for me. The zone change seems fairly uh straightforward in the sense that it's town owned property. The town needs to be thinking about the future. This is all in the same place. It makes great sense. What should the medical clinic look

like? I think that is an a whole other animal what the medical clinic should actually end up looking like and being. ever a question from planning and I I think planning should be looking out like you suggest 5 10 years about what else we could use that land for we talk an awful lot up here about affordable housing and workforce housing wouldn't that be a better use for that property and you could still incorporate a medical clinic in there if it was zoned correctly

I think we're trying that on some other properties and we don't quite have the formula right yet to say, "Well, here's two more acres to add into the mix." [clears throat]

When when we have talked about affordable housing, we have always in and you all know that that is something that's been very important to me. Workforce housing, affordable housing, I've pushed it over and over again. So, that's that's hugely important. But one of the decisions we made early on with that, which I think really was a good decision, is the town is not going to get involved in managing portable housing. We want a developer to come in. We want somebody else to come in and do that. And so when we started looking, you know, when this [clears throat] property became available, again, I agree with Barbara that the issue right on this agenda item is do we change this to public use? And I I think that is a total no-brainer. Yeah, the town owns it. Uh we we bought it with the intent of uh using it for the town for for the public use. So that's a in my mind item C1 is easy. Yes, we do want to zone this public use because that's why we bought it. That's what we looked at it for. And the idea of just expanding uh this is the perfect place for it to buy another piece of property somewhere else. spring down try to put um you know a new town hall there or uh a new post office you know it it just makes sense for that. So then when we get to the u the medical clinic, I've been on the housing committee. I'm not going forward. Kyla, you're now on the housing committee. So you get to

look at the size and scope of this building. the the one thing that um that I saw that I think is really for somebody who's getting a lot older um I appreciate family healthc care incorporating this is bringing a pharmacy up here and not having to drive down the hill anymore for my meds. So you're talking about retail pharmacy family healthcare is going to they have a pharmacy now in their system and they're going to run a pharmacy up here and the expectations that the building that proposed

will have a pharmacy pharmacy. Yeah, that is that is what we've been looking at. We've been looking at uh and we've been asking family healthc care what they need in terms of the other rooms in that building. But one of the things that's that they said early on which I am very much favor of is am a pharmacy in that 4,000 square foot. So that's that's part of the plan. So in your opinion that it's okay to have retail in public use. It's a federally chartered pharmacy for their customers. They have they have one over at their hurricane clinic. It's not it's not a Walgreens. It's nothing like that.

Walk up and get a band-aid. I don't know if you could walk in and get a band-aid. You might be able to buy a band-aid. So, I So, I go pick up prescriptions at the family healthcare pharmacy in Hurricane. And I go to the pharmacist and get my prescription. And there's a little shelf that has some aspirin and a few things like that. You're not buying a teddy bear and a candy bar and No, it's [laughter]

classifying what kind of item you buy. Fact is, it's a retail facility. I can buy something there. Walk in. I'm not a patient. I'm not being seen. I can walk in and buy aspirins for instance. Maybe I I'd like [clears throat] to suggest we kind of corral this conversation so we can actually go home sometime tonight. Um, you know, we are here tonight to discuss a zone change. We're not here to debate whether or not we have a medical clinic. This is not a new conversation. This has been in the works for several years. It's several years down the road. So, I think I appreciate a lot of the comments that I've heard, the questions that are being asked related to the medical facility itself, but let's push that aside. Let's deal with the zone change. And I think just a quick reminder to those of us um who were involved in the negotiation of the purchase of this property and the intent in which it was purchased was for public use and that correlates to the price paid and we cannot forget that. we need to be true to what we told the seller of that property that what our intent was uh was and how we're going to carry that through. So, I just want to kind of throw that out there that we don't forget that um you know, so again, this property was purchased for public use and um you know, so in my mind, we need to follow through with the intent of the property. How it gets used in the future

is yet to come. However, we certainly have identified the need for a medical clinic. I think the medical uh clinic that we have today speaks for itself. I do not think that that is money well spent to go in and try to modify that building and turn it into a a use that it clearly is inadequate. So, let's not throw any more money into something that, you know, lacks the integrity that we need for a medical clinic. I hope at some point we can probably get away from focusing on the size of the clinic. You know, I think, you know, some people seem to have the impression that we're talking about building the wing to uh Dixie Regional Hospital. That's not what the town is talking about. However, I think a lot of the questions that are being asked is really useful in helping inform what the ultimate size ends up being

which will be put before planning commission and council at that time and I being on well let's let's vote on this public use. Yeah. Yep. So is there a motion? Does anyone want to make a motion? Well, we should talk about the criteria like are we thinking this is supported by the general plan. Uh yes, I I would refer to what the planning commission said. They felt like it supported that it met the criteria for zone change in two of the three categories,

the substantial change in substantial changes in conditions due to a growing community etc. and then promote the goals and objectives by promoting community health. So, we could have different findings, but those are the findings that the planning commission had.

Um, I would agree that I mean, I was around when we wrote the general plan. Um, and that keeping a medical clinic here was was really important. Um, and and regardless, uh, if we don't have a place to put it, we're not going to keep it, right? So, I agree with the statement that the general plan does support um the change of the zone and that you know there's been a little back and forth um that Pat and Elizabeth brought up of like what's the actual metric in um saying there's a substantial change in conditions and uh when the medical clinic as it is now Rick how or Tom how old did you say it was? It was 50 years.

Mid 80s. Okay. So, not 50, 40 years. Um, conditions have changed substantially since then. Are you laughing at me? Absolutely. No, [laughter] I have been. Been here since the mid80s and I can totally attest to that statement. Yeah. So, um I don't know specifically what metrics the the planning commission was considering or that I can hold up to you like any specific number or or data string, but I can say, you know, we did hear recently that the county says we're 700 residents now. Um say what?

Where did we hear that from?

I've read it. I read it in a county document. And and if I could just throw something out really quick as far as what a metric might look like and and I would say, you know, we don't tie it to uh uh whether or not visitation in Zion is increasing or decreasing. However, something that we can hang our hat on um is that um throughout the busy season on any given day, we are looking at between 15 and 17,000 people in Springdale and in Zion National Park and over 30,000 people on busy holiday weekends. So that's just, you know, one metric that we might think about.

How many how many people in a week does the current medical clinic see? I'm sorry. How many how many patients do they see in a week? The current medical clinic, it varies greatly from week to week. Can we address the zone change? We keep talking about the clinic and that's really zone change was promoted based on a medical clinic. I mean the premise of it was more than that was going to do this for a medical clinic. In fact in the in the staff report it says with the intent of putting in a medical clinic. So that's the first thing that we're planning.

That's the first thing we're planning. It's not the only thing we're planning and and things like I said could change, but it is a town-owned property that I believe rightly should be zoned public use because and and from there we could we could do a lot of things with it. But I think we need to we need to vote on a zone change before. So So the medical clinic is is an aside right now. We'll we'll either build that or we won't. And the reason for the size, and Randy and I are on the committee, we tried to design a 3,000 foot building with a th00and square foot wreck room, right? And it doesn't work. It But you when you start putting utilities in, there's certain things you need like a waiting area. There's a pharmacy. It just We tried to design a 3,000 square foot building and it just plain didn't work. Tom's on the committee, too, and Rick. But let's let's address the zone change.

Pat, if we're just talking about a zone change, what are your feelings? Because I I mean, I have a feeling you're not promed medical clinic.

My feelings are hearken back to the planning commission. if it was simply a zone change and there was and there was more information about public use but the entire discussion less than 10 minutes of discussion I might add was surrounding the fact that this will be used for a medical clinic and perhaps if the if the planning commission had asked more questions they might have come up with with a decision that public use was not the best use for that land they might have but we don't know because I was so hung up on on the medical clinic aspect,

but that's why we get to be here today. So, we get to, you know, they made the recommendation. So, what are we thinking today? Are what are I'm I'm curious to know what you're thinking because I've heard you saying a lot about, you know, the the planning commission and the medical clinic, but are you are you against it being public use?

Oh, the medical clinic. I'll make that very clear. I'm not I think the size is astronomical. Um I think it could be much smaller. Um in in um an email that we all received the statement was the question was do you think family health could afford the the monthly lease? And the answer was I don't know. That's a that's a whole different point. But that but it hangs up in my memory about about why we should do this. I understand we want to build the town hall. I've seen plans that I'm sure are not couldn't be couldn't possibly be the final plans. Seen those. There was some talk about a post office on that land. Haven't seen any plans for that. I just think the planning commission could have done a better job figuring out what's going to go on this to give me a better handle on why it should be public use

and what use should you see for it? What do you think the town should do with this property that as Jack said? When we bought it, we bought it from an owner who who set a price for the town. Uh, chime in here, please.

And I'll say,

no, go ahead. I yeah what you're referring to is a really important consideration here and that is that the the town acquired the property under threat of condemnation and so the property owner sold the property you know we went we entered into good faith negotiations it was acquired and purchased at you know at fair market value but it was done so under threat of condemnation. So by under statute if the town does not then develop the property for the as a public use it was it was acquired for a public use property. And so if the town does not um develop something on it for public use then the seller can require the town to you know to has the right under the statute to purchase it back from the prop or from the town. So,

so, so the hook on this is that [clears throat] there was no choice whether we zoned it anything other than public use. In other words, we bought it and what you're telling me is that we're basically forced to zone it public use or there's consequences.

Correct. Yeah. the the the decision previously was made to acquire this as public property because we needed to expand the town hall facilities and other things and and so that was the public use for which it was acquired to you know expand the municipal campus to provide public amenities. Now what those specific amenities are was not something that was as I recall the focal point of those of the cell. was just this needs to be public property. It's contiguous to existing public property. The town has needs to expand its municipal campus to provide various uh public, you know, amenities and facilities. And so that's the way it was acquired. We sent a letter to the property owner saying, you know, as we have to do under the state code, but as part of the eminent domain statute, saying that the town had identified this as as an property that was, you know, desirable for uh for public use. And then the and then the property owner and the town can engage in negotiations, which is what happened here. and the property owner decided to sell, which then eliminated the need for the town to move forward with eminent domain proceedings if you know if it ultimately I mean it would have required a vote by the town council and other things to you know to before a lawsuit and all that would have been filed but but the property owner decided to sell when

so so substantially all of this is background noise zoning is yeah the zoning but not what gets constructed on the property. That's that's still very much open for later discussion and analysis and you know all the for all the reasons that have been discussed.

We bought the property for public use. Do we want to zone it public use? Three of us were on council. I was reading Yes. Do you want to make motion? I would need to think about that. Just for clarity of the record,

important to not to conflate the two agenda items. So just deal with C2 whether it should be the zone ch zone should be changed from valley residential to public use and then and then C3 you know deals with what additional uses may be added to that public use zone and that should be a separate discussion. You know much of this discussion currently has or you know the last part has kind of gone back and forth on both of those zone or agenda items. Yeah, but we're just we're just m we're just voting on C2 right now, which is the zone change.

Well, I'll take a stab at it.

I move to approve the recommendation by the planning commission for a proposed zone change from Valley Residential to public use on parcel S-137 C. located immediately to the east of the town hall property as discussed at the commission's December 3rd, 2025 meeting based on the following finding that the uh um change in the zone from Valley residential to public use is consistent and furthers the goals and the objectives of the general plan and is consistent with the purchase of the property. Um as uh for a use as it was intended.

I'll second that. But I would like to amend that as discussed in the council meeting uh January 2026 20 uh commission 2025. It's okay. Well, this says commissions December 3rd, 2024. He's referring to the planning commission. But I think we want to refer to this discussion. Oh, I see what you're saying. Okay. Okay. discussion as noted.

And I think we also want to add the the the two reasons that it meets two requirements for the zone change as shown in that motion. Oh, so in uh uh in accordance with section 10-3-2 um of the town code, the requested zone change meets not only one necessary requirement, but meets two requirements for a zone change. One, the zone change will accommodate substantial changes in conditions due to a growing community of residents, businesses, and visitors providing needed services as a result. and two, promote the goals and objectives of the general plan by promoting community health and wellness and facilitating first class medical facilities and care

and other amenities. And other amenities. Is there a second? Uh yes, I will second. Motion by Jack and second by Kyla Pat. No. Randy. Barbara I. Jack I. Kyla I. The next public hearing is ordinance 2025-20 amending chapter 10-7A of the town code by adding medical offices, drugstores, pharmacies, and medical clinics as permitted uses in the public use zone. And this is also Tom Danzy.

Thank you, mayor. Um, so this ordinance has has two parts. Um, one concerns the the use of medical clinics and the other concerns the use of as of pharmacies and both of these um are are um as applied to um the permitted use uh table in section 10-7A of the town code. So currently the town has a definition of medical clinic and medical excuse me medical clinic but medical clinics are not specifically permitted at in any zone. So not in the commercial zones, not in the public use zone. Medical clinics are not listed as a permitted use. We define them, but they are not listed anywhere as a permitted use in the code. Um so one thing that this ordinance would do is it would um designate under in which zones medical clinics are allowed and as proposed uh medical clinics are proposed to be allowed in the central commercial village commercial and public use zones. The second part of the ordinance cons uh is is concerning pharmacies and drugstores. Currently, pharmacies and drugstores are a permitted use in the central commercial and village commercial zones. As originally proposed to the planning commission, the the ordinance would have extended pharmacies as a permitted use into the public use zone. Uh when the planning commission discussed this, they also discussed um a public comment letter that expressed concerns about a standalone pharmacy or drugstore in the public use zone. And so the planning uh the planning commission agreed with those concerns and revised the proposal such that standalone drugstores would continue to be allowed as a permitted use in the central commercial and village commercial zones as they are

now. drugstores orarmacies in connection with a medical clinic would be allowed in the public use zone as well as in the central commercial and village commercial zone. So that's the version of the ordinance that the planning commission has recommended to you. So again in summary what this ordinance as recommended by the commission would do would be to formally designate in which zones medical clinics are allowed central commercial village commercial and public use and then allow a pharmacy or drugstore operated in connection or uh with a with a medical clinic in the public use zone. So that's that's what the proposed ordinance as it as it it comes to you from the planning commission would do. Um, in addition to the public comment that was received at the planning commission, one of the public comment letters that addressed the previous item about the zone change also references this ordinance change. And so I wanted to make sure that the the council has had a chance to review that and um recognize that as well. Tom, if we um continue on with the change that the planning commission has recommended with the you know standalone pharmacies and drugstores are not allowed in the public use zone. Okay. So they have to be in conjunction with a medical clinic. Can we further regulate what they're able to sell like how much retail they're able to do or is that kind of uh beyond our jurisdiction?

So, so currently the ordinance does not have a real good definition on what the scope of a standalone pharmacy and drugstore versus the scope of a pharmacy or drugstore operated in connection with a um clinic would be. So that's not that's not al although that's that's called out in the ordinance it it's not really well defined. So in answer to your question, yes, you can define that scope generally in terms of defining, you know, regulating can they sell candy bars, not candy bars, but band-aids, not stuffed animals, but cough syrup. Um, I don't know that you can get to that level of of specificity, but you certainly could do things that would define the scope and scale of a pharmacy operated in conjunction with a clinic versus a standalone pharmacy. You mean by saying like it can only be a certain square footage maybe of the whole building. Is that kind of

correct? It can only be a certain square footage. It it can um how it relates to the um larger clinic. Um all those things can be defined and regulated what what their retail stock is. I I I kind of rely on Greg for this, but I'm not sure that you have a lot of control over. It would seem to me that we we wouldn't because we don't with other businesses, right? We can't say, "Oh, no more ebikes. We have to take them as they come." Um, so I wondered what other kinds of me, you know, measurements we could use to to make sure that we're not getting a Walgreens in with the clinic. [snorts]

We can't regulate what they can sell. Then how do we act against them if they do sell something we don't like? Yeah. And again, so that that's where perhaps this ordinance could be enhanced by defining what you mean by a standalone pharmacy versus an operate a pharmacy operated in conjunction with a with a a clinic re recognizing that it would be difficult to regulate the retail stock. What other regulations would you like to see that would limit the scope of the pharmacy operated in conjunction with the clinic? I guess I would say let's let's not make that so limited that residents we're sort of getting into deliberation. Let's

let's these we're asking clarifying questions. Are there any other clarifying questions? I do Tom. Um, page two to three of the staff report talks about public use zoners establishing provide for location and establishment of public and quasi quasi public facilities and the code defines quasi public use and the commission made a big deal out of this and I think they misread the code my opinion. Code reads quasi public use a use operated by a private nonprofit educational religious recreational charitable or philanthropic philanthropic instit institution and it goes on from there. I think that the planning commission read this and and used private nonprofit as the noun in that definition when in fact it's the adjective qualifying the kind of institution. So it must be a private prof private nonprofit educational religious recreational charitable or philanthropic institution. And of course medical is not in there. Now at the very end it says or and it talks about churches and private schools and universities and similar uses.

Pat, is this a question? It is.

Is that in your estimation is private private nonprofit the noun in that sense or is it is it referring to the kind of institution? In other words, my question is it's not a standalone nonprofit. Whatever we want it to be, it has to be a nonprofit one of these. Correct. I I I I think the intent is um the the part that you that you left out when when you said and it goes on is such use having the purpose of primarily serving the general public. And I think that's that's the in in in in in my opinion that's what the ordinance is trying to promote is saying these are um private nonprofit. So so it is private and it's nonprofit. Here are some kinds of private nonprofits and what we're trying to do is to promote these things that have the purpose of generally serving the gen that have the purpose of primarily serving the general public. and I and I don't read it that way, but I understand. Thank you.

Any other questions? Any clarifying questions from the audience?

There are um in the Utah town code is what is allowed on public lands. There are some things that you can do to make the pharmacy appropriate. I have no problem with the medical center personally, but I'm wondering if you have done that research. If any of you could tell me what some of those things are I I can't then I would suggest Oh, this is a comment. You table this until that has happened. So the law identifies what are permissible public But it's current discretion as to what we do. It was acquired for a public as long as the town establishes a public use on that property.

Other questions? Okay, let's uh have a motion to open public hearing. I move to open public hearing. Okay, got a motion by Jack and I think a second by Kyla. I Barbara. Jack. Kyla. I do. You have any comments? They don't have to be clarifying questions.

Um, I don't state your name for the Elizabeth Cutler. I thought maybe seven times was enough. [laughter]

I I have no problem with changing this to public use land. I think the reason we're we're so concerned with that aspect is that we feel the next, you know, the C3 item would be kind of railroaded through and th those were the things that I I don't know. I haven't talked to people here, but I think those are the things we're most concerned with. I think it's an appropriate place to have public use land. I think it's you know public use is a good thing but public use land is very restricted as to what you can do and retail establishments are not amongst them. Um I a medical clinic sounds like an appropriate use but obviously we need more discussion on how much how big or do we need it at all. The medical clinic now is open what two times a week. Um even during high peak times it's not open fulltime. All those discussions need to be had. Um, and data does need to come in. We do need to have some answers to the questions we're asking. On September 16th, you had a meeting where you with switch point and you didn't want to do an RFP and the mayor and Randy were just adamant about how we can't don't need to do an RFP and that all the people who were there said, "Oh, let's do an RFP." No, no, no. We'll waste time. and then two months later you come back and say, "Oh, let's do an RFP." Like you had never had that September 16th meeting. It was really bizarre. And if you had sent out that RFP as the people who were at the meeting wanted, you probably would have had the results by the time you then started to send out an RFP. So perhaps you could maybe learn from that and say the community wants us to slow down on what's going on that land. Slow down on the medical center and table C3 until well definitely a drugstore should not be allowed. Definitely definitely it's not allowed.

It's a retail establishment. A drugstore look up the definition does not require prescriptions. It just requires that you sell medicine and anything else. So you can have Tylenol and bandages and stuff like that. It definitely should not be in there. No, no, no. In the drugstore pharmacy with limits. And so if you approve a pharmacy, you should know the wording for those limits. I don't have all of it with me. I didn't bring all my notes, but no extra um no outside entrance, uh hours tied to the medical clinic. And if you do all those limitations, you'll have to worry about what they sell because they're not going to sell stuff that people are aren't going to buy. They're not going to sell a bunch of stuffed animals that only the people who are there are there to do the medical clinic. It has to be tied to the medical clinic. So, you really need to do some research before you come up with the wording as what to allow. I would plead you table this until you've had time to do that. There's a lot of information out there and you need to have it before you fi figure out the wording on what you allow on public use lands.

Thank you. Comments. Entertain a motion to close public hearing. I move we close the public hearing. Second. Got a motion by Kyla, second by Randy. Pat I. Barbara I. Jack I. I. Okay. deliberation.

Um so my first thought about this um was a lot like uh the first agenda item. I feel like there is a little more work that can be done. I think the planning commission started that ball rolling in kind of defining the standalone um versus incorporated with a medical clinic. I think we need to make sure that that kind of gets carried through to a full-fledged idea. Um, and so I yeah, I'm thinking that this needs to be tabled and and worked on, fleshed out a little bit better. Well, I I think when the planning commission discussed this, and of course, Kyla correctly points out that it's now in our court. I think they conflated public use with public benefit. And a medical clinic certainly serves a public benefit. But is it appropriate for a public use zone? I don't think so. Um, I'm concerned about the the pharmacy that has in the plan I saw has a separate entryway, which means you don't have to be a patient in the clinic. So, there's a retail aspect to this and I think that opens the door for other organizations to use that loophole to sell retail on a public use piece of land.

A question, where did you see a plan that showed a separate entrance? That's what we got. Get that. Well, I know Rick sent out an email and and I know that it was uh publicly requested and that plan does show a separate entrance. Thing I sent was the bubble diagram. I don't think that had an exact floor plan on it. Sorry. I don't think that had exact floor plan on it. weren't there. Yeah. So, it does it does show a public it does show up a separate entrance.

Um I I know that it probably if this gets approved then then the whole dynamic of the medical clinic would would evolve. I mean there'd be some discussion about how that looks. Um, but even in the general plan, it talks about public health and that we should seek to have a 24-hour access to critical supplies and investigate, and I'll quote, a combination of incentives and direct financial support to accomplish this goal. And we all know that means town subsidies. So, I realize that that may be a discussion down the road, but I don't know how we unhook that definition to what very conceivably could happen. Um, because when the question was asked, self asked, is this something that family health can continue to afford based upon the numbers that Mr. Hardman gave us, the answer was, I don't know. And I realize that may be a discussion for down the road, but I'm concerned ultimately about a medical clinic in public use. I I I think it's a stretch to say that that because it's a public benefit that it's also a public use.

We have a medical clinic in our public use zone now. It's not,

right? I think the question is not about this medical clinic. We're still in the planning stages. We We still would need to fund it. We still would need to to make sure we have a provider to run it. We could we could stop the project if it doesn't make sense. We're not we're not making any we haven't issued any construction documents. We're in a planning stage with grant money from the state. So the question is, do we want to allow medical clinics that meet the standard of private nonprofit? Do we want to allow them in the public? Do we want to continue to allow them in the public use zone? Because we do have one now. And we can we can allowies or not? I mean, I don't think that a pharmacy that serves their customers I agree that it shouldn't be a retail pharmacy, but the but what we would want from a pharmacy is that when visitors come to Springdale to Zion National Park and they've forgotten their prescriptions or they they need something, they can get it there. Certainly, the pharmacy would not and we could put parameters would not be open when the clinic is not open. It's a clinic that serves their patients. I'm a patient of family healthcare. Like I said, I go to the hurricane store because there's no pharmacy up here. But yeah, it's it's a pharmacy that supports their patient base. It's not a retail pharmacy, but we can we can put any parameters we want. But the question at hand is do we want to allow allow medical clinics in a public use zone? Never mind this clinic, never mind this provider. Do we want to allow medical clinics? then that's that's what we should be discussing.

I mean what are what would be the zone if we if we didn't so a medical clinic in a commercial zone would make more sense to me it's not residential so it would have to be yeah that's the only other and we're saying that that would make more sense than being in public use well we will hear that financially no that is not a feasible because profit organizations. They're not Well, some are for profit. I mean, if if Right. Some are

Yeah. I mean, if that's why we're specifically talking about private nonprofit is because, you know, a for-profit medical clinic, certainly we wouldn't want it in the public use zone. So, the question at hand is, do we want to allow private nonprofit clinics in our public use zone?

Yeah. And I think That means another piece that needs to be specified. you know what what kind of medical clinic you specifically want. And I think that if planning commission looks at that or if we decide to do that then the definition of quasi public needs to be clarified because to me it's too nebulous that it's a a nonprofit educational inst whatever it is and to rely on on Tom's um clever point that that that it references other uses. Well, maybe we need to spell out what some of those other uses might be because then I mean you could make up a lot of stuff and I think just leaves the door open for for issues. Um certainly if someone comes up here and they forget their medication, it's diabetes medication or whatever it is. Do they have to make an appointment to become a patient to get the medicine or do they just walk in and get it? I mean, how does that work? It it just it just has it has the odor of a retail operation. I disagree with that, but

if you have a valid per Well, I feel like that conversation's in the weeds. If you have a valid prescription and you need a medication and there's a pharmacy here, you should be able to get to it. So, I feel like that that requiring them to be a patient is a little too restrictive. But um I don't I don't I don't disagree. I just don't know that that belongs in a public use zone. Randy and Jack, why don't you weigh in here and u we'll decide whether we want to pursue this or table it or where we want to go.

I think a lot of what you're saying makes sense. I just think it's too far in the weeds. And for me, I kind of back up a little bit on the resident who needs access to a pharmacy. Where do we place that where it makes most sense for them to go? And in my mind, if it's is either in or adjacent to a medical clinic, that's where they should go. So, I mean, I'm I I'm a little concerned that we want to keep getting way down into the weeds and get everything spelled out when we're kind of taking a higher view of this at this point. We don't have all the answers. We don't have, you know, um, all the details in place, but let's back up and look at what is most beneficial to a resident that needs access to a pharmacy and a medical clinic. And for me, it makes sense for that to be in a public use zone. That's that's where I'm at.

I agree with that. I also want to point out that Tom was um also saying that allowing a medical clinic in a a commercial you central commercial village commercial also kind of makes sense. But uh right now what we've um when when we got this property again going back to the idea was it was going to public use for public use. when we started looking at what public uses we need here, uh, you know, at that point, uh, the land owner that was leasing to the post office was saying they wanted it back or they weren't going to continue to lease. Uh, we are, we've been hearing from staff that town hall is busting at the seams and they need more room. Uh it would be nice to get, you know, as great as it's been having this um community center and be able to have our meetings in here, that was not the intent of this room, the community center or the community center. So that makes sense to have a town hall in that. The medical clinic uh in my mind is something that does fit in a public use zone. Um you know it's it's a something that is uh you know you you could maybe really stretch and say Soul Foods is serving a public use by having a grocery store here and it's great but they are retail and I think it's really obvious retail

for profit.

Yeah. and it's for profit. And I don't think um if you go out into the general public that and say, "What do you think about a medical clinic?" They're going to say it's it's for the public. It's it's something uh that especially in a little town like this with a with the visitors we have and with the drive that we all would have to go down canyon to get medical attention. uh this this is something that really does serve the community and the public and I feel like it really is appropriate in a public use and I would zone and I would like to see a pharmacy attached to it and I I understand the concerns about a pharmacy just being a Walgreens. We don't want that. uh if we could put some sort of restrictions on we're saying the pharmacy has to be tied to the medical clinic. That's one restriction

with the same hours

and with the same hours and so it's it's not a standalone pharmacy. uh if we and I agree. I don't think we want to get into the weeds of you can sell this size bandage but you can't sell that size bandage. But if we tie it to the medical clinic, I think it's going to to not be a retail space. I don't look at that as a retail space. So, right now I kind of like the way the the motion uh the the recommendation the planning commission's given. It's uh I really do want to see uh I think the medical clinic is an appropriate use in public use. So, I'm in favor of item C3.

So, I have a motion. Um but I'm so I'm going to try it and we'll see. I don't know that we have agreement, but we'll try it. Um I move to table ordinance 2025-20 amending chapter 10-7A of the town code by adding medical offices, drug drugstores, and pharmacies and medical clinics as permitted uses in the public use zone. Um, I would like to direct staff to further clarify, oh dear. further clarify drugstores andarmacies and um in order to restrict standalone locations in the public use zone um and further define uh different metrics that can uh eliminate some of the discussed concerns.

I'm going to second that because I feel like we have the time to sort this out. So, let's sort it out. Okay. So, we've got a motion by Kyla and a second by Jack that I any Barbara I Okay, motion is tabled for and Tommy you have the direction on clarification of stand alone and that kind of thing. I think that yes, I think Kyle's motion covered that well.

Okay, great. Um, the next item on the agenda is ordinance revision 2026-01 changes to section 6-2-9 adding a prohibition on camping in a vehicle parked in the public right away. And this is Tom Danzy. Also, this is not a public hearing.

Thank you, mayor. Um, the land use code already prohibits camping in a in a parked vehicle on private properties in private parking lots. Um, and in in kind of a roundabout way, we also currently prohibit overnight occupancy of cars parked in public rights of way. Um, but there is there's to to get to that prohibition, it's a little bit of a circuitous route with multiple code references. Um, and so this is this is merely this ordinance is merely um providing a cleaner and clearer direction or cleaner and clearer um code that reflects our current policy of not allowing occupancy, overnight occupancy or camping in vehicles parked on in the rideway or or public property. It's something we already do. We already prohibit it. It's just putting it more clearly and succinctly in the code. Is this a problem? I mean, are we are we seeing an uptick in this being a problem?

Um, I'd refer to the police department on that. Jason is nodding his nodding. Yes. Yes. Thanks for the interpretation. And you want an emotion on this, right? [laughter] Correct. It's not a public hearing, but it does Sure. He's just not bothered. Officer, we only have a three minutes, right? Does anyone have a motion? Seems like there's no questions. I move to approve ordinance revision 2026-01, changes to section 6-2-9, adding a prohibition on camping and vehicle vehicles parked in the public ride ofway. Seconded. Motion by Jack, second by Pat.

Pat, I Barbara I Kyla. [clears throat] [laughter] Do we need to take a break or is everybody keep going? I if if others need a break. That's We've been at it a while. You good? You okay? Good.

Okay. Next item on the agenda is consideration of a proposal made by Jeff McKe to form a community oversight committee. Staff contact is Greg Hardman. But I think we're going to let Jeff be the be the applicant. Jeff, we've read all of your emails, both the public ones and the ones to council, everything that's come through. Is there anything you want to add to what you've already said? If if so, please step up to the microphone and tell us. Okay. So, we'll discuss it. Um, in our staff report, we have a report by Greg that talks about the current process, um, that kind of thing, how how all of these different claims would be handled. So, Greg is available for questions or we can just start having a conversation.

Greg, is there anything you need to add? Um, one item that I didn't include in my staff report that that would is I guess worth mentioning to the extent the staff report was meant to address the the specific um request or proposal that Mr. McKe put forth is what was set forth in his email to the town dated November 14, 2025. And that's exhibit one to the you know to the public uh attorney's report. And um in there he talks about you know why he thinks it's appropriate and then then suggests that the that such a committee would be able to do one of or all of four things. Uh, number three was to issue advisory subpoenas for records. And then there's a reference to a Utah code citation title 77-22-2. And I didn't specifically respond to that in the in the report, but that's a a criminal procedure statute. And so I don't know if if I can just tell you what it says. If you're interested in putting it up, I can show you. Basically, um th the the subpoenas that that that particular statute references are those that a prosecutor is entitled to uh issue. But a prosecutor can only do so after first applying to the court, you know, like sometimes happens for uh you know, they try to get a grand jury together to do an you know, different kinds of things. um and other things. And so that

reference while it's accurate that it's for subpoenas, it the kind of a committee that that Mr. Key is proposing would not have the statutory authority under this particular statute to issue subpoenas because under this particular statute, which is in the criminal procedure code of the Utah code, that's it's specific to prosecutors. And then there's a different section of the of the code that specifies what a prosecutor is. And that's uh section 77-22-4.5 where it defines the what a prosecutor is. And it says that includes the state attorney general or any assistant, a district attorney and any deputy, a county attorney and any deputy, and a municipal prosecutor and any deputy. So that's just some additional commentary to add.

So to your knowledge, would this group that's being referred to have subpoena abil the ability to subpoena? I don't believe so. No. And the references to Park City and Moab, they don't actually have this type of a they

Yeah, as I as And those materials are in the exhibits to the to my report. Um what they have in I think it's Park City. It's to it's a police it's a committee to for citizens and others to investigate or not investigate but to provide you know feedback on police activities and then in Moab it's a it's a committee that um performs like audit functions and so those are while they are committees that those municipalities have have created under under you know a different statutory authority than the ones that are talked about here in Mr. McKe's proposal. Um there I we weren't we didn't find any committee that that could do the things that he's suggesting based on the statutes and that that he cited. So

So I I think that personnel matters are slippery slopes. There's a lot of privacy concern. There's there's all kinds of slippery slides you could get on. I have concerns about residents who nominate themselves to be on this type of a committee having the HR expertise to handle this and having, you know, we as council don't even have access to personnel files. Um, I also think that we've got some good, we've got a good process in place. I don't think the process has failed Mr. McKe. I think he hasn't followed the process. Um, I also have had quite a few employees of the staff approach me about this and I've got some written letters and I don't want to name any names because I even though some of them were were willing to let me but nobody expressed support for this type of a thing. Everybody thought that it they everybody was against it. Everybody feels like the process that's in place is known to them and it's a good process. They like the, you know, nobody loves everything about their job, but they're happy to work here. They feel comfortable talking to their manager. They they I have one letter from someone who had a personal delicate personal situation who followed the process and it ended up with the town manager and she felt heard and it was resolved. I don't see any need to fix something that's not broken. And I don't know if you you all feel differently, but I do not support this.

Well, it um and I agree with you on that point, Mayor. My my professional experience with citizen oversight committees or citizen review boards. Um and I'm sure the officer in the back may or may not agree with me, but I suspect that he will. Um there are They're a hammer is what they are. You and they're they're a hammer. Um you have people that are untrained.

Sometimes people have an agenda, but but most mo I shouldn't say most of it, everyone I've ever been involved in, they have no real authority. They can't subpoena. Generally, there are unions and contracts that prevent certain information from being disclosed. And as the mayor correctly points out, if it's a personnel issue, um it's generally those hearings are generally held closed. Stuff is redacted out of any documents that are requested. Um and and ultimately, at least my experience with other town councils is if there is an employment action, the t county town council votes on it in public but does not discuss the reasons why the termination or lack of a termination occurs. Um, the fact that you can't subpoena witnesses would mean that if I was the subject of what I believed was harassment, I couldn't I couldn't force Randy to come in and testify because there is no administrative way to do that. Um, let me see what I missed here. I think that's that's and [laughter] in short if you want a citizen uh review board to look at anything financial stuff uh audits uh how the process uh is is conducted I think that's all valid for a citizen review board to look at but if you delve down into an a singular personnel issue it's just dangerous for for even us to get involved involving that. Although it does say, and I'm going to ask Mr. Hardman and and maybe and probably Rick would know in the in the in our policy uh town policy, it talks about the process of grievance procedure and it and it sounds like the town council can only get involved if there

is an appeal of the final decision or or if the employees grievance is with the fee for town. Yeah. Yeah. That would be the only time town council would get involved based on our our

correct. Yes. Yeah. I would also um I mean in in in recognition to the breadth of Mr. McKe's request, he also talked about um you know fiscal irresponsibility and some other things there. There are already state appointed bodies to deal with those issues. You've got the auditor's office that that would investigate those kinds of things. And then there's also the um political subdivisions ethics review commission. And as I point out in the letter, you know, one he was in a prior communication, you know, he was invited to to pursue making a complaint if he felt like he wanted to do so to that body which is created by the, you know, the governor. It's the the people that sit on the body are, you know, it's a combination of different professionals and citizens and others and and you know, they have specific training quite often and things like that. And so, you know, if there are concerns that that, you know, dealing with those those fiscal issues or or the kinds of issues that the auditor's office would investigate, there's already established statutory bodies in place to, you know, address those kinds of issues.

I feel much more confident in their ability to get to the bottom of a situation. However, if something came to council um that went through the proper channels, I'm I mean, that's my duty and I'm happy to do that, but I think that requires a little bit of detail that we we don't have. Um, and that's a concern of mine is that there's not much there there's not much detail in specifics on what yet. Right. What's up? No.

And and to be clear, you're just here to decide whether you want to create a committee, not to address a particular Yeah. And that's true. That's true. But I Right. I think that the process already exists maybe for it to come to council.

I I do too. And I think um I think the council has the um has the extra added tools of our staff of our attorney that we can turn to. And we also have u we have all been elected and if we were to set up some sort of citizens committee there's no accountability there. We have accountability. We have support. We have accountability. Um, I think and and I think we also need to recognize that we also have a a very well-ritten um document on [snorts] how our workers can handle situations like this. And if all the proper channels are covered there and it still comes to council still we are an accountable body and we have um we have access to good support. The citizens committee would not. So I'm I'm very much opposed to any kind of

and you community oversight committee. You said something important. We were elected to do a job. Um I don't you know a self-appointed committee without expertise in HR. I just don't see I I think I think we have a good process. I'm I'm impressed with employees knowledge of that process. They seem to all understand what the process is and what the next step would be and that kind of thing. And I'm Jack, you're I think the only one who has

Yeah, I mean I I agree with a lot of what's been said. I I personally think there's great value in third-party review of operations, but um it needs to be conducted by people with the expertise to do those um assessments and uh I'm not comfortable with just appointing residents to do that. So, I agree with a lot of what's been said. I'm not comfortable with what's being proposed. So, I wouldn't be able to support it. And I wouldn't want to put that on residents either. I don't think that's fair. [clears throat]

Mayor, let me ask, even if we even if we agreed to do this, wouldn't wouldn't that group, whoever it is, still require the same detailed information about what was going on? They would, right? In theory. Yeah. I mean, how do you make a decision without the detail? Basically, they would be they probably would follow what our policy does now. Okay. and and in theory they wouldn't even have access to personnel records and things that professionals do. We don't. But the So, sounds like we're ready for a motion. Does someone want to make that?

Kyler, are you getting ready to make my I can if nobody else is. I gotta find my place. Hang on. Oh, I thought Jack maybe you were taking a big inhale to start one. Start a motion. [laughter] He's preparing for your motion.

Okay. Um um the town council denies the consideration of a oh the of a proposal made by Jeff McKe to form a community oversight committee um based on the discussion at the town council meeting in on January 14th of 2026. Short and sweet. Second. Second. Motion by Kala. Second by Randy. I Randy. Barbara. I Jack. I

Okay. Uh, next item is audit presentation. Caleb, you've been waiting for this for the fiscal year 2024 to 2025 budget by Caleb Reese from Ree CPA. And the staff staff contact is Don. Don, do you have anything you want to do to introduce this? Okay, introduce himself. I've forgotten how to do that. Caleb, you've you've shown great patience waiting for this. Thank you very much. I had to get up and walk around to stretch out my back for a little bit. So, appreciate your patience with me as I had to go do that. Yeah. Make it quick, will you? We're No, I expect just as lively as a discussion about something I'm very passionate about.

[laughter] Okay, far away.

Thank you for having me be here so that way we can talk about um something that is very important which is the financial position of the town itself. Right. So you have I you've all had the opportunity to review it. I'm always very impressed with how thorough everyone is in going through these numbers and so I love it. So I'm very proud of you. I do want to take a quick moment to thank your staff. It's never convenient when they're doing their daily job for some person to come in and say, "Hey, I need this. Hey, will you go get that? Will you get this for me, too?" They're doing two jobs at the same time as a result. And but they do it with a smile, and they never make me feel like I'm asking too much. So, I I appreciate your staff and their willingness to accommodate my requests as uh so I can complete this audit and issue an opinion. [snorts] So, we'll go through the reports first and then we'll go over a couple highlights. Um, Randy, I believe it is you who likes to go over the net um pension liability, correct? [laughter]

Uh, yes, dear. You all look the same. I'm sorry. [laughter] I'm I'm closer to Well, I need it actually.

All right. So, page one is going to be the opinion on the financial statement. Okay. The whole point of this right here is to state whether the financial statements as a whole which are prepared by your staff, right, which are going to be pages four through the remainder is whether these numbers that you read in this report are going to be accurate. Right? When I say accurate, we want to talk about materiality. And in accounting, we get it or auditing, we get to talk about how close something is material. So, for example, if you lose $100 or your child loses $100, it's very important to them. If someone like Jeff Bezos loses $100, he's not going to go spend the time looking for that, right? So, depending on the size of your entity helps determine the materiality. So, when we're looking at this, we say, "Okay, are these numbers correct? Are they going to be maybe a couple dollars off here or there due to roundings, things like that?" Yes, we build that into the opinion, but we can say with certainty that they are materially correct. Okay, so you get a pass on that one. That's wonderful, right? Unqualified is the highest opinion that you can receive and that is speaks to the financial statements, not to my ability to issue the opinion. All right, we'll keep the jokes going all night long. Apparently, [laughter] we'll get a laugh out of you eventually. Okay, we're now going to skip to the last two reports, which will be on pages 55. So, if you want to scroll all the way to the end and then just start working right there. The next two reports that we go over are going to be looking at internal controls. when looking uh what we wanted to consider on internal controls is we we look at the fraud triangle and it's a report that was prepared by some scholars and it talks about when all three things in this fraud triangle are present which would be justification

um opportunity that's the one you guys actually can control and then I'm forgetting one other one that's escaping me because I don't like public speaking But the idea is that you when all three things are present, fraud can occur and not be caught in a timely manner. The only thing that you as a town council and your management staff have control over is opportunity, right? And so you look at it and say that that's the only one you can control that we want to make sure that that's taken care of. So we want to make sure that there are separation of duties. Not one person is doing everything right, preparing the checks and signing the checks and authorizing the checks. No, we want to separate that out. So this is where you as a town council come into and play a vital role. The state auditor has come out and made it very clear that they do expect you as town and city council members to review the um expenditures. If you have questions about that, push back a little bit. All right? Say, "Hey, I don't recognize this vendor. Hey, the payroll seems to be a little bit odd. Let's these who are these other people?" Right? Push back a little bit. And that that's why because I read your minutes and right and I get to have some very riveting um uh stories that that I'm hearing and reading, right? But part of what I'm looking for is, hey, there's this grant that's going on here, right? We received a grant for for the potential new um hospital clinic. Wonderful. I I make note of that. I'm like, "Okay, where's that going to come through in the detailed general ledger, right?" So, again, please continue to have these lively discussions, especially about finances. I get very excited even though you don't see it because I'm in my office reading all of this, but you are very important in that role. And I am happy to report that we do not have any findings in regards to

your internal controls. So good job. Two for two so far. Going back, going forward two more pages, we have compliance. Okay. Now, what we look at on compliance, there are um reports or requirements that are put out by the state auditor each year. Some have to be tested every single year. For example, budgetary compliance, fund balance, right? These are some of them that are required to be um tested every single year. and then others are tested on a three-year cycle. Right? So, we kind of rotate through those. Okay. I'm happy to begin to report that looking at this, you were um compliant as needed over here on all the items that we tested. So, again, three for three. You're batting a 100. We love it. Or is it a thousand? Sorry, I'm not a sports person. Thousand sounds better than 100. All right, there's more. You see, now you're going to be making jokes like, "That auditor did not even know how to make a sports analogy." Oh my goodness.

Baseball.

Baseball, right? It is baseball, right? All right. All right. All right. All right. I'm so proud of that. Okay. Let's go over a couple items. And if you want to follow along, let me get you over to where I like to go over some certain items. Um, whoever is scrolling, is that you, Rick? Page 37 is where I'm going to go jump to. 37, please. So, two items that I like to address and then if you want to go into more detail, we can. I like to look at capital assets, right? This is investments back into infrastructure, back into the community, right? I It's always nice for the residents to see how much money is going back into the community. So pages 37 and 38 will show a combined total of about $7 million going in between water fund um in general um general fund etc. These are all of your improvements that you're making all about. Okay. And we like to see those investments. The residents really appreciate them. All right. It makes life better for everyone. And so we're seeing as the comm as the town continues to grow, we're seeing more and more as we look there at the bottom online it would be I'm sorry governmental activities capital assets net it went from 12.7 million to 13.3. You're on the different page but this one went it's okay.

Tell me where I'm supposed to be. 37. Ah I know where I am.

So we're seeing improvement investments going into the community. Right. That's the point I wanted to address. The next one I want to address is going to be, and if you have questions, please raise your hands, speak up, whatever. I want to make sure that you understand your own financials. Page 39. I like to go over long-term debt because again, it seems to be a bit of a hot topic for council members and sometimes also residents. And so, we are looking at what is our debt. We did increase our debt, almost doubled it this year. Um, but again, when you look at $12 million, if you if some of us are $12 million in debt, that's a large number. But when you look at that compared to the operations of Springdale Town, you are pushing somewhere around about 4% of your annual revenues, right? So, you you're you're not in a lot of risk, right? And so, you're managing your debt very very very well. Okay? And then you can see at the bottom with the amortization schedule that you'll have everything paid off in 2055.

So we we heard something yesterday, all five of us, that was a real it was really profound for me that we shouldn't be afraid to issue bonds to fund projects that will last over the life of the bond. So if we if we fund the property next door, for example, we're all paying for it right now if we pay cash for it. whereas it's still going to be a valuable asset in 50 years and and PE future people should be funding that as well.

So we call that the recognition um concept, right? Okay. We want to we want to um I'm sorry I said recognition, I meant matching. It's a matching concept. So you're then matching the benefit

10 years from now and the payment of the bond 10 years from now. So the residents who are enjoying that benefit 10 years from now are the ones who are paying for it then right so you're matching properly the expense with the project right so yes don't be afraid um don't go out of control right but don't be afraid every a lot of because of just maybe history Utah uh tends to be a very conservative state especially in finances we're not we don't like to take risks maybe some people do whatever point is Don't be afraid. You are correct. It is very, as you said, most people don't think of it as that. That, hey, we can take out a 30-year bond and this facility that we're going to be building is going to be benefiting the community for 40 years, right? And so therefore, you matching the um expense with the people who are enjoying the benefit of it.

Quick question, please. That was I loved that point yesterday. Very well. So, I looked into it and and and maybe know the answer. If there is some catastrophic expense that we had to outlay money for, which comes first, the bond or that? If you had to out we we've got we've got a a sewer pipe that blows up and now we're going to have to invest tons to fix this thing. What wasn't expected to just happen? Are we are we tied to the bond first or do we fix that first? Can we get a bond for that also? I mean, how does that work?

So, you are We're talking about a very odd what if. Right. Exactly. But again, let's let's go over a couple. I would expect it the following situations to occur. First one,

I would expect if if something is going to be that catastrophic, we're talking uh an earthquake wiping out a large part of your infrastructures, right? Because if a pipe breaks, you can have, you know, hundreds of thousands of of dollars of damage, right? But I would expect that you have reserves first off. Two, that you're not budgeting to the penny. But let's say that that those have all been eaten up by something else, right? Then yes, you are going to be tied to the bond. That's going to be a problem. So you would be looking at bonding for this other project. Okay? Insurance. So

and maybe FEMA. So, you know, I remember as a as a youth going on a um a boy scout trip to the Hoover Dam, right? And I remember wanting to ask we did ask a question, what if and the that tour guide immediately shut us down and said, I don't answer what if questions. [laughter] I answered yours though. We love what if questions are. We're masters. spend a lot of time

I I I want to communicate that I'm very pleased with the preparation that I see as I listen right and doc and write down my a couple of notes that I'm sitting back there listening to right the preparation each of you come into these meetings with right you have wonderful staff that you are constantly relying upon but also questioning and don't mind pushing back a little bit you're doing an amazing job. You're keeping the um finances of the town with the help of your staff obviously and in great shape. So, keep it up. Thank you. Any questions, comments, or other things you want to go over because I want to make sure you understand your finances.

Well, I I do first want to compliment the mayor and Rick and staff for for for doing this and having it be as good as it is. They did a great job. Yeah. They haven't had a finding for five years, I want to say. roughly five. Right. When we when I first started doing the audit, they had a couple of findings here and there, but then as they've been working with them, they get better every time. And um I really appreciate them and they're aching to achieve even better results each year. I would comment, however, that the reason Jeff Bezos is a billionaire is because he does pay attention to that $100. [laughter] All right. All right. I'll come up with a different example next time. Try something different. Right.

Thanks, Pat. Thanks, Caleb. All right. Thank Thank you. And the next item on the agenda, we don't need a motion. We need a motion, don't we? We need No, we don't need a motion on the audit. Okay. But we do need a motion for consideration and possible approval of an engagement letter from RECCPA for auditor services for the fiscal year 2025 to 26. And Don, you're listed as a contact. Is there anything you need to say about this? I assume that the the cost is in line with what we've been paying and Okay. Okay. I think we can do that.

So, is that a lot given our our budget? [laughter] Are we Jeff Bezos? Jeff Bezos. As long as we avoid single audits in the future, we'll be fine. So we have a question. I move to approve uh the engagement letter from RECC CPA for auditor services for the fiscal year 2025 to 2026. I'll second motion by Jack and second by Kyla

Pat. I Barbara I Jack I Kyla I getting tired. Yeah. The next [laughter] the next item on the agenda is resolution 2026. Oh 2026-01 adopting a revised parking zone map for the town of Springdale. Staff contact is Tom Danzy.

Thank you. Um so our parking ordinance in uh title six of the town code identifies different parking zones for the town. We have paid parking zones, prohibited parking zones, restricted parking zones. Um those are identified both through the text of the ordinance um and also in some cases based on our parking zone map. And so we back in 2018 when we adopted our paid parking program, we adopted a parking zone map. um and that's served served us very well. We are proposing two changes to that map based on some um recent um changes on how we're how we're going to be managing parking. The first change is um that the area uh south of the church down to Quail Ridge Road um is going to be improved. The council has has budgeted money to improve that shoulder with pavement and curb and gutter and sidewalk for the express purpose of increasing the amount of paid on street parking. Under the current zone parking zone map, that's shown as as prohibited parking. And so we want to change that to reflect that that will be a paid parking zone. So that's the first change. Um the second change is

so Tom I guess going back so at the very top of that it widens out on both sides of the street then. Yeah. So there's already some paid parking on both sides of the street um by the uh by the driftwood and across Oh, you're just showing the extension. Yeah. So So the new part portion is about from where the cursor is now down to the bottom. That's that's the portion that's changing. Yes. And and this is what might help facilitate the river expansion project as well.

That's correct. Yeah. The the hope is to be able to use use that area for parking um if the parking at the river park is is inaccessible during the the renovation.

Um the the second change to the parking map is adding some text down here at the bottom. In this paragraph number seven, um, on busy holiday weekends, the parking and police departments direct visitors to park in the area down by Trees Ranch on the east side of the road. Um, and that is currently shown on our map as a prohibited parking zone. Um, and there's some reasons why that's a prohibited parking zone, and we we we want to keep it a prohibited parking zone. However, when when our parking demand exceeds our capacity, we need some place to put the cars and that's the place that the parking and police departments have put them. So, this text at the bottom authorizes the parking and the police departments to use that prohibited parking zone on a temporary basis as needed to accommodate um demand on on peak periods. So, those are the two changes that are proposed on this parking zone. that overflow parking. It's still like parallel parking.

That's correct. Yeah. In fact, we there's we recently put some signs down there that require parallel parking because there was some problems with angle parking. So, it's all parallel parking. So, that would be good to know. Slow down before you get to that point. [laughter] drive fast here. No, on on I do slow down, Jason. I don't speed on on the on the rare occasions that we use that area for parking. You You really don't have the opportunity to speed because of of traffic because it's busy. Yeah, true. probably just waiting in line

to get home. Well, it seems like I always hate to say it seems like a no-brainer, but it does. So, do we have a motion? I've got one. Very quick. Town council has reviewed and approves resolution one adopting a revised parking zone map for the town of Spring January 14, 2026. I'll second motion by Pat and second by Randy Pat I Randy I Barbara I Jack I Tyler I

Okay, the next item is resolution 2026-02 amending the fee schedule to include solar permits agricultural use permit administrative and administrative agricultural use permit and Kendall's not here so I assume Tom that you'll handle this.

Yes. Um yeah, so this is an amendment to the fee schedule just to um kind of clean up some fees that um that that we have been charging or should be charging or want to charge consistent with other policies or practices. Um so it's that's um really just kind of a cleanup and consistency kind of change. One comment or or one note is that you did receive a public comment about this um concerning the agg administrative agricultural use permit. Um so the as as um uh indicated in the comment, the ordinance actually refers to an administrative agricultural review process and in the fee schedule we we termed it an administrative agricultural use permit. And it it makes sense um to be consistent with the language of the ordinance. And so if you wanted to act on this tonight, recommend you you make that change. Instead of adding a fee for an administrative agricultural use permit, reference an administrative agricultural review process. That way we're we're just fully consistent with the code.

So the difference between those two is is the administrative portion of it is the review of it. Yeah. So an an agricultural use permit has to go to the planning commission for review. The other the administrative agricultural review process is is something that's done by staff. Okay. And and just just and it it is confusing to call one an agricultural use permit and the other an administrative agricultural use permit and might as well be consistent with what we have in the code. Does anyone have an a motion on that? One quick question.

Okay. Um Tom move down to sign permit 75 bucks. Is that like does that include the portable sign thing we just went through? Those portable signs don't require a permit. Got it. Okay.

I have a motion. I move to approve register resolution 20262 amending the fee schedule to include solar permits, agricultural use permit and administrative agricultural use permit with the following change. Rename the administrative agricultural use permit to agricultural administrative agricultural review process as discussed in the town council meeting in January of 2026. A second

and direct the mayor to sign and direct the mayor to sign. So we've got a motion by Kyla and a second by Jack. I Randy. Barbara I. Jack I Okay. The next item on the agenda is discussion and possible approval to extend the resignation period of town manager Rick Wixom through March 31st, 2026. Um, I think everybody sitting up here knows very well what this is about. Is there any discussion? And Rick is willing. That was going to be my question. Is Rick willing? He just thumbs up. Oh, good. I couldn't hear that either. I will

um I just as as a discussion point I will say that um you know our our process for finding his replacement is moving forward. But I think it is incredibly important that he uh Rick have enough time with the new manager um to kind of pass on the torch. And so if Rick is willing, I support this decision to have him stay on a little bit longer. I think we need a motion. Everybody's smiling.

I move to approve uh to extend the resignation period of town manager Rick Wixom through March 31st, 2026. A second. Motion by Jack and second by Randy at I. Randy. Barbara Kylie. Is there any council discussion?

So I have one thing. Oh my gosh. He's going to wear it. [laughter] What the hell are you? Are you you world fantasy football that I won last year veryant? [laughter] Thank you. [applause]

So you had beginner's luck. [laughter] Yeah, we share clothes sometimes. [laughter] Okay, if there's nothing else, I'll entertain a motion to adjurnn. Second motion by Randy, second by Kyla and I. Randy. Barbara I. Jack I. Kyla I got.