Town Council - Special Meeting

meeting. Okay. Okay. Welcome to the regular meeting of the Springdale Town Council. Today is Wednesday, May 13, 2026. The time is 5:15 p.m. We are in Springdale at the Canyon Community Center. With us from the town, we have Garen Breck, Don Breck, Rob Totten, Nyall Connelly, Tom Danzy, Kendall Sagers, and April Ritz. And we have our general counsel Greg Hardman. On the dis from council we have Pat Campbell, Randy Eton, myself Barbara Bruno, Jack Burns, and Kyla Topam. And I would like to start with the pledge of allegiance. If you'll join me

to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for it stands one nation under God indivisible andice for all. The next item on the agenda is an oath of office for our new town clerk Kendall Sagers. And Kendall, do you want to stay where you are and do that or do you want to go up to the dis? I I think I see the answer to that.

Okay. Um, if you'll repeat after me, raise your right hand. I Kindle Sers. I, Kendall Sagers, having been appointed to the office of town clerk, having been appointed to the office of town clerk, do solemnly swear that I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States. do solemnly swear that I will support, obey, and defend the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of Utah and the Constitution of the State of Utah. and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity. and that I will discharge the duties of my office with fidelity. Congratulations. Thank you.

I would entertain a motion to approve the regular meeting agenda. Um, and we've had a request. So, we would like to have the agenda approved with item D2 moved to after item C2. Is that good? She's not coming. She's going to zoom in. So, um, does someone want to make that motion?

Agenda with the revision of moving item D2 to be heard right after item C2. There a second. A second. Got a motion by Randy and a second by Kyla. And I, Randy, Barbara, I. Jack, I k I. Okay. Are there any general announcements from the town? Yes.

Uh Ryan is usually here to fill us in on all the exciting things that are happening in Springdale, but he is um in training today and so he's asked me to to do that for him. So he has uh two exciting things. Um one is uh this month is National Physical Fitness and Sports Month. And so for the entire month of May, all town fitness and sports classes are completely free to attend. So everyone is encouraged to come and attend a class and look for ways to get active and stay healthy. Um and second announcement is that we will be partnering with Dark Skies Astronomy Tours for a Community Stargazing event that will be held on the town field Friday, May 29th at 9:30. Um, and again, that is completely free and is always a big hit with people of all ages. So, please come out and support that event as well.

Friday, May 29th at 9:30 p.m. That's after Springdale midnight. It's after some of our bad times. Are there any other general announcements? Okay. Um, we'll start with an update on Z National Park from Superintendent Brady But

Good afternoon. Um, I'll start with some of our visitation data as I usually do, but uh, the mayor has granted me a few extra minutes to talk about a few other things. Um for the month of April, um visitation at the park compared to April last year was down 2.1%. Although it sure didn't feel that way. Um but year to date um um through April, we're up uh 5.4% um compared to last year. So still still trending um up. Um visitation was super strong in March and uh very strong in February if you remember. So um any general questions before I start in on some other things? Be happy to answer.

Campground. South Campground. Still finishing up the punch list. Um, we've uh a few things have been backordered. Uh, supply chain issues, but we're we're looking at probably before the end of the month. We'd like to get it open for Memorial Day, but I'm not sure we're going to make that.

No changes with the tunnel closure. That's still scheduled to happen. Still scheduled uh June 7th. And again, it's not a tunnel closure. It's the Zion Mount Carmel Highway. Yes.

And um um we're utilizing the term large vehicles as opposed to oversized vehicles because if you worked for U DOT or A DOT, oversized vehicles mean something much different. So um these are uh vehicles that either don't meet the tunnel size requirements or are too long for the the turning uh the turn radi on the road itself. So uh those two things plus um there is a 50,000 lb weight limit for the bridges and um u that applies to these larger vehicles as well. So June 7th, um we'll continue our um public information campaign. As you know, we've been getting things out periodically and we'll be ramping that up again here over this next month. So, we'll kind of redeploy some staff uh for the first week or so. Um I'm sure there'll be folks that aren't aware of what's going on, but Yeah. Okay.

Thank you. Tom, are you running the I am. Which uh which which would you like first?

Just the general visitation graph that one. So um I wanted to kind of give you a state of things as as are happening now in the park. Um just as a bit of reference uh here this is our visitation um over the the period 1919 when the uh park sign national park was established um up through 2025. Of note, it took until 1975 to get to 1 million visitors and then you'll see in 15 years. Um, it jumped up to 2 million, which corresponds with I-15 being uh completed uh through the gorge uh the Virgin River Gorge and uh visitation ramped up during that period pretty quick. So you can see as you go to the right um we hit some of these um additional million marks in very uh compressed time frame. So that's uh where we are right now and um as you know that has ramifications for park operations. So Tom maybe the next one from there which uh shows uh yeah this is a relative change um since 2010 in terms of visitation and um ours budget. Now what means is operation of the national park service and that is congressionally appropriated funding. Every park unit is a line item uh in the federal budget. So uh we show up as a line item. Bryce Canyon shows up

as a line item. So again, this is percent change and we selected 2010 as kind of our base year um back when we were starting to really track these statistics even more carefully. Um some things happened in in uh fiscal year uh 2012 and 2013. Uh you can see a significant drop in the budget between 12 and 13 and that's kind of when visitation started to rise as well. Uh 2013 was um the start of the the mighty five campaign and advertise intensive advertising of our national parks here in Utah and we started seeing the visitation really begin to rise at that point. Now the budget figures are um are adjusted for inflation and um as you can see in that time period um our our budget has has declined uh 23%. If you run a business or run a town um you know the impact of inflation how that affects us. It could be supplies, materials. It affects us in terms of staffing um and um all of our operations. Now, on the top graph for visitation, uh we did a projection for this year um that shows we'd be at 5.16 two u million. Now, we'll have to see how that that actually shakes out. That's our projection. Um,

one thing of course that we're always curious about is what what's the effect of the economy on visitation. In the past, Zion has been very much um gas price immune. When I worked at Bryce Canyon, however, we were not. And so we'll see kind of how things work um with the economy this year, but we are projecting an increase uh this year um given our our our statistical analysis. Any questions on that graph? It's ugly. What What can we do to help? I mean, we obviously

Well, can't open our budget to you, but No. If that's what you're asking for, I'm sorry.

No, no. Um, the point that I'll draw here shortly is how important partnerships are. And certainly our partnership with the town of Springdale is just absolutely critical. And it runs from everything from just general support to u planning support to uh Garen's staff helping us when when we're tied up with an event and hopefully vice versa. We help uh he and his staff. All those kinds of support are very meaningful because we are compressing a lot of of visitors into a small space in Zion Canyon. Whether you're talking about the town or in the park, that's a lot of people. Just uh you know, yesterday we had 17,000 people in the park. Now, that's actually uh not our highest. Spring break this year. We're running Garrett and I were just talking. we're running 24 to 25,000. So again, we have a compressed area. There's a lot happening. Um and so these partnerships are absolutely critical. Thanks for answer asking that question, Randy. Um Tom, could we go to the next one, please? So folks often ask us, well, what happens to um to all those fees that you all collect at the front gate? And uh this is I could spend three hours trying to explain to you how this actually works. Let me just say it's the federal government. Um things are very u uh there's a lot of minutia. But what we're seeing is actually in our fee collection in in some aspects

of it we're seeing a decline in revenue and in other places we have potential for increase in revenue. And where that's important is helping make up that 23% deficit. The problem is we can't take fee revenue money and and put it into park operations that are covered under the congressional appropriation. That's what makes it difficult. So if you look at the very top box on the right hand side where it says inter agency passes um about eight years ago uh we went from having a national park pass to an inter agency pass which applies to all federal recreation areas. When that happened, our revenue went down because folks weren't buying the national park pass here at Zion. Does that make sense? So, we've been trying to make up that difference. The top box on the left hand side is where we are collecting fees right here at Zion and that goes toward our op our Florida Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act uh funds. Now, this chart is a little bit old because we've been seeing this decline in revenue. We're actually running a deficit operating our shuttle system this year. We project that deficit to be $1.5 million. So instead of taking 65% out of that Zion specific entrance pass box, this year we're taking 86% out to

try to make up part of that deficit. Now the deficit just didn't happen this year. it it's happened since this inter agency pass thing uh came on. So each year we've been trying to make up that difference and of course the contract to operate the shuttle system increases every year and so we're always trying to catch up and and we're hoping to do that. I'll talk a little bit more about that as we go along. But the remainder of that doesn't go to transportation um is going into this big pot there, the big box that says Floria funds. We keep 80% of that. 20% goes to a national pot of money for smaller parks or parks that because of their enabling legislation don't collect fees. So there are a number of those. Think about Lincoln Memorial or, you know, uh, Independence Hall or something like that. U, they don't collect fees. So, we're we're keeping 80% of of that big box. We're required to take 55% of that 80%. And put that toward deferred facility maintenance projects. We're doing that and have been doing that. But again, if we're taking 86% off the top for transportation, there's not a whole lot left. So, um, we're we're trying to keep as much moving toward deferred maintenance as we possibly can because we have a $79 million maintenance backlog in Zion. Um, and that's the tricky part. And

again, that just didn't happen over the last couple of years. That's happened over decades. As our OMs budget has declined, uh, so too does the money available for maintenance. Our annual maintenance need is about five to 5.1 million annually, but again, we're not getting that necessarily. And so eventually those projects or those needs become part of the deferred maintenance backlog. So then after we deal with deferred maintenance um then we have some funds that are available for other projects. The Floria requirements, Federal Land Recreation Enhancement Act, those funds can only be used for visitor uh related projects. So, um you know, we may pay for park brochures out of that uh uh handouts, uh interpretive guides, uh those kinds of things. how many of those used to come out of our MPS base money, but it's just not there anymore. So, that's very simple, the fee program. Now, some things have changed with a most recent congressional law called the Explore Act, which was passed last year, and it's allowing now for people to buy these inter agency passes online, these digital passes. But again, if we're not selling them here, we don't see the revenue. So we don't know yet because we're in our first year of operation of that what sort of impact that may have on the whole program. The other thing is the nonresident

uh fee program which you're all I think aware of that has some potential to make up a bit of this deficit. Um, that program allows a non-resident to buy a $250 annual pass or they can pay $100 per individual when they come to the entrance station. That's um been a tough thing to roll out as you might imagine. Um, and we've been in communication with, you know, tour bus companies and others to make sure that this word um gets out there and and they've been helping quite a bit by kind of um dealing with this question about um the $250 non-resident annual pass versus, you know, paying $100 per individual. And so, um, what we're seeing is that that these larger tours, even smaller tours, they're they're getting up to speed with this and they're getting prepared before they come to to the park, which has been very helpful. But we don't know yet how that revenue is going to be split out. And so, um, this is, and the reason I bring this up is that this year is is going to be rather interesting to find out what happens by the end of the year with these various changes. And, uh, we'll be monitoring that quite closely. Anybody have a question?

Are you still in this, John? I don't know. Did you say $79 million deficit in the maintenance fund? Yes. of a maintenance project. Okay. Part of the roll out of the non-resident um collection was that 100% of that would stay in the park.

We've heard that. Yeah. We don't know what the split is whether it's going to be 8020 or not. um we've collected about $1.5 million, but but with any of our fee collection that goes into a central um repository before it comes back out to the parks and and if it's um the normal fee revenue that split 8020, then we'll see that 80, but it's usually several months behind. So, um, these are all questions that have been asked, but we don't exactly know how they're going to do it yet.

So, Jeeoff, I've mentioned this to you before, but I get a lot of questions about why you're not collecting fees earlier in the day and later in the day. Can you address that?

Yeah, it's um it's staffing issue. We're still not able to hire staff um other than emergency services folks. So, what we've been trying to do is is focus on on time periods when we know we're going to have the most visitation. And that can vary by days. And so, we we have a fairly complex shift schedule. I mean, it burns me every day when I come in at 7:30 and this people are coming on in. We're going to catch some of those later. I mean, they're going to leave the park and probably come back in. Um, but that that's a real difficulty. And uh uh we've certainly have uh requests for for staffing um not just in fee collection, but in other realms as well that uh so far we haven't been given approval for.

So, have you thought about catching people as they leave and charging them then? Yeah, it's it's kind of a traffic nightmare is is the problem with that. Um we are using a QR code um at times when we don't staff the um the pedestrian entrance. Um that's helpful, but we lose about 10% of that revenue to recreation.gov. Um but when we don't have staffing, we're definitely going to do that. We have volunteers that will direct people to utilize the QR code. So, that's helping some, but again, um you know, we're losing that that early morning revenue.

Yep. And your volunteers cannot collect those fees. That's correct. Not a job they could do. Yep. Um to the $79 deficit um or backlog, do Does that get uh how do I want to ask this question? Um do those projects ever get re-evaluated to see if they're actually still relevant or are we talking about things like from 30 years ago that kind of keeps the fix themselves. Kyla what? Well well I just wondered like if things aren't re I just Yeah. Like

Oh, it's a good question. And so what we do is is we update that every year and uh we do a process of uh condition assessments on the facilities. So every facility every 3 to five years gets reassessed for what its needs are and then a project is is if it's already in the in the project list, it'll be updated or it could be dropped if it's no longer needed. I mean we've de decommissioned some facilities for example um and uh so yes it's constantly evaluated um when I um first came back to Zion in 2014 we did the collab terrace road project you may recall um that knocked our at the time we had about a $69 million backlog that took that back to 59 9 million, but then it's grown again. So when we do these big projects, it helps drop that back. South Campground when it's completed will take that project off the list, for example. In fact, that's been on the list forever. Jack will remember, we've been talking about that in the park forever. But that's the thing. We do re-evaluate and update those projects every year and then do the condition assessment every three to five years. Yeah, great question.

And I'm not sure are um do you have more I'm I'm not sure where Natalie comes in whether you want Natalie's gonna come on in right now. Okay. Um and I'm not sure are um do you have more?

No, those are all slides. Um the importance now Natalie come on up. Um is how important partnerships are. As I mentioned the partnership with with the with the town is just u cannot be overemphasized or overvalued. It's just incredibly important and and every dollar that that we um receive in the park and uh through Zion Forever's efforts, we try to leverage and match grant sources and those kinds of things. So Natalie is going to talk a little bit about how we do that in some of the projects that we've done.

Thank you.

Hi Natalie, can you just introduce yourself so everyone knows who you are? I I can. Well, nice to see you all. I'm Natalie Britt. I'm the president and CEO of Zion National Park Forever Project. Thank you, Mayor Bruno, and to the council members and for everyone being here. We are exceedingly grateful for the partnership. I want to tell you a little bit about what we're doing and how we're supporting the park, but I wanted to piggyback off a few things that Jeff was saying about fees that I think are important. The fee rangers that you see every day collecting those fees are actually paid their salaries through those fees being collected. And if you think about that, these folks are being paid between4 and $50,000 a year in very difficult conditions, managing millions of visitors coming in. Um, and for every dollar of their salary, they're putting 12 back. So, it's a great investment. Um, another thing too with the U non-resident fee, that's only being collected in 11 parks right now. Um, as Jeff mentioned, there are parks that don't collect fees. And I think it's surprising when folks find out that the busiest park in the country, Great Smoky Mountains National Park, has 16 plus million visitors per year, um, and does not collect fees in that park. So, when you think of that national pool, it's having to go to so many different park units, battlefields, and beyond. So, it's has to stretch far. Um, as Jeff said, I think what's really important for Zion forever, we've been standing with the park for close to a century. Um, we serve two main purposes. We're the cooperating association. That means when you go into the main canyon at the visitors center. Um, our staff manages the interpretive retail. We're also the friends group, which means we're the philanthropic arm of the organization. Many national parks have two nonprofits. Um, because of Jeff's leadership, he knew having one nonprofit to serve in both purposes would be really advantageous to the park. So for example, if you think about our retail division, all the revenues that come from that pay for our staff and also pay for all of the parks, vast majority of the parks education program, junior ranger staffing, concrete to canyons, K&

camps, all come from the purchases that you make in that store. If you give to us philanthropically, we don't take anything from that. A 100% of that goes right back to the park. We also do a lot of investing. So this year we'll have over a million dollars from our investments and all of that will go back to the park for things that are critical issues. Meaning if something happens in the park that we don't anticipate, which is pretty much every day, we can move that funding pretty quickly to support the park. I think this year um we actually will, we're not proud of this, but I think it's important to note we will give more back to the park than Congress. We will contribute close to a 11 million in aid back to Gian National Park. Last year we contributed over five million. As you guys know, during the shutdown that went six weeks, the longest in history. Um fees weren't being collected. That's something that we're actually advocating for right now with our delegation that should we see another shutdown, we're hoping we can um move Congress in a way to allow us to collect those fees. Close to 2 million was lost during that time. Zion Forever in the state was certainly supporting the park and the rangers to the best of our ability, but as you know, that is not not our role. Um, other projects that Jeff mentioned, you guys know and may have heard that we're we need to get a sewer. Sewer lines are not particular particularly sexy, but right now we're looking at the extension of the sewer line all the way from Canyon Junction to the Temple of Sinava. You know, when you go down to the temple now, you'll see those beautiful restrooms that are fairly new that are closed. And the park has to pay close to 350 to 400,000 a year to service those portaotties for the visitors. It's a lot of money of the taxpayers that's going there and you have a beautiful facility that if we had that sewer line could be used. You'll also see that at the grotto. There's almost a brand new comfort station there that's have to being supplemented with um portaotties. So the sewer line's critical and right now we have over 11 million for that project. None of that's federal. Um Zion Forever is working with Senator John Curtis to get an

appropriation for three million. So when you think of that stretching of private partnerships, the public um aspect, we're going to have a sewer line for $14 million and the federal investment will be probably about three million into that, not including all the great work that Jeff's staff does to make it happen. Um Zion Forever is funding housing in the project.

Thank you. Um Zion Forever is working with the park to fund the first Ranger housing. um since the 1950s at the Watchmen, we've raised over $6 million for that. So, we're very excited about that piece. So, I don't want to talk long, but over a hundred years, this organization has served faithfully. Um we are so grateful to the citizens here. Many of you are donors, and we appreciate the support, but like I said, 100% of everything that comes back to us goes right to the park. Um we also support the park not just through education condor research um all the seasonals that you see. Um we fund a variety of those seasonal rangers through Zion Forever tribal gathering programs, tribal partnerships and of course the new discovery center on the east side. Over $50 million raised for that project and Zion Forever raised an additional 5 million um from the outdoor adventure commission and we're hoping that will open in 27. Um, we're also working on a regional recreation management plan that does head-on address the concerns of the crushing visitation that we're seeing and how we can start to alleviate some of that for the park. And that's being done through a regional recreation management planning process. Um, we will um receive $1.5 million from the National Park Foundation uh to fund the implementation of that and a staff member for that particular project as well. So, those are just a few of the things that we're doing. I'm happy to answer questions, but our goal is to give back to the park. And we do believe we're critical to the operations of the park. We're not the boots on the ground folks, but we're the behind the-scenes folks that really fill in the gaps when they're needed to be filled. Even the new shuttle systems that you see, we invested the first $250,000 um into that to ensure we could leverage those $33 million being invested into the shuttle system. So grateful as always. It all began here a hundred years ago with the residents of Springdale and Rockville lining the streets selling um postcards to visitors on Union Pacific tours to fund naturalist programs and we carry that history and that integrity and that honor in everything we do today. So,

thank you to you Barbara and excuse me, Mayor Baro um and to the council for all your support of Zion Forever. We're excited to host a concert here on July 4th with Luke Grimes. All the proceeds from that will go directly to the park. It's sponsored by Zans's Bank and hope we'll get to see some of you out there for the concert at the OC Tanner Amphitheater. So, thank you so much. Thank you, Natalie. Happy to answer questions if there are any.

I just wanted to say really quick, you know, how uh critical I think it is that this kind of information is shared. Um especially uh you know with what you've said and what Jed had had to say about this, there is so much misunderstanding on spending authority and a lot of people when they when you tell them there are millions of people pouring through the gate, they don't understand that all of that money does not stay in the park. And so this is the kind of information that is so critical to educate people on what exactly spending authority and and and how it's applied. So

I appreciate that. But I think the thing too for our park service folks, we think of this, you know, all very localized. But as Jeff mentioned, when we think about staffing cuts, those are happening at the regional and Washington levels and those impact everything in individual park units. Um, hiring takes longer when you don't have as many staff. Um, somebody that the superintendent worked with last week may be gone next week. And so all the systems and the things that you see as far as hiring, HR, um getting folks background checks is taking far longer than it normally would because we're seeing, you know, significant changes at the staffing level at the region. Um so people are like just put somebody in the fee booth. Um that would take an act of Congress for us to make those changes. Um so I appreciate you bringing that up so much, Councilman.

Thank you.

Are there any questions about council reports? Looks like not. So, uh, Sean Emma, do you want to come and make your presentation, introduce yourself, and Um, thank you very much for uh inviting me up and and our board member Pat Campbell. He's been doing a great job on our board. Um, we got a meeting tomorrow, don't forget. Uh, we only have five meetings a year, so it's uh pretty important to get to those. Um, but we do a great job and uh take care of a lot of stuff. I've brought a few things today just to uh give a quick overview of what we do, especially in your community. Just kind of a broad overview and then I'll get right down to what we're doing here in the community. But first off, we're just a h a special service district created in 2002 by a vote of the the people in Washington County. Um, Springdale also eventually signed up on that as wanting to participate. Um, we're funded only through uh property tax. That's our only revenue. Um, we try to we have not raised taxes since I've been um managing the district. So, um, and want to try to keep it that way. Um, it's also, if you look at your tax roles, we're like right at the very bottom usually. It's a 0.00002 00002 uh meal levy. So we're pretty low about $3 for every $100,000 value is is kind of an average and that fluctuates

depending on how many people move to our area. We do get a little increase every year just on growth. So the growth will raise that amount that we're able to collect. But um so that's that's how we've been trying to fund everything. Um right now we have about um a dozen uh staffed right now for the for the season. Um many of those are seasonals. Uh we got four we've got five that are uh full-time staff that just work all year long doing uh educational coordinating um going into schools, going to events and doing different things as well. So, um, this little flyer here just talks a little bit about who we are. Some fun facts about mosquitoes. Um, tells you about what mosquitoes are because a lot of the, uh, service requests we get, uh, still are people going, I've got mosquitoes swarming me and we say, well, are they biting? And typically those are not mosquitoes. So, there's a lot of those faux mosquitoes that are out there. Um, so you got to be careful. So a little bit about their life cycle, but it also has a section on West Nile virus. So that still is in our area. That's one of the reasons the district was created was in 1999. It came into the US and by 2002 it was actually already present here in the area and our biggest season I think was 2006. But and it just cycles up and down from there about how much we have in the area. We have had some deaths in the area because of that. We've had a lot of people get sick. There's some lingering um problems if you do catch it. Um so there's there's always a problem. And so we're more on the um the public health side as well as um actually taking care

of the the pest side of the um mosquito control. So um anyways, that's that's a fun one to to look through. also talks about some of the places in your yard you can look and look for standing water and make sure you take care of that and uh using proper repellents and um taking care of not getting bit um is important. So um I want to kind of shift a little bit about to some of these other papers we have. I don't know if you ended up getting those on here at all. So, um, yeah, we'll start with that one. State of the district. This is just a page telling a little bit kind of, you know, state of the union, state of the state. This is the state of our district. Just tells a little bit about where we've been, what we're doing. Um, some of the accomplishments we've had. Um, and this last year we had, you know, not a huge significant uh year. We only had three West Nile virus pools. And that that means that we've we've collected mosquitoes. We put them in a vial and each vial is a pool. We only had three that were positive. Up north they had over 54 human cases, most of those neuroinvasive, so they affected the brain and caused uh major problems. I think they had four deaths as well up north. Um so we knew that the uh we know that primarily birds are the reservoir for that um disease and them just migrating through were going to bring some of that disease as they went south. So in September we ended up getting a little bit of West Nile virus um as and that's all down was down in St. George. We've yet to date um to find any West Nile up in the Zion corridor here. So um

since I think 2011 was the only time we found some and that was down in a um isolated pond down in Virgin. Um since then we've we've hopefully been controlling the mosquitoes well enough that the numbers are down and we just don't see the uh the disease coming through here. Um, so that's been good. So, this is interesting to read through, but we're going to skip ahead to um distribution chart. It's the I think this little pretty one here. There we go. Okay. And when I started in 2009, I knew two things about mosquitoes. There was two kinds. There was the one that was buzzing around my ear, and then there's the one I smashed on my arm. Um, so I I've kind of developed from there into uh loving to talk about mosquitoes. This was a chart I developed even way back in 2009 when I started um because my uh manager loved graphs. He loved the colors and and so what I did was I put together a chart of everywhere where we trap for adult mosquitoes and every all the different species that we have. You can see there's quite a list of them across that top. Um those are uh we have over 21 different species um that we collect here in the county. Um some of them way up in the mountains, some of them all the way down in the lowest parts of uh the county. Um and some of them are prevalent all the way through the county um in in every elevation. Um so these just show some of the the hot spots you would say. Um down at the bottom, if you scroll down to the bottom for the people back here, we do have Springdale. We only have one trap that we put out in Springdale. It's uh right near the um Springdale pond right behind the uh hotels there. And um we either

put it there at that pond specifically or there's a some private property that has a couple of ponds and uh one of them is is not been being filled up as much. So, there's some standing stagnant water there and it produces quite a few mosquitoes. As you can see there, almost 400 mosquitoes. Um, most of them were um were a mosquito that could potentially carry West Nile. So, we're trying to keep those numbers down as low as possible, but that's over a whole season. So, 400 mosquitoes actually is not that um that many to deal with. So, it's it's we've done a pretty good job. um before I started that would be like one trap night. We'd get that many mosquitoes. So hopefully we're uh we're putting a dent in there on that. But uh this is a fun chart to look at. Um I wanted to go to a map. Hopefully there's a map down here. This just shows um some of the uh areas that we check in um Springdale area. There's a few spots along the river um right down by Bumbleberry there. Um some ponds that that uh filled with irrigation water mostly just down along the river there's a few spots that uh um as the water starts to recede. Um there's little pools off to the side and I'll find stuff in there. Just the other day I found a whole pool that was just loaded with probably thousands of mosquitoes. Uh we took care of those before they hatched out and were biting people. So um and then that Springdale pond area um we do catch quite a few there and of course we put a trap there. Um the the other items we have the or icons we have are little hashtags are storm drains. So we try to keep an eye on all the storm

drains that we have in town. Um we it's hard to find all of them. Um, so maybe I'll have to get with staff and and see if there's some that we're missing. I even cover the ones that are around the city office because they'll have uh quite a few uh larvae in them as well. So, we'll try to stay on top of those. But if we do miss it, that's why we're here is so we can um because the public becomes the eyes and ears for us because we don't have enough staff to cover everywhere all all the time. So, as people start getting bit, we like to receive those phone calls and then we come and check out the area and we'll survey the whole whole area. Um, one of the one one of the main things that we've had a issue with here in Springdale is um we had an invasive species come and it's this last um this last page. It's they're they're called the 80s Egypti mosquito. Um and you probably don't have that one. I don't know if they ended up getting on there, but you guys have a copy of this and I think I might have a few copies if anybody's interested, but uh down by what's the name of your road?

Yeah.

Can you view View? Okay. Right down that road there's uh they they popped up quite a few years ago when we had that really big rainstorm that wiped out the campground and everything uh just down the road from here. um had a lot of standing water in containers and buckets and and there was a lot of uh also some landscaping that had been done and and we suspect that uh these invasive species mostly out of southern California and and Arizona were probably brought in through uh mulch or potting soil and then they were able to um uh hatch out here and then finally get established. So, there's one little pocket. They don't fly very far. Um, but they do. They're vicious biters. They're urban mosquitoes. Uh, they love containers, plant pots, ornamental ponds. Uh, you'll find them in just anywhere that has, um, just as much as a bottle cap of water. Um, they can survive in. And, uh, so they're pretty prevalent. I think last year I found a big trash can that had just filled up with some rain water that had poured off a roof. Um, and it was just full of full of larvae and and mosquitoes flying around. So, um, we like to find those and try to take care of them. Um, one time we did try a what we call a fogging event here in town. That didn't go over so well. So, um, people weren't sure because they'd never seen that before. You know, what's this big cloud of smoke coming out of the back of your vehicle? We're not going to try that again. We do what we call spot fogging. So, we find an area where we we've found the uh the mosquitoes, the adults, and we just use a handheld fogger and just do that particular place. If we can't get into a backyard, that is a problem because there might be a source in that yard um that uh that

has the lar developing and we can't get in there, then we can't get rid of those mosquitoes. So, I think that's why we've been continuing to see them is because we haven't been able to get into every yard in the area. Um, the state law does allow us that we could if we wanted to, but we're u very aware of private property rights and we don't want to offend people and have them, you know, kick us out completely. So, we try to uh try to manage that and sometimes we get them and sometimes we can't. So, we do the best we can but these are a major problem. The again the best way to find out where they are is people have to call us. So just let uh people know that we're there as a free service um as far as the treatments as far as uh just coming in and inspecting a yard. Um if you're wondering if your yard just needs um to to be looked at to see if there's any standing water, we can come and do that. Um it's no problem. I personally um cover a lot of this area because I also live in the Canyon corridor and uh and love it here. And so it's always nice to come up at least a couple of times a week and uh and uh enjoy the area up here and also get right out into the uh um the backwoods, you'd say, and down by the river and uh find these mosquitoes. So, all right. Um that's about all. If you have any questions,

questions for Sean, I do have questions. Um, so when you treat a source and we get a rain, is there enough residue left behind that it keeps that place treated or do you need to do come back?

Yes. Okay. So, there's three different types of treatments. Mostly we use a bacterial product. Um, and that's very short-lived. Um, then we have a growth regulator that's specific to mosquitoes. Um that one will last up to five or six months. Um and we usually use those in storm drains, areas like that. Um we also have another couple um of those growth regulator products that is more of a sand granule and it kind of sticks to the sides of the the cement um in um storm drains. We also um don't use it very often, but a um it's a mineral oil that very thin film. it breaks the surface tension of the water and it doesn't last very long but it will um the mosquitoes can't stay at the top to breathe so therefore they they drowned. Um we use that on a limited basis but sometimes um it's necessary to do that because the pupa don't feed on that bacteria so you have to use it for those um but then it dissipates within within 24 hours. So, but it will possibly kill other beneficial insects. So, we try not to use that as much. So, good question.

Answered my other question, which was are you using pesticides or are you using like the modified mosquito? Yeah. Do you know what I'm talking about? The genetically modified or the sterile mosquitoes? Sterile mosquitoes.

Okay. the sterile um the sterile mosquito technique is being used quite widely in areas where they have these Egypt eye mosquitoes. Um if we were to use those, it'd only be in the areas where we have those, but it's also very expensive and it's also not quite as effective because we're widespread um areas. Um that's why you'd only use it for these is because they don't fly very far. uh we don't anticipate on using those. I call them microwaved mosquitoes because that's really kind of what it the technology is is they low microwave these sterilize the mosquitoes and then um and it's just the male mosquitoes. So when they go and breed with the females then they become um the eggs become infertile and you don't have to worry about it. So releasing more mosquitoes to control mosquitoes doesn't make sense, but the males don't bite, so they're not a a threat to the public health. So good question though.

That's a lot about mosquitoes. Yeah, I love talking about mosquitoes. I'll keep you here for hours, but I probably won't do that. So, any other questions? Thanks, Sean. Have we put this in our newsletter? I feel like we have, but maybe this would be good material, like a blurb. April's shaking her head. We'd we'd be happy to put something together for you. Just uh reach out, please, and we'll send something right back for a newsletter. That would be awesome. Okay. I think what's most important is the if you have experience day biting mosquitoes, here's who you call. So, we'll we'll definitely get something in our newsletter that goes out to everybody. Awesome. I appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Okay. Thanks. Okay. Next item is community comments. If you'd like to make a comment, please step to the microphone, state your name. If you want to make a comment about one of the public hearing items, please wait for that public hearing to do that. So, are there any general public comments? Looks like not. Kyla, do you want us to wait for you?

Kella's dog needs to go home. So, okay. Um, I would entertain a motion to approve the consent agenda, which is a review of the monthly purchasing report minutes from the February 20th, March 11th, April 3rd, and April 8th, 2026 meetings, and proclamation 2026-05 declaring May 2026 as bike month in the town of Springdale. Move to approve the consent agenda. Second. Got a motion by Jack and a second by Randy. India. Barbara.

Okay. So, the first public hearing is a zone change from the Foothill residential zone to the Foothill residential zone with the workforce housing overlay zone at 120 Kosava Drive, lot 5, K-1. The applicant is Kathy Lefave who is here and the staff contact is Nile Connelly. We will be following the public hearing format on the back of the agenda and you can see there are some rules of order. If you're interested in speaking, please make sure you've signed into the meeting so we get your name right. Um, we want to limit your comments to three minutes for the interest of time. If others have expressed the same interest as your own, you may indicate that you agree rather than repeat that or you may repeat that if you'd like. Um, we prohibit clapping, booing, or shouts of approval or disagreement from the audience. And when your item is done, if you'd like to be leave the meeting, please do so quietly so as to not disrupt the meeting. So with that, we will um get a staff introduction of the item.

Thank you. So yes, this is an application for the workforce housing overlay zone. Uh the applicant is Miss Kathy Lefay and she's applying for the workforce housing overlay zone to be applied to her property at 120 Kava Drive. Um the workforce housing overlay zone allows an increase in density in exchange for a deed restriction that limits the occupancy of the units to qualified households. So, those are essentially households where one member of the household is in full-time employment um within the town of Springdale or within Z National Park. Um so, Miss Lefave's current property um has one single family home. H she would like to build one additional single family home on the property. Um both would be privatelyowned homes and to be occupied by qualified households. Um this was reviewed by the planning commission uh who recommended approval of the zone change. Uh so the town council should review the application and determine whether to approve it or not. Um, Miss Lefave is here also. Uh, and she I think she'll be prepared to present or ask qu answer questions as well if you would like.

Thank you, Nile. Um, Kathy, do you want to step up to the microphone and add anything you want to add to Nile's comments?

Kathy Lefay, you know, I don't want to take up too much of you guys this evening because I know you've got a full agenda. Um, so a lot of what I have in term of terms of comments is already presented in my application. Um, however, I'm pretty passionate about this. I've, it's not my first time in front of any of you guys saying that I'm a supporter of attainable housing, workforce housing, housing for young people. I think our general plan speaks to the fact that part of the general plan says one of our missions and goals is to provide housing for a diverse population. We all can see that the diverse population has shrink within the town of Springdale and you know I'm an aged part of the population but I still happen to be working and my husband's a retired employee of Zion National Park. Um we both have given to the community in a number of ways. Um I know that this the character of this zone is to offer this forward to the general public. Um and in fact even though if my daughter offers to buy the second lot for a dollar we would consider that. She's also been somebody who went to elementary school here, who's worked full-time in Springdale, except for when she was a college student, and has recently um passed her pack test and is now part of Z National Park Search and Rescue. So, these are people who give and there are a lot of people in this community who give. I encourage the planning commission, I encourage the town council to look at creative ways to have those individuals be part of our community. I think it's very, very important. I also looked at other ways like Jonathan Zambella said, you know, couldn't this be accomplished with a PUD? Well, currently in Foothill

Residential, that's not allowed. Could it be accomplished by, hey, your parents are aging? Could you build something a home to take care of the aged? That's not allowed in Foothill Residential. So, currently workforce housing overlay zone is the only zone that's allowed in Foothill Residential. The workforce housing overlay zone would allow a two acre parcel to put 16 units. I think that's way too excessive. I think it's too excessive to impose on our neighbors. I would not propose that. So, we're asking that our current two acre parcel be divided into two parcels, both being deed restricted. That means that we're willing to concede some level of value to our home because our home in the future should we want to sell it could only be sold to somebody who is either a full-time employee as defined by the town or volunteer. We're willing to do that because we think it's important. We think it's important to have younger people as part of our population. It also deed restricts the other property. Person's going to pay the full price to build a home and that deed restricts it. And that's okay. In my opinion, it's okay because I believe in workforce housing and should I decide to sell my home in the future, I'm willing to get a lower price for that because I believe in it. Um, I've lost my train of thought completely. Um, I guess I would, you know, precedent. Would this set a precedent? Um, currently I think the only Foothill residential application that's been approved was at um the Benton Spur. Um, I hope it sets a precedent that if in Foothill Residential we consider this in the future that it's small, it's not 16

units on a twoacre parcel. Also, the application already states that we meet all the requirements. The lot won't be on a ridge line. There's a number of things that it it can't. We've already done did a poll test with the town to make sure that it does not create a high visual lot. It will not. The home built on the second lot will be a one-story home so as not to be in the viewshot of neighbors. our closest neighbor has written a letter in support of um I think Jonathan Zambellis was the only one that could be construed as somewhat hey maybe we should look at and that was his suggestion that what about a PUD but that's not allowed. Um so in instead of just rereading my entire application do you guys have questions for me?

I have a question for now. Um, so their existing home, if they get this workforce housing overlay zone for this section that's partitioned off, does the code require or does the ordinance require them to have their existing home as workforce housing? Yes, it would it would apply the overlay zone to the whole property and which would deed restrict the whole thing. So, both homes.

Okay. So, in order in doing this, it the the overlay zone applies to the whole property, not just to the property they're subdividing off. Not just to the new the new home, but the existing home would be deed restricted as well. And we'd be applying the zone before the property is subdivided, right? So it would be on that entire That's correct. So the first step would be applying the overlay zone and then it would have to be subdivided and then the they would both have that overlay zone and we're willing to comply with all the requirements of that deed restriction.

But I guess my question is and maybe you you answered it. I mean you couldn't subdivide it and then apply it to just the new parcel. No, because the lot is not big enough to subdivide without having the overlay zone on it. Yeah. And we realize it's a give. It's a big give, but we we realize it's a big gift,

but we're asking for a gift. And I think that sometimes you have to give something to to ask for concession, and we're willing to do that. I plan to live and die in Springdale, so Any other questions for either Nyall or Kathy from from council? If not, then we'll open for any clarifying questions from the audience. That would be just clarifying questions and we'll take comments later. Looks like there are none. So, I'd entertain a motion to open public hearing. Move that we open the public hearing. Got a motion by Kyla and a second by let's say Jack and I Randy.

Barbara I we're open for um public comments. It does not have to be a question. Please limit your time to less than three minutes and state your name at the microphone. N Benson, I just want to say that uh although I do have a lot of problems with this overlay zone, I think this application is fantastic and uh the neighbors have, you know, given their support and I think that's definitely a positive for this and I uh I support the proposal. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else? If not, we will I'd entertain a motion to close public hearing. And will we close the public hearing? Second. Motion by Randy, second by Pat. Randy, Barbara, I. And we would allow a response from you, Kathy, now, but there was really probably nothing said that you want to respond to, so we'll skip that if that's all right.

Okay. So, we're in deliberation now. So, I have been pushing workforce housing. I still think it's a shame that we didn't have workforce housing or the ADUs uh in the foothill residential zone under a workforce housing stipulation restriction. But I totally support this. This is, you know, it's a, as Kathy says, it's a huge gift for them to give up uh the retail market value of their home in order to do this. So, I think this is awesome

and and I I I live where I'm looking down on their property. I think it's kind of interesting to see how the workforce housing overlay zone will evolve and what creative solutions come out of it and this is one of them. Um and I think you know we have all said in the past that there isn't one answer to addressing uh workforce housing in um Springdale. It's going to be a number of different approaches and I think this is definitely in concert with that and um I can certainly support it.

I agree. Um two houses on a 2 acre parcel even if there are slopes. I mean this the slopes maybe come into consideration when we're talking about density but still to the eye it's going to look like a twoacre parcel. Um, I think the application shows the restraint that uh and fitting in with the character of the the current neighborhood and respecting the neighbors and the traffic considerations. Um, I do think that the application is supported by the general plan, um, in several sections of the general plan and making sure that we have a diversity of people that can live here and and you know, kind of the same old drum that we beat when we talk about workforce housing. and the the fact that you know this applicant is coming to us with this this idea under well with some self-sacrifice. you know, the fact that their own property will be under the workforce housing restriction. And like um she mentioned, probably that's going to come with a a bit of a uh downfall in the price that they'll be able to get for that price. But I think it's very altruistic of them. Uh I like the application and I think it would be a good fit for the neighborhood. My concern with workforce housing has always been the size, how it how it could uh explode. Um, and I think Mr. V has done an excellent job of of keeping things uh contained. It's not huge. It serves a purpose. I thought the application was excellent. Um, and this

would be one time when although I wasn't a big fan of workforce housing when it first came out, this changes my mind a little bit. I think you've done a nice job actually.

I agree. And I think that the fact that this is the second application in the Foothill Residential Zone and both have been absolutely appropriate um styles and amounts of housing for the zone. I think it it does tell us that we're on to something here. And I think there will be areas where 16 units per acre may be appropriate, but I don't think there will be many of those in the town of Springdale. So, I appreciate that nobody yet has tried to to max that out and I can support this, especially given that when we look at our our staff report, um she's complaining and all the requirements. So, seems like we're ready for a motion if somebody wants to make one. Okay, I'll do it. Um, the town council approves the zone change Oh, okay. Hold on. Zone change amendment application which would apply the workforce housing overlay zone to the property at 120 Kennesa Drive. Um, the motion is based on the following findings. This zone change meets the criteria for a zone change because it furthers the goals and objectives of the general plan um in the goals of housing general goal and sub goal A and sub goal B which I know I probably read those if somebody wants to do that.

Would you like those in there? Yes. If maybe we can. Yeah, just say that you said sub goals A and B, the general goal and then sub goal A and sub goal B. I'll second. So we've got a motion by Kyla and a second by Randy and I. India. Barbara. Jack I. Kyla I.

Okay. Passes. The next item is also a public hearing. It's public hearing ordinance 2026-08 review of land use ordinance amendment application from null Benson proposing an amendment to section 10-18-4 of the town code. The proposed amendment would introduce tiered minimum landscape and open space requirements based on the property size in the village commercial zone. And the staff contact is Nyall Connelly and Nyall we will start with your introduction and explanation. Thank you. Um, so Mr. Null Benson has made an application for a land use ordinance ordinance amendment. Um, so the these applications don't come up very frequently, but it's where a a member of the public can make an application for a revision to the code. Um, and so that's what this is. Um the proposal is that the minimum landscape requirements in the village commercial zone be adjusted to introduce a tiered requirement based on the property size. So similar tiered landscape requirements exist in the central commercial zone and also in the valley residential zone. Um this proposal would um would introduce a taring where um properties of half an acre or larger would still be at the 60%. So that does not change. Uh properties between a quarter of an acre and half an acre that landscape requirement would go down to 50%. And then parcels smaller than a fourth of an acre uh would have a

landscape requirement of 40%. Um so the planning commission reviewed this. Uh they made a recommendation that this would be approved. Um there's two additional points I just wanted to flag. Um there was a discussion during the planning commission meeting about um introducing a um sort of a 5% um zone around the the percentages. So if if you are 5% larger than um say the the the quarter of an acre threshold that there would be kind of a a 5% um flexibility within that area where you could have the lower standards apply if your property zone is within or your property area is within that 5%. So that that was discussed at the planning commission. Um as I followed the planning commission meeting, it it didn't seem to make itself make its way into the final um motion, but it was something that was discussed. So you may want to to consider that. Now, um the other point, um so a number of uh public comments came through that were um that were forwarded to you. We received one just during the close session, so you you won't have seen that. we we weren't able to forward that to you, but um just very briefly. Um uh it was sent from Ariana and Jacob

Gaye and it said in I support the proposed tier landscape amendment or landscape requirements in village commercial. It seems like a good way to help smaller properties while still maintaining the character of the town. So that that just came in uh just just during the close session. Um so I would be happy to answer any questions that you have and also Mr. Benson is here also and available to present and ask question answer questions too.

So um the process is that null would present his application and then we would ask questions of either of you. So why don't we do that? Patel, if you want to come up and add anything that uh you want to add to what Nile said and then stay there for any questions.

Well, Benson, well, first of all, the reason I'm here, sorry about that, but it's me. Uh, but, uh, the reason I'm here is because our family has a property that's right about a quarter acre in Village Commercial, and it's been really, really difficult to figure out how to improve that property. And you know, I just want to be clear though, I am not a developer. And if we end up doing something on that property, it'll be the very first time that I that I've done something like that. We're just residents in Springdale that are trying to create a business here. Uh and you know, something I've, you know, noticed during my explor exploration of this property is that the code sort of it sort of directs how things can be developed on these small properties. It really really shapes what's possible. And on this particular property, there's three sort of ideas. One is under development where you're working within the the the framework that's currently in place. And everything I do when I'm when I'm trying to figure that out points me towards a bike rental shop, that type of thing, because it needs very little indoor space. And you can I know this maybe you know not everybody agrees but you can do that business without too much parking. And the other possibility would be too much development. So I could just maximize and go as high and as big and can lever and put parking underneath and it becomes sort of a passion project at that point. It doesn't pencil out because the the the cost of construction would be going up so much. And the third idea is just to kind of leave it as it is. And I don't know if you know the property, but it's right next to Zion Gallery, and it's not the prettiest property in town. And I would certainly like to be able to make that better for us and for everybody else. Uh, you know, uh, the planning commission had some concerns about the setbacks

because the setbacks, they limit, excuse me, they limit what I could do as far as the building structure. They were doing the math and saying, "Hey, look, even if you got down to the 40% tier on this property, you'd be limited by the setbacks and you couldn't develop the whole thing anyway." And that's partially true, but there are a lot of things that you can do outside of the setbacks like patios and so forth. So, if if I was able to get down to that 40% tier, it would still be a very positive uh way to improve that property much more easily and make it much better for the town as far as what the town's looking for. Uh Nile had mentioned about the 5% tolerance. So, during the planning commission meeting, I was saying that our particular property, excuse me, is just over at least I believe it's just over a quarter acre. So even if this is approved, we would be in that 50% tile and not the 40 percentile. And so what I was proposing was a 5% tolerance at the thresholds. And what that would mean is if a property was in 5% of the threshold, then you could approve for it to go down to the lower tier. So for instance, we're just over a quarter acre, but we're within the 5% of the quarter acre. So, if that tolerance was worked into the to the ordinance change, I could apply for that to go down to the 40%. Now, it's true that I couldn't get all the way to 40% because of the setbacks, but again, there are many advantages like patios and so forth that can be put outside of those setbacks. So, I would really like to have that considered. And I think when when we were having the meeting, I think Terry looked at me and said, "Hey, do you want to amend your application?" And I felt like at that time they were going to approve that 5% tolerance. So I said, "Yeah, I want to amend it." But when they made the

motion, I don't believe they put the word amended into the motion, but I believe the intent by the entire commission was to allow that 5% tolerance at the thresholds. That's really about it. So hopefully the application's complete and thorough and happy to answer any questions. So, council questions for either Nyall or Null. I have a question um for null. Um you've done a really great job explaining to us how it would work specifically on this particular property. Did you investigate any other properties when you kind of were thinking about this code?

Well, I did ask Tom if there were other properties that would be affected and there are other properties. I didn't exactly do the math on other individual properties, but it wouldn't just be us. There would be a benefit to other small village commercial property owners in town. I hear you right though. Yeah. At a quarter, you can't meet the 40%.

Well, if Yeah. If you're at a quarter acreish and you're granted the 40%, you know, percentage, the setbacks do take up more than that. And so I think that was a concern for the planning commission. They couldn't quite get their heads wrapped around it. And I was saying, look, the structures have to be within the setbacks. We know that and they're locked in there. But things like patios and signage and walkways and other things can be outside of those. And even the parking in this case, because this property is surrounded by by other commercial, it doesn't it's not next to any residential properties. Uh with with town approval, with staff approval, uh I could even go halfway into the setbacks side in the rear with parking. Still, I can't develop fully at 40%. But again, that's okay. I'll be bound by those setbacks, and that's what they are. But at least I'll have the latitude to do things outside of the setbacks that are appropriate.

I mean, so part of my question for you then is if you're bumped into the next tier, you're slightly over a quarter. 50% 50. Is that 50? I mean, you can't meet that. I can meet that. Can I can go below 50 for sure. Yeah, I can go. I applied for a variance that didn't uh get approved and I was applying for a 48% on that one because even that extra 2% was very very valuable to me. So there is a mechanism in place for somebody to apply for a variance rather than than include the 5% variance as part of this change.

I I recognizing there's no guarantee someone in the future is going to get the variance approved. So, so for me, I mean, if you put the 5% uh tolerance at the thresholds in the ordinance change, I would still have to get permission from you to be able to get down to that lower tier. I I assume so. I mean, I don't know how the town would want to structure that exactly. You know, it's kind of weird because this property when uh I first started looking at it almost two years ago uh to do something, public records had 0.24 acres. So, a man, I'm just under a quarter acre. Well, I had a survey that put me just over a quarter acre, but there's been some eminent domain stuff that's happened on that property. There's been a lot line adjustment on that property. So, if the 5% tolerance doesn't go through with you guys this evening that I'm going to hire uh, you know, get a new survey done to see because I pulled it up this year and it says 26 acres. Suddenly, public records has changed it. Now, they do that from GPS imaging and a lot of different sources. I don't know why they redid this one, but I do think there's a chance that it might be a little bit smaller than they're saying, and I'll definitely pay the money to get that extra potential 10% if I need to. So,

yeah. Would you go for 5% on all those zones? Would you? Sorry. Talking about a 5% tolerance for the 0.25 to 0.5 acres.

That's a great question. I mean that that's not something that I applied for in the ordinance change, so it's not part of my proposal. I think that's probably a good idea on these smaller properties in all zones. Yeah, I I I think so because, you know, properties have different shapes. They have different frontages for different streets. You know, mine's right on SR9 and it has good frontage, so it's got those advantages. But if you're off the if you're off the main highway, maybe you'd be less inclined to approve, you know, going down to that that lower uh threshold. if it's honest or not, maybe you're more, you know, more agreeable to to do something like that.

I I listened to the planning commission meeting and had to take out my old calculus book to try to figure some of this. I think I have the answer for this. You and I talked briefly before. In your mind, is the limiting factor on something like this, the setbacks or the landscape? Oh, the setbacks are a huge huge uh you know, restriction and and and issue. but they are what they are. And so I just felt like if I can get down into the 40s, I could do something with this property that would be viable and appropriate for the general plan and all that kind of stuff.

That was that was my conclusion. Um which is why currently leaning towards the 40%. I mean that's why I got that's why I got there. But you mentioned that 45 might work and I don't know what ultimate difference that'll make. Couple hundred feet maybe couple hundred square feet. It's hard to say because I haven't done, you know, I've done so many scenarios and I've paid a lot of money for, you know, architects and draftsmen to kind of rework these ideas because there's a lot of moving parts to this stuff. It's not even just this thing. It's about, you know, if I put if I made the building twotory, then I could actually put landscaping partially underneath the structure and count towards landscaping. So, there's a lot of sort of moving parts with that. I don't want to do any of that stuff. I don't want to do something big and grand. and I want to do something quite modest and this felt like the most appropriate way to do it. U yeah, this felt like the most appropriate way. I would certainly love to have less less setbacks. That would be, you know, amazing, but you know,

that'd be a very So, I have a couple of questions for you. One is that in our in our staff report, it says the town council's role in this case is to review the specific ordinance language that has been submitted and decide to either adopt the proposed changes or not adopt. But now we're talking about making changes to what we adopt. Are we able to make changes to what we adopt?

Yeah. So the way um the way I would recommend that you do that is that if you um because obviously he's made the application so he deserves his due process for a yes or no. If you want to amend it to introduce something else the the best way probably to do that would be to ask Mr. Venson if he's willing to amend his proposal to include whatever it is and he can do that just right here and then and then you could vote on that if that was what you wanted. So there wouldn't be a new application with a new fe

because the other the other thing is that in the changes on the I wondered about the changes to the introductory paragraph. I think there's some gramm it doesn't make sense grammatically. So that could also be changed here. So it says the following chart establishes the percentage properties are required to be landscaped or retained as natural. I think what what he was saying is establishes the percentage properties are required to landscape or retain as natural open space. But as it is it doesn't really make sense. We can talk about that later too. But the other question I had is why are the numbers what they are? Why why was the chart set up with some zones having different levels and others not? Do you do you know how that came about?

I don't know the history of that of why there's there's tears. I suspect I mean the the landscape areas do make sense in that the commercial zones have less landscape than than bigger ones. I think the valley residential A and B zones those are non-compliant lots. basically that are they're very small. Um and I my understanding is that the landscape requirements is are reduced for those because they are so small and the commercial zone again the central commercial zone because there are some very small parcels. Um I think that's that's why there is that tier unless Tom you have anything else. Now there's also uh the idea of being able to do a planned unit development in the residential zone and like in Anastasia for instance you have all this open space that's conserved and then you have smaller properties that you can fully develop. Same thing in Gford Park they have these you know smaller properties with zero setbacks but all this conservation area. So I think those sub zones you know lend to that possibility as well. Tom, do you know?

Um, yeah, plan developments are are done a little bit differently. The percentage of properties is calculated as the whole project, not on a property bypropy basis. That's that's a little bit different. But as Nile has explained, the the VRS, VRA and VRB um variations in landscape. That's correct. As far as a central commercial zone goes, it used to be a straight 50% requirement in the central commercial zone. That's how the the code was originally drafted in 1992. A number of years ago, there was a similar thought process with the central commercial zone as Nile mentioned, recognizing that there are a number of properties that are smaller and that 50% applying that standard um 50% landscape requirement on those smaller properties made development of those properties difficult. And so the planning commission of their own initiative and then the town council altered the the central commercial zone landscaping to introduce that kind of tiered step. That was done maybe like 10 15 years ago, but it was only looking at the central commercial zone. So essentially what what Mr. Benson is asking for is for that same kind of analysis to be applied now in the village commercial zone.

So it just didn't come up back then. It was just a specific. Okay. Thanks. That's that's all my questions. Are there other questions before we open public hearing? question. Okay. No, you go. 5% tolerance. Um, for me, I can kind of see where that makes sense for the lower two tiers. Help me understand how that would apply to the top tier. I'm looking at it was Pat that suggested that, not all. So, Pat.

Yeah. I'm just curious, Pat. You were asking, should it be applied to all three tiers? just going to take the 0.25 acres and say if you're 5% over that like 26 whatever it is should that same percentage be applied to everything in that chart. So you're talking about going to the valley residential and the center commercial I think is what he's saying. Not not going up to the the halfacre or greater. He's not talking about that. village all those other words integrated

oh ice he's saying they have that same leeway in all three of those categories on there yeah in center commercial village oh okay residential I'm not sure it makes sense so to me I mean not tonight to us but we might have the planning commission if we decide to do it yeah if we did only the if you go half quarter or smaller to me only the lower two makes sense to apply a 5% variance. Yeah. No, I agree. Yeah. Well, and and what I was going to follow up on with null is the the 5% administrative what do you call it?

5% tolerance thresholds. Okay. Yeah. Variance tolerance. I lost the word. Um I think I heard you mention that maybe you thought it could that would be like a planning commission decision or are you envisioning this being a staff decision?

You know, I was going to put it in my original application, but I didn't want to screw up the whole thing by putting that in there and so I I left it out. You know, the how you wanted to to do that is is not something that I've, you know, really thought out so much. If my thought would be that it maybe it goes straight to you guys because or if commissioner can actually make the decision. It seemed kind of weird if it would go through both bodies again. But however the staff and you guys want it to be structured is what I'll what I'll do. So

Okay. Well, I'm just thinking like considering this that tolerance is maybe a new concept adding it. Yeah, maybe that's a discussion. Yeah. And that's a deliberation to I thought I would see what his what your ideas were like if you had envisioned something like this needed to go. You were thinking if the tolerance gets added in to your application tonight, would you want that to be staff directed across the board? They get to say if the person, you know, add the the 5%.

It makes more sense if the commissioner council makes that decision in my mind, but I would love to be able to call up Nile and say, "Hey, can you approve this?" And he says, "Yeah, go for it." All right. Fantastic. Nile's like, "No, no, thank you." No, I don't think not not today. Call me tomorrow. We'll see how I'm feeling. Did you have something to add?

Yeah, just a few points on this. Um, for simplicity, it might be better if if this 5% um tolerance is is something you want to go with. is maybe just to specify um like the you know specify the exact square footage that you're allowing within the code here. So for instance a half acre plus 5% is 22,869 square ft. I I I just think it it might make it a little bit simpler to have to have those figures in the code. Um the other thing about if to consider if if planning commissioner town council needs a needs to approve this tolerance every time you're going to be seeing a lot of applications that you don't see right now. So, um, it might be just something to consider that if you want to do it, it may be better to leave it in the hands of staff just from a practical point of view because potentially every application we receive might want this. So, it's just from an administer perspect.

Yeah, I agree. I don't see any reason if it's in the code that we couldn't just let staff make that decision. Are there other questions before we open up to the public for questions? Um, does anyone in the audience have clarifying questions? Looks like not. So, um, thank you. No, I'll entertain a motion to go into public hearing. Love to go into public hearing. I'll second. Motion by Jack and second by Kyla and I. Randy. Barbara. I. Jack. I. Kyla. I.

Okay. Okay, we are in a public comment period. I think you all know what to do. Looks like looks like there are none. So, I'd entertain a motion to close public hearing. We close the public hearing. I'll second. A motion by Kyla and second by Jack. Barbra. Kyla. I

Okay, we're in deliberation. I just want to I want to start by saying that I have absolutely no problem with with what null wants to do with that particular property. I think it would be great to have something done there that's that's a positive and an addition to the town. I just want to and and we know this, but I'm gonna say it anyway. I just want to remember remember that this isn't about that property. This is changing an ordinance and there it's going to affect a lot of properties potentially and not just that one. So, while we've talked a lot about that property and what could and couldn't be done, let's look at this as an ordinance that is going to affect any property that that fits in this category and let's think about any other potential consequences. So,

yeah, and I'll just follow up with that, Barbara, that I I that is where my my largest concern lies. I think there's a lot of merit and value in these ideas and things that should there are some good ideas here. So I think uh regardless of the well not regardless if if I think this conversation should continue maybe past tonight. Um, but I even think that when the planning commission was evaluating this, um, they were evaluating it as if it was an application for a specific property. And I think, um, I have a lot of concerns because there are other properties in that quarter acre that it would apply to. And we have an applicant here who seems really committed to a smallcale development. Um, and you know, we didn't ask a lot about that tonight, but in the planning commission meeting, there was a lot of talk about, you know, keeping the building modest, and I think that's great, and that's actually what I would prefer to see happening. However, if we scale back on allowable landscape, the next developer may see it as actually the reason that they get to go as big, as tall and as um intense as possible. And so I do have some concerns about that the fact that we would we would allow um you know make these allowances which which have merit and and probably um would would benefit but that we've also not kind of followed up on the back end to talk about um height you know which has been something that Jack has brought up in the past and um

and I'm not I'm that's just a concern I have that we could potentially end up with something that is less desirable. But this this ordinance change wouldn't impact the height that's allowed in the village commercial or

That's what I'm saying. Like this ordinance change doesn't address that dense feeling and potentially having a property that does abut residential which typically village commercial does but not always. Sometimes it does and that we could be potentially putting more dense structures, more dense everything closer to residential properties. Um even though this particular property, those aren't concerns because there there isn't residential um surrounding this property. So I'm just saying actually I think there is not across the street I guess,

but Oh, okay. So, while I'm saying this particular code revision does not address height, I I yes, I completely see that. I see that there might be compounding issues that this particular version does not address. But let me ask I mean some of the things that you're bringing up um when uh the work that was done that addresses setbacks I mean wasn't that done for the sole purpose of um addressing the whole density issue right the like graduated height yeah which well and set and front setback

yeah I thought that was only in valley residential there's in the village commercial there is that name. Yeah.

Well, you know, if somebody is in a village commercial, um with the ordinance as it is right now, the 6030, uh that in my mind is forcing them to go up. And uh you know in in changing this it's kind of making it more economically viable for them to do a more modest uh if we change the uh the landscape requirements if they have a property of say only a quarter acres. It's we're giving we're we're saying we would like a more modest um development on your progress doesn't doesn't require

No, it doesn't. I'm just saying in that position of we're gonna hope for the best, right? The spirit is that we're giving you more so that you won't go and but we haven't. We haven't said that we don't like we still we want modesty. like how are we how are we roping in to make sure we get the modesty and we're not just going big. Well, we do have the option I mean we do have the option of saying you get you get this lower landscape if you agree to one story or something but that I mean that that isn't addressed in this application that would be starting again. So, we need to work with what we have in front of us

or have the application revised or or what are our options? N what I mean like do we do we send it back to planning commission with some suggested language change because because we're not talking about this property, we're talking about an ordinance and that's I think the only concern we have. We don't have a concern about this property.

Yeah. So, I think because because the applicant has has made this, he is entitled to a decision um from the the town council. Um I I don't think it would be appropriate to defer a decision and send it back to the planning commission to for them to kind of work it out for an undefined period of time. I think the town council does need to make a decision. I think if it's as presented, if it's not exactly um what you're comfortable with, um there's an opportunity within this meeting to to see if Mr. Benson's willing to to pro, you know, accept an amendment and then you could vote on that. Um but yeah, I wouldn't recommend sending it back to the planning commission to kind of consider things more broadly. In this instance, you you could make a decision on this and then separately give instruction to the planning commission to discuss related issues. Um but I I think this does need some kind of decision.

Okay. Thank you. Yeah, I'm I'm just I'm trying to understand your concern, Kyla. Uh because the ordinance as it's written right now in village commercial, if they have a property that's less than a quarter acre, they have to have 6030. So that in my mind means that they have to do something really tall and dense. Whereas if if we're cutting down this requirement on uh the landscaped area in the open space area, we're allowing them the opportunity to build something more modest. In my mind, this this this sort of says you can do something a little more modest because you don't have to really uh go up.

It says you can, but it doesn't say you must. And something like parking could not go up. So that that would require. But I um yeah, I struggle with is the 5% thing. I've been working some numbers here and it could be a mess. Maybe we just

Yeah. And I I've really uh I think we're opening a can of worms with that that on all of our ordinances, you know, not just this on Oliver ordinance. We have a uh you know, Foothill Residential is either a two or five acre. It's not 2 acres plus 5%. Yeah. It's 5 acres plus 5%. We're opening a huge can of worms. You do this. We have Yeah, we have set on all our ordinances. We have very set uh acreage and I I don't think we put this 5% in because it's a it just opens up a can of worms in our whole ordinance system.

It does and it's also given him what he asked for rather than second guessing what he wants. You codified it where it goes a quarter acre or smaller. You'd have to do 2625 acres or smaller. The second one goes a quarter acre to a half acre. Well, you have to adjust a halfacre up right now at 0.525. I mean, it's it's it's it also opens opens people up to a little fudging with their survey or and I'd say we just give if we're going to pass this, let's pass it as he presented it. But no, I would like to alter that introductory language just to clarify a little bit if you would accept that amendment.

Do do you know what I'm saying on that? Okay. I think it should say the following chart establishes the percentage properties are required to landscape or retain as natural open space. I think that reads more correctly.

And you know, and just a general comment that uh I think this is very appropriate for village commercial because it's between valley residential and central commercial and it just makes sense to do that. So I I do think that's that's an appropriate thing to do to break this out that way, not just So, let me if if I could ask um because I think and I want to talk a little bit about the building height, which I think is a totally separate uh subject from what this discussion is, but I think it kind of brings back what we were talking about last year. and I always kind of felt like I rolled over too soon on it and that I I strongly feel that if we're trying to protect the SR9 corridor through Springdale, we cannot uh move forward in the future with every building being a two-story structure and continue to claim that we're trying to save small town character. And this has kind of opened up that thought process again on these smaller lots. Do we want have another conversation again on smaller lots to encourage more modest structures that are not twostory and do we want the planning commission to take another look at that? I think that if we are moving towards decreasing the landscape requirement that we should on some level make sure that we are going to get the kind of building we want in the village commercial. I know that the spirit of this in what Randy is saying is that we are giving them less landscape so therefore they don't have to go up but I

know we will get the developer who says I can still go up build as big as I can. I agree. Yeah, but that is a separate issue. So it is a totally separate issue. So, so right. I think that maybe if you know wherever we go with this tonight and it's sounding like most of us like it that maybe secondly we direct the planning commission to kind of look into this readressing density in the village commercial zone considering these new amended landscape requirements.

Maybe not density because this is addressing density but height. What did we call it when we were getting density all mixed up with not actually density like feeling dense? It's called uh intensity maybe. I don't know the height building. Well, let's let's finish this up and give Nola's answer and then we can take a straw poll on whether we want to ask planning to look at heights in the village commercial zone. So, seems like we're all con um agreed. Do we have a motion?

Okay. Thank you. Town Council reviewed and approves the land use ordinance amendment application proposed by Mr. Null Benson which would revise section 10184 of the town code by introducing a tiered landscaping requirement in the village commercial zone with the following revision. Uh, under 10184 landscape requirements and regulations, the table will now show properties. Did I get this right? One quarter of an acre or larger with 60% landscape, 30% open natural space. That right? No,

you could say just at the table% landscape either landscape to natural space. How's that? Half acre or greater. You said quarter. I said, did I say quarter? Yeah, halfacre or larger. 60% uh percentage of property is landscaped or natural open space. Quarter acre to half acre, 50% landscaped or natural open space. And quarter acre or smaller, 40% landscape or open natural space. You've got quarter in both of those. Actually, it says less than less than a quarter.

Yeah. So, a quarter fits in the 50 to 25. Less than a quarter fits in the Maybe that's a change we need to make. Like if it's a quarter or less, it's not the way it's not important. The way quarter to a to less than a half is 50. We're approving what was put on. That's what's on the chart. That's what's on the chart. That's less than a quarter properties half acre or greater 60% properties quarter acre up to a half acre 50% properties less than quarter acre 40%. Yes.

Based on the following findings, the proposal supports the land use and town appearance goals, especially sub goal C wherein the town council will update land use ordinances to make stays true to the intention of promoting mixed use along Zion Park Boulevard while allowing development that meets community needs and desires. It also meets sub goal economic subgoal A to enhance and support small and independent businesses that are unique to Springdale and help promote the town small town village character. The town council also finds that adopting a tiered landscape and open space framework for village commercial zone better aligns village commercial standards with existing valley residential and central commercial districts while maintaining the community's desired character. The council further finds that the scaling requirements by a lot size provides meaningful relief for smaller commercial properties. Improving development feasibility and reducing nonconformities without reducing overall landscape and open space expectations for larger more impactful sites and authorizes the mayor design.

I'll second motion by Pat and second by Randy. Randy,

Barbara I. Um, Kyla. And I'm gonna vote no because I feel like not because the there are some details that have merit, but I feel like there are other details that need to be uh addressed. Okay, motion passes. So, let's just take a straw poll. We've talked about this a few times, Jack, about whether we allow two-story structures on in village commercial. I have a problem with being able to build a two-story house and and someone who has a village commercial property not being able to build two stories, but I also am concerned about the the visual on SR9. So,

yeah, I mean I guess we could keep that to SR9. I mean, but maybe we just want to vote to we want to ask planning to take a look at that again. Well, and I am talking about properties that are adjacent to SR9. Okay. Not visible from but adjacent to Okay. Do we um who is in favor of asking planning to relook at that? Yeah.

Let's pat you. Yes. You know, I think one of the one of the things I remember about all these discussions about height, you know, we're certainly trying to not feel real closed in on SR9, but uh we also were kind of looking at what's going to obstruct the view of somebody driving down SR9 and

and that's something commission can handle too.

Well, and I guess for me, I just want to say that we have now several new developments in Springdale that are not twostory that are very successful businesses. I think they've demonstrated that it can be done. It does not have to be a two-story structure to be successful. And again, you know, we are we should be looking out 20 years from now on what Springdale looks like. And so anyway, I just would really appreciate us at least being willing to have that conversation again and see if there's any change. We're not in a public hearing. Sorry.

Nel, do you want to take that to planning commission? Yes. So specifically the the scale of village commercial zone buildings that are on SR9 and the height and the height is I think what the concern is. Yeah. Along SR9 only village commercial. Sure. Yeah. Okay. Okay. Let's move on. Our next item of business is review and possible award of wrap tax applications for Zion Canyon Art and Humanities Council building momentum with inspiring programs for the Canyon and Zion Canyon Arts Festival. Applicants are Lisa Zump and Adrien Gates. And the staff contact is it you Tom?

Okay. And we've got um Lzette Buyers and Dan Pacik here representing Zart. So do you want to introduce this? Sure. Thank you. Is this a public hearing? It's not a public hearing.

It's not a public hearing, but you you'll receive presentations from the two applicants. We also have Adrien Gates on uh Zoom. Um so we'll un unmute her in a second so she can speak as well. So you can address the uh Zion Kenya Art Festival. Before I begin, just a a request from the clerk that if you could make sure, council members that your your microphone is close enough to pick up your uh uh comments. We want to make sure that they get our beautiful voices.

Thanks. So, uh, this application every year, um, the the town makes wrap tax, um, available to organizations in the community for either cultural programming or, uh, recreation, um, projects. Um, the town has a policy that says that up to 50% of that wrap tax can be spent on programming, up to 50% can be spent on projects. Um and no single organization awarded more than 25% of the total anticipated wrap tax. This year the town's anticipated wrap tax will um revenue will be $60,000 which means that the council can allocate up to $30,000 on programming um up to $30,000 on projects and also that no single applicant can be awarded more than $15,000. Um also the the um council is aware that the town can use RAP tax for its own projects and initiatives without going through this process. And in fact we the town has proposed several uses of the wrap tax this year that we can talk about as part of the tentative budget. But what your uh what your action right now is is to review the two requests from community organizations that we have received for use of this year's wrap tax. One is from Z Arts for $15,000 um for a number of different projects that they have throughout the year. The other request is from the Zen Canyon Art Festival. This is will be an inaugural event that is proposed and the request is for $5,000 to help that um that project get get off the ground. So, you will have the opportunity to hear presentations from both of these and ask questions. And then at the conclusion, you'll have the opportunity to um decide whether or not to fund these two applications.

And we'll do both at once. Both at once. Yep. Okay. So, ju just a a question if I may on this. Is is this second application also fit under the program and activities? Is that how that you would view this one?

That is correct. and and and actually the Z Arts is mostly programming, but there's a little bit of projects um like the mosaic tile things is probably more of a project than it is programming. Um but but yes, both of these are are pretty much in the programming category. Okay, so um we've got Lzette here who's prepared to talk about the Zarts application and Adrienne is on Zoom. We can unmute Adrien and and she'll be able to talk about the um Zian Canyon Art Festival. Liz, do you want to kick it off?

Um, sure. Uh, first of all, I want I want to thank uh the town council for our previous year's wrap tax. But yes, both of these are are pretty much in the programming cap. Um, so we've made very good use of that funding. Um Lisa Zump prepare prepared this year's application. She did a great job. And as part of our application, we did add u an interim final. You want to take it off? Um sure. Uh first of all, I want I want to thank uh council for our previous year.

Yes, you do sound different there than you do there. If you were wondering, you did. Um, all right. So, um, we do have an interim, uh, final report to document what we did with last year's funding. And a good part of this year's request is just sort of keeping the the truck moving. Um, we've had very good success with the our uh inaugural inaugural uh talent show and with um you know we've seen growth with the film festival. Um kids loved still love the green jello sculptures as do the comm community voters who come to the the um uh St. Patrick's Day festival. Um, so, uh, yeah, it's really just it's really helpful to get this funding given, um, our membership revenue that it's doesn't quite look like the national parks plummeting of funding, but it's it's not growing as much as we would hope. We haven't quite rebounded from um, prior prior to the pandemic numbers. So, we're yeah, we're a grassroots volunteer organization and we deeply appreciate the support of the town.

Are there questions for Lette? It's a It's a great application. It's very complete.

Yeah, I really do appreciate how thorough and specific the application is. Did you guys get good attendance this year at the field the filmfest? Yes. Uh this year we had all of the films screening at the Bumbleberry Theater versus last year we had a feature film at the Bumbleberry and the rest of the films screening at the Cable Mountain Lodge. Um this year we got a total of 160 people come through the film festival over the course of two nights uh or two days and three screenings. Uh last year we had 115 people come through. So an increase of about 40%. Um lots of very good feedback. Um we are absolutely planning on doing it again next year and we'll we'll discuss how that looks like next year too.

Only comment I want to make um the application like you mentioned Kyle very specific. I like the fact that you say here's what we're going to do and here's what it's going to cost. Very specific. Thank you. As you know, as as you know, as a nonprofit, being fiscally responsible is is a good plus and we try. Okay. So, it sounds like you've answered all our questions. We will listen to Adrian and then we'll make a decision afterward about both applications. Jen, do you want to say anything? Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

You want to get Adrian on there? Um, Adrien, if you can hear, if you can unmute on your end now, try unmuting. That would be fine.

Hello. There we go. Yep. We can hear you. We We can go ahead. Can anyone hear me? Yes, I am not able to hear anyone. Hello, we can hear you. We talk loud. If you can unmute on your end now. Try unmuting. That would be better. I am unmuted. Can anyone hear me? Yes. Yes, we can hear you. We're trying to work through it. Hold on.

There it is. Okay. So, I actually cannot hear you through my phone. I am listening on YouTube and I can hear you on YouTube, but there is a very big gap in time. So, I'm not sure.

I am unmuted. Can anyone hear me? resorting to telegram smoke signals few seconds I actually

so I'm not sure I am still here. I'm not sure what to do. I I just can't hear any of you all in my phone. Trying to Are you calling her? We're texting and now we're calling. I think he's listening to my

I could FaceTime her still here. I'm not sure what to do. I What is happening? I just can't hear anyone.

Do you want me to FaceTime her up here and we can all talk to her here? Yeah. Because So, and you can tell her what questions we have and she can talk. Okay. phone number where I'm trying dial in one of these phone numbers. Dial in like this local 669. It says they're listening. So, let me just dial I'm going to try to dial in. Do I have Yeah, read. Wait, what does that say? Oh.

Oh, okay. I'm just gonna talk because I don't want to waste your time and it seems like you can hear me. Okay. Um Okay. Yeah.

Yeah. I'm gonna just present here. So, the reason I'm actually not able to present in person is that um I've been under the weather. I would love to be there, however, and that is why um I wanted to submit sort of a separate plan today than what is in front of you. Um, I'm not sure what the procedure for that would be. If it would be better or easier for you to go ahead and I resubmit the proposal or if you would like to just have me go ahead and explain what I would like to do. Um, I have spoken with some of the folks in town um about this previously, Kendall, um, Robin, Ryan Gooler. Um, and so it's not a completely unfamiliar plan, but I understand that there's procedure that you need to follow to be able to approve my application.

My biggest question is whether OC Tanner, whether Adrian has already worked with Utah Tech to make arrangements to use OC Tanner. Put that in the Telegram. Okay. because I think most of it's kind of self-explanatory right now. And I hate to say it. It's not it's not that much of an ask, but I just want to make sure it's really going to happen. But I'm also curious to know if what we what our packet is incorrect like what are the what are the changes? What is the Yeah. What's the ask now? Is that the amount that's changed or how the money will be used?

I think for me too, I think we need Okay. So, I am here. I can still hear you. Um, yeah, actually I have actually held events at the OC Tanner before. Um, it's not it's not that much of an ask, but so what are the changes? I have several questions. I just don't know that it's fair to her to do it. Sure. Gosh, this delay is so difficult. I apologize everyone.

Tom, do we need to do this one tonight? Could we go ahead? So, now

you can make a decision. Um, moving forward to answer your question, uh, the change would be simply to eliminate the OC Tanner, um, and have the festival be located in town as an art stroll or an art walk with businesses involved, which was always the plan, but I was going to get everyone on board individually once I was in town to organize. my health issues are keeping me tied to um where I live for uh insurance and doctor's appointment reasons, but I am able to still participate in organizing the festival and I don't want to cancel it for this year. I do want to move forward um with an event that will benefit the town and um have done so in the past with uh an earth dance that we did at the OC Tanner as well as a followup the next year. Um, those events were difficult and there is a lot of stress and strain that comes with the OC Tanner. I think you guys all know probably as well or better than I do. Um, I think that with everything that's possible in towns where art festivals are a centric part of the presentation, why people come, why they travel there. Um, typically there are a few more galleries than Springdale has, but I think that Springdale has the most incredible backdrop and the most amazing um, you know, individuals and town character is what I really would like to build up. I would like to have the individual businesses participate as they see desirable with hopefully some help maybe streamlining some of the approval for um what might be in the way or difficult in those respects. I know that parking and canopy tents and um you know individuals

wanting to do different things on different properties could be a lot of red tape. Um I'm willing to you know figurehead all of that. Um, I think that this would just take the amount of budget and time and energy for my event in total with the OC Tanner where I would have to create a large spectacle um, in order to draw a crowd there and maintain an art festival vibe. um if I do this and scale down then I think that I can better present a inaugural um you know grassroots sort of feel while everyone gets a chance to understand about the event and participate and I think that although that's a totally different concept um again I had intended on doing that along um I am not asking for a difference in the allocated funding I would still be using the $5,000 I would just be using it directly to help support businesses um and the art installations and events that are already happening in the town and you know throughout the year. Has she talked with the galleries that she envisions being part of the gallery stroll?

Scaling down my sponsorship.

There there was not a date in the in the packet and so we can ask what the date is as well. arts. I'm I'm getting jello I just don't know what I'm getting with this group.

I have uh I have spoken with the galleries. I do know most of the gallery. I think everyone that owns all of the galleries I've just at least, you know, been acquainted. Um I am um actually from Springdale. If if any of you don't know me, I I have family that goes all the way back to Shunsburg. Um and I grew up with um you know, art festivals being centric to the way that I traveled because my dad was an artist. And so I always kind of dreamed that Springdale would have something like that going on. I also always very much looked forward to the events that Springdale did have going on. I have a website as well um that highlights all of the town's um existing art projects and sort of highlights all of this. It's uh zion canyonart festival.com.

Any other questions before we deliberate? Okay, I think Yeah, maybe would she be willing to if it's possible, maybe this is breaking the rules. Would she be willing to put together this new idea that highlights all in the same application form? And I know she's essentially omitting the OC Tanner, but it sounds to me like kind of a different animal

and I'm wondering if that would suit us better to see a new application or a revised application. I think that would be helpful because she talks about the 5,000 mostly going to help businesses, but what does that look like? I don't think there's any clarity on what the money will be used for and what we will get in return.

I don't know what that means. Yeah. Well, and I know, you know, in earlier conversations with Ryan on this, um there's a lot of concern about not having somebody here on the ground to coordinate and to follow it through. And so I I think we need more assurance even if it's written letters of support from galleries or who businesses who support this. I think we need to have a higher level of assurance on how the money will be spent and who's going to be here to call. Um, if you can hear me, I am 100% willing to resubmit.

Is is it necessary that we make this decision tonight or can we make the wrap tax decision later? You can make it later. Um, your tentative budget tonight has wrap tax allocations in it, but the tentative budget is is tentative as the name implies. Um, and even after the final budget, I mean, you you the and Don, correct me if I'm going astray here a little bit, but I mean the wrap tax just stays in the wrap tax fund. as if you can hear me. I you can use that at your you know if if you were to say oh yes later in the year even August or September there's an application that came through that you wanted to allocate some of that tax that wrap tax. It's just sitting there in an account. So

okay great. So let's go ahead and make a decision about Zarts and let's ask Adrian to resubmit with more detail and the new and the new event plan. Is that fair? I think so. I think that really Yeah. that gives us better information to go on for Adrian's. And I personally am supportive of awarding Zarts the 15,000 that they're asking for. Oh, yes. Later in the year, even do we need a motion for this? Yeah. But so I I totally agree. I mean, I think Zarts is kind of So, let's go ahead and absolut Sorry, I'm really distracted by the background noise.

Um, let's get Winston back over here. I I think Zarts is doing a great job and I have to disclose I am a beneficiary. Like I attend your events, my kids attend the events. Um and I do appreciate what Z Arts does for the community. I love the application that it's very specific. Like Pat pointed out, we know we're getting some green jello and a talent show and that the mosaics are going to be kept up. I think that's wonderful. That's great. Um, it's not glamorous work, but it needs to be done. Um, so I just I appreciate Z Arts and I had to disclose that I do benefit.

So then why don't you make a motion? I will. I move that we approve the wrap tax funding for Z Arts in the amount of $15,000. I'll second. Got a motion by Kyla, second by Jack. I Barbara I. Thank you for being here. Okay, next item. Do we need a break or we want to just keep playing? Yeah, it's only going to get better from here. Well, unless Jeff is gonna make some You just jinxed it. Okay, we'll keep going for now. The next item is a public hearing. The last ones left. Is that what you're telling? Um, well, we got Jeff Brady Ba and Jan Pacy. They deserve stickers.

The big hitters are here. Okay. Uh, public hearing ordinance 2026-09 amending chapter 18, I'm sorry, amending chapter 10-21-8 of the town code relating to maintenance and repair of non-complying buildings and inserting a new section of code dealing with involuntary removal of a non-complying building. Staff contact is Nile.

Thank you. So, you will probably remember last September um being asked to interpret the ordinance uh relating to the redevelopment of a a property. Um and so arising out of that, the town council instructed the planning commission to to improve or add clarity to the definition of ordinary maintenance and repair as it relates to um non-complian structures. So the the planning commission have spent a number of months working on this. Um what they've done is what they've proposed is uh adding a line to the definition of ordinary maintenance and repair. Um to clarify that ordinary maintenance and repair does not include extensive construction or reconstruction such as entirely replacing exterior walls or completely replacing roof trusses. So that kind of ties that down a little bit. Um the planning commission also uh have proposed an additional scenario um to be added to the code which deals with what uh what's termed involuntary removal of a non-compliant building and struct or structure. So this is trying to catch situations which are not quite catastrophe level but um where you have a cons uh a building that's non-compliant that declines over an extended period and um does need pretty extensive work that would exceed the definition of ordinary maintenance and repair.

And so what what they've uh crafted would allow more extensive reconstruction. So potentially reconstructing exterior walls and roofs and and those sorts of things. Um in in these circumstances uh but to to qualify for that uh planning commission approval would be required. Approval would be required before you demolish the structure. Um, and a written opinion from an engineer or other suitably qualified individual would be required to describe why this is why kind of these extensive uh improvements are needed. Um and if the planning commission determines that this is justified then they give approval uh for these kind of more extensive uh work or extensive improvements. Um uh minor deviations would be uh allowed so long as they don't increase the non-compliance of the structure. Um and this also assumes that the floor slab or footings will remain that they can't be removed. However, um if there is a circumstance where part of the footings or the floor slab does need to be removed or replaced for safety reasons, this could potentially be be included in this too. So that's that's what the planning commission has proposed. Um and um yeah it's for you to deliberately upon.

So we are in a public hearing format. It is time now for any clarifying questions from council for Nile. You have one um the words reconstruct or reconstruction redevelopment and then the next thing we're going to deal with renovation. I I think that they're all equivalent, but they shouldn't be, right? Those words, because you say under D may be entirely reconstructed, but you get down to E and it said will constitute redevelopment. So what's the difference between reconstruction and redevelopment?

Yeah. So in in point D where it talks about um building elements may be completely reconstructed. Um I guess what I'm asking is can in E can the word redevelopment just be replaced with reconstructed? Yeah. I because when you get to the next deal C we get to C4, it really gets messy. I Yeah, that those terms are kind of all used interchangeably. I think point D is saying there is a difference. I don't know.

Yeah, I I think point D is when it uses the term reconstructed, I think it's talking about something a little bit different from redevelopment in point E. Um because in point D it's it's talking about these building elements being rebuilt whereas in point E uh where it says if you remove the slabs it constitutes redevelopment which which triggers kind of a whole you need to come back into compliance. So I I think in this sense reconstructed means reconstructing building elements whereas redevelopment is um

starting over with development starting over and coming back into compliance. Yeah, I think they are different. I mean so that's an understanding that if somebody reads this, an applicant reads this, they would know the difference. So or could be explained to them. Yeah. And it it is a fair comment that potentially if this is confusing and if some of these terms are um potentially overlapping in an unhelpful way, that's something that that we could resolve. So I guess the way I read it was reconstruction is above the floor plan or excuse me, above the the slab, the floor slab. Yeah.

Redevelopment would be taking out the slab too. Yeah. So, redevelopment, I think, as we've tried to describe here, is really just kind of scorched earth situ. You're kind of starting from scratch. You're taking the footings and the slab out, whereas a reconstruction is you're you're using the same slab, which hopefully means that you're not increasing the footprint. Yeah. Building the overall footprint. And that's the way I read it at least. And if that's an understanding we have, it's going to be interesting to apply that that concept in the next code of read.

Yeah. Is it not defined somewhere like in our basic definitions? Do we define redevelopment and rection? I don't think we do it in this particular section. This kind of says removal of the floor slab or footings will constitute. So it's defined. Okay. right there in my mind. That's what defined it to me. But I mean, are you not building an entirely new building then? And do you not need a a building permit to do that? Oh, yeah. You need a building permit for sure. So, there's things here and I'm I'm trying not to be too critical. I had to read this numerous Oh, you did?

Yeah. The comments you put in on the document. I didn't know I was sharing them. Anyway, I had to read it numerous times to make have it make sense. I I think the involuntary removal I mean for me is like a really interesting choice of a word. Involuntary I mean really. So I could not approve this the way it is. I mean when we're struggling to understand it and we're asking someone one of our residents or you know someone who wants Yeah. No, no, no.

Yeah, let's let's ask questions first. I do. Okay, I do have a question. Thanks for better be a question. It is a question and it's maybe a a a question based in inexperience. Um, when we're talking about involuntary removal and it is going to require like an engineer saying yes, this is actually needs to be replaced. Can an engineer do that assessment if it's mold? Potentially, yes. Okay. I think it

it it's not defined here. Um what it says is uh the opinion states that the proposed refurbishments are necessary to make the structure safe and sanitary in accordance with the local building code. So I think that could potentially include mold. Okay. Well, and it does say engineer or other suitably qualified individual. So that might be a mold expert and that's fine. I I didn't catch the suitably qualified expert. Um, and I was just wondered like we're gonna say, well, you didn't get an engineer to say that this mold is an issue. Um, and we're just kind of like painting ourselves into a corner. So, I think it's covered.

So, in the deliberation, I think we could talk about our real life case and how this would have changed this process. But any other questions? Okay. So, let's have a motion to open public hearing. What about questions from Oh, well, I guess you asked questions from the audience. I just assume she would. Yeah, she's gonna make comments, not Jan has something. We're down. I move that we open the public hearing. We have a second. Open. Okay. Motion by Kyla, second by Randy. I Randy. Arbite. Kyla. I Nothing. You got nothing. Okay. Motion to close public hearing. Are you as confused as we are?

I move we close public hearing. I'll second. Motion by Randy. Second by Kyla. And I Jack. Here. I'll do you and you do me. Jackie. Barbby. Kyla. I Your voices have changed.

Oh, it's gonna get worse. Okay. So, we are now in deliberation. So in our real in our real case scenario, what would have happened is that in theory, the contractor would have gotten an engineer or suitably qualified individual to come to the town and state that the building was not savable, that it had to be taken down, and then there would have been a demolition permit, and then there would have been a whole new rebuild, but on the same footprint, right? Yeah. So they they would have had to come before demolition happened with this request and with this opinion uh and ask for permission from the planning commission and then they could have gone ahead with it.

And and I I like I like this idea. I think that the planning commission did a fairly good job, but I do understand that you might have some concerns, Jack, and that Pat has brought up some maybe definitions that are missing. Um, I mean, but if you're I guess I felt like I understood the direction that they were going in. Yeah, I I agree. I I really thought I did. For me, the whole thing was, are you leaving the slab and the footings there

so that you not incling the footprint of the of the building and you dig everything out above that? That's reconstruction. You need There's some stipulations on it, but that's reconstruction. So, are you Randy, are you saying you're against So, if somebody does have to remove the floor slabs and footings, are we still okay with them keeping the nonconformity and rebuilding or would we want to just even eliminate that and then they just start over? But, but again, this is only in the case of unexpected or involuntary removal and not just because they want to Does that make sense?

Well, I I mean the way this in my mind, the way this thing's written is um that's redevelopment of the property, which is a brings into a whole new thing. Then they have to comply with the if I'm reading this right if they have to go into the footings and the and the floor slab to remove those then they have to come back with a new application to comply with the they have to build bring the building under compliance. So whatever they build there.

Yeah. So just to clarify that that is the case except there is a carve out at at the end of E which um says if a written opinion from an engineer's other suitably qualified individual provides evidence that repairs or replacements of sections of the floor slab or footings is necessary for safety reasons. This may be approved. So there is and it would stay it could stay non-conforming in terms of setbacks and that kind of thing even in that case right. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So that that that is a carve out from what you've described there Randy. Yeah. Wouldn't there be times when you got to tear the foundation up to get a pipes? No.

Wouldn't there be times when you'd have to tear the foundation up to get at pipes?

Yeah. And I think that's that's maybe a scenario that they're envisaging there. Yeah. I just think it needs more straightforward language, you know? It's like so circular, you know, and I mean, you at least for me, I had to keep reading reread it and reread it. And it is, you know, we're trying to have ordinances that the average lay person can understand. They shouldn't have to keep rereading it. And so that really uh concerns me. But it also concerns me that how widely interpreted that can be and and that's where I think we can get into problems where we've got somebody sitting out there saying, "Well, this was my understanding." And then we've got their experts sitting in the audience with them saying, "Yeah, I agree. I I could see how they could interpret it that way."

Jack, I don't I don't find it confusing. So I maybe it's me. Well, or maybe it won't it isn't just you because that there will be somebody else who cracks open this ordinance and is like I don't get it. But maybe hopefully they call staff

and and not to say that it's that's the way we should leave it. If you had like some I mean are there specific things you'd like to see? Absolutely. Do you know that that you want some section cleaned up? I guess for me this stems back from that conversation we had where I mean I voted no on it where I felt like you know everybody else was in agreement that complete removal of a building could be done under repair and maintenance and without the benefit of a demolition permit. So like you know for me what what where there should be triggers is in the case of you know if you are looking at what we're going to call redevelopment which I find an an interesting word then say this triggers a building permit you know if you are going to do complete removal of the entire structure you need a demolition permit

but you need a building permit even if you're remodeling Right. So, um I think that we voted for that because we felt our ordinance was so unclear, which if this is unclear, we should not pass it. But well, I mean, if it's I this is a no for me, but if it's a rest a yes for you guys, then you know, I would move forward. But yeah, I couldn't I couldn't say yes for this. Well, I I understand what what they're trying to do and and if I if I think about it and I had to read it more than just a few times like Jack did, I agree with where it's going. I just think it needs to be written more clearly. Okay, that's just my opinion.

So, um don't disagree with concept. Yeah, I I think the concept I I think I think it's everything that we need, but Nyall, could you maybe clean it up a little bit? Yeah, absolutely. So, should we table it? Is that what we should do? I think if we table it, we need to just be real specific like what do we want cleaned up? We want some things defined like redevelopment and reconstruction and that maybe we want um some triggers so it's very clear when you need a demolition permit and when you need a building permit.

Well, it sounded to me like what Jack and Pat's issue might be different, but what Jack was saying was we just need to be real clear. You still need a building permit in this case. You you still need a demolition permit, right? Well, so this is an example right here. the the you know involuntary removal of a non-compliant building. So we're talking about removal you know right in B then it goes to a written opinion from an engineer blah blah blah stating that the proposed refurbishments are necessary. So you should say the proposed that's not removable demolition is necessary.

Yeah. So, I mean, to me, it felt like it was such a mixed bag of we're bouncing back and forth between actually removing the structures and then talking about what kind of improvements we might be making. Um, C, uh, the planning commission finds there's ample justification for allowing the proposed improvements and the existing nonconformities to be retained. I mean, what does that have to do with removal? So I think if we're talking about removal, let's talk about removal. Yeah. Now that you say that, it is interesting because under 10219, which is removal, it's talking about rehabbing, isn't it?

Yeah. So anyway, I think it just could be cleaned up like consistent language. Yes. Do you want to work with nylonic? Sure. Would that be acceptable? Absolutely. Yeah. Let's give it a test. If Jack can understand it, it's probably ready to come back. That would be that would be really great to get your input on that. Okay, Jack. I think is dissing. That's all right. Apparently want to be him. Okay. So, I think we need a motion to table this and send it back to Nile to work with Jack on revised language. Is that is that appropriate?

Okay. So, I move to table um ordinance Oh, hold on. I move to table or yeah, to table the changes to chapter 10-21-8. Um, and ask that staff work with Jack to clarify some of the issues that were discussed in our meeting on May 13th. There a second. Second. Motion by Kyla, second by Randy. And I Randy. Barbara. I Kyla. I.

Next item is also a public hearing and it's uh ordinance 2026-10 amending chapter 10-21 of the town code relating to renovation and redevelopment of non-complying buildings in the commercial zones. And this is Nile.

Okay. So this this item uh arose during the discussion at the planning commission of the last item. So still staying with the topic of non-complying buildings. Um this proposal centers around uh the idea that most of the properties in the central commercial zone and in the downtown and many of the village commercial zone properties too are non-compliant. um and that redevelopment or investment in a lot of these properties um is potentially quite unrealistic because they're um to bring them into compliance with today's ordinances ordinance as far as setbacks, landscape, minimum parking, those sorts of things, um the commercial floor space in a lot of these properties would really shrink. Um and so the there was a discussion at the planning commission level um about well how can we um encourage investment in in our downtown while obviously um you know keeping true to the ordinances and the spirit of the general plan. There's also a discussion around, you know, how a lot of these older properties, even though they may not be in compliance, that they have a charm of their own and contribute a lot to the character of the town. Um so the intention of this uh this ordinance revision was to allow um properties within the commercial zones um to be reconstructed um including removal and replacement to the foundation. though wholesale um

but specifically just looking at the non-compliance with minimum setbacks and the maximum building sizes. So to allow th those non non-conforming elements to be reconstructed um but not um but requiring that everything else has to come into compliance. So landscaping and parking. Um so that that was the intention of of these standards. Um and it it allows once one kind of go at redeveloping under these standards and then redevelopment after that would um would need to come back into compliance going forward.

Are there any clarifying questions for now? If not, we'll entertain a motion to go into public hearing. We open the public hearing. Motion by Kyla, second by Randy Pat. I Barbara. Kyla. I Jan's not making any moves. Okay. I need a motion to close public hearing. I move that we close the public hearing. Motion by Kyla, second by Randy. Randy. Barbara. I we are in deliberation. I thought this was pretty straightforward. Jack, did you did you

Here's here's the thing. We get into this

renovation, redevelopment. It's a reconstruction. What in good God's ter related to the renovation or redevelopment? We had a discussion just 10 minutes ago. Is it reconstruction? Is isn't that what it is? I mean the terms are kind of in intertwined throughout the entire code but in the renovation redevelopment further on 102110 says renovation but further on down it calls it development. Further on down calls it reconstruction, then it goes back to redevelopment, then back to reconstruction, then back to constructed. Well, so

I know I know where you're going with it, but I just I don't I don't

we want the same thing for this code that we wanted in the last code, right? To be clear and specific and define the undefined. more to Jack's point, if you go to E on this thing, um, some applicant says, I'm reading, he says, all compliant aspects on on and on other than building size and suspect must be brought into compliance when the property is redeveloped. But under G, it says may only be reconstructed once. I can see a guy saying, well, I'm reconstructing it. I'm not redeveloping it. You know what I mean? I mean, and and how if you know the guy in the in the black suit up there, he has to make a judgment on what do you mean? We we should point to what these terms mean. No.

So, I think I think these that's a valid point, Pat, that there is inconsistency in what we're calling really the same thing. And this could be cleaned up, as Kyla said, like the other one. Um, I really like the concept. I really like the idea of allowing So, for example, the the Fatali Gallery, they are deliberately keeping that building and not starting all over with it, even though it probably should be killed because they want the setback. So, if they're able to keep the setback, that may encourage better kinds of redevelopment and and development of some empty properties that are that shouldn't be empty. So, I really like the concept and I really want to pass something like this, but maybe just with a cleanup of consistent language. And maybe Pat works with you on that one. You good with that, Pat?

Maybe if I could just ask a question just to so I make sure I'm clear on this is that what we're recognizing is that the majority of the buildings in the downtown are nonconforming and we're recognizing those imperfections. So they can continue to to maintain the building as is. If it has to be rebuilt, it has to be conforming. If or are we saying, well, you can build on the same footprint, but you you will live with the setback that currently is nonconforming once we will,

but other things have to come into compliance like maybe landscape, building height. Yeah, because one of the things that kind of surprised me is in the virtual was looking at a new building that was rebuilt that is taller than it should be. And we just did the graduated setbacks, right? No, it exceeds 26 feet. Oh.

So anyway, those are the things that I, you know, I was kind of confused by that. Um, but I I guess what I'm hearing is that there's certain certain um conditions that we will accept as part of of maintenance or rebuilding the structure, but there's some things they'll have to come into compliance. Yeah, it's it's really mostly setbacks that we're allowing to be kept because it says all non-compliant aspects of a property in the central commercial or village commercial zone other than building size and setback must be brought into compliance when a property is redeveloped. So in other words, even the building size, they could use that existing footprint but not not go bigger on the first go round. Isn't that right, Nile?

Yeah. So th those were the two elements. So the building size and the setbacks that the planning commission were were willing to see kind of continued but they wanted to see some incremental improvements in compliance in you know landscaping and and those other elements. So, this is kind of a a side question, but one of the the businesses here, if you have um the front of your your building is completely uh gravel, have you met the the landscape requirement?

Is there's no there's no vegetation, just gravel. Is that meeting the landscape requirement?

So, the landscape requirements do require planting. there is minimum uh minimum requirements for a certain amount of shrubs, a certain amount of trees that are required. So there is um so yeah bare gravel is generally not going to meet the landscape requirement. I hate to keep tossing hand grenade your way. Uh under B it says uh if compliance with any other land use regulation makes it impossible to reconstruct. You mean like physically impossible or economically impossible or aesthetically impossible? I mean we talk about it a technical impossibility.

Yeah. So I think where what we're talking about here is say say you have a building um that um that is non-complying in several ways. So as far as setbacks, building size, parking, landscape, um under this you it allows you to redevelop or reconstruct or whatever term we want to use um the non-complying setbacks and the building size. But if you did if you rebuilt that building exactly as it is, it wouldn't be complying for landscaping or parking or something else. So you couldn't actually do it because

it's technically impossible. Yeah. Correct. Yeah. Well, it sounds like we need a motion to table this item. Yeah. Rework it. I will work on that. Um, I move to table ordinance 2026-10 amending chapter 10-21 of the town code relating to renovation and redevelopment of non-complying buildings in the commercial zone. And we would like staff to work with Pat um to review the ideas that were discussed in the meeting um on May 13th uh to uh work on clarity, definitions, and consistency.

Second. Motion by Kyla, second by Jack P. I bar Kyla I I was going to do it for you. We need to amend the motion. Oh, pardon. I was wondering if we needed to amend the emo amend the motion. Not the emotion, but just the mo. We do need to I just heard a a thing about paragraph B and I was like, did I need to include something? They were talking about you. I know. And my ears were burning and that's why I got emotional about it.

Are we good with that motion? Yeah, that's okay. That works. Um, okay. Another public hearing. Yay, Jan. Um, public hearing resolution 2026-05 amending the fiscal year 2526 budget. The staff contacts are Tom and Don. and we'll start with an explanation of the item.

Um so the council's aware that um under the um vision and leadership of Chief Breck, we now have emergency backup power at both the town council, excuse me, the town hall and the central commercial zone. So that's fantastic. That's great. And the great thing is that um instead of originally as proposed having one mobile backup generator that could power one of those buildings, we now have permanent uh backup generators at both of those buildings. So So this is fantastic news. Um however, um there are some additional um costs associated with that project that exceed the original budget. And so this budget amendment um recognizes those additional costs there. Uh the project is about $38,000 more than what we initially anticipated. Those costs have to do with uh things like buried propane tanks and screening of of mechanical equipment and and those kinds of things that were not anticipated with the mobile generator. So what this resolution does is um uh account for those extra costs and also finds additional revenue to offset those costs. Um some of that additional revenue is through unanticipated increases in interest income and the the majority of that is through allocation of the uh fund balance. The project was originally funded entirely from fund balance and so we are proposing to take a little bit more about $26,000 additional from fund balance to cover the rest of it. Any questions from the council?

Clarifying questions. Okay. Motion for a public hearing. Public hearing. Second. Motion by Randy. Second by Pat. Randy. Barbry. Kyla. I Okay. Motion. We close publicly here. I'll second. Motion by Randy, second by Kyla. Randy. Barbara. Kyla. I This is a no-brainer for me. I Good job. Nice work, Chief. Yeah. Yeah. Well, Jack, are you okay with this? Do you want to make a motion?

I am fine. I don't have any, you know, word smithing, rearranging, reorganizing. No comments. You don't need to be with Nyall and talk about it. Decimals are out of place. Thumbs up to Karen. Just glad the word redevelopment or reconstru 20 years. We will Are we going to be replacing or redeveloping the general? We're reconstructing this thing. Can we get a motion?

I move to approve resolution number 2026-05, a resolution opening and mending the the budget of revenues and expenditures for the various funds of the town of Springdale for the fiscal year ending June 30th, 2026. The um amendment includes increasing revenues and expenditures by 38,000 to total 6,630 537. This includes additional appropriation of fund balance of 26,653 and direct the mayor to sign.

Second that. Excellent. Excellent motion by Jack and second. Excellent motion by Jack. An excellent second by Randy. Pat I. Randy. Barbara I. Jack. I I recogn. Okay. Ordinance 2026-12 prohibiting open fires and fireworks in the town of Springdale during the 2026 fire season season. This is Tom and he did send us a new corrected date. But Tom, yeah, because he sent us another email. Can we just ban fireworks all year long?

So, state code allows us to we we have to make a finding every year in order. the the the state code defaults to allowing fireworks um during during holiday periods. Um it says you can you can do certain kinds of of of fireworks on the 4th of July holiday on the 24th of July holiday at New Year's that is by default permitted. The state says a municipality may adopt an ordinance prohibiting those under these certain circumstances. we have to make a finding every year that those circumstances are met. Um, so that's why we've been doing this every year because the way the state code is drafted requires us to make that finding every year. So

I'm okay with doing it every year, but I I don't know why we would allow fireworks in November and December. So you I I I I think you can't there's no I I reread the state code today. There's nothing that says it has to be between these certain dates. It just says we have to make this finding every year. So you could have a an ordinance that says they're banned year round. We would just need to make that finding every every year. What if what if we compromised and we made a finding that they're banned for this fiscal year? Because we can look at conditions every year, right?

Yeah. Well, you mean fiscal year or calendar year? Well, calendar year, really? Because that's what we're talking about there. Yeah. So, I mean, is it safer for compliance with the state if we say they're banned in fiscal year 2026 or does it matter?

I I I don't think it matters. the the the the things that we need to find are that there are these hazardous areas, you know, 200 feet with from a a a river or a waterway or mountainous or wildland urban interface. Um we need to find that those are those hazardous areas exist. Those aren't going to change. The other thing that we need to find is that there has been um the the the current fire uh current current fire conditions are such that a prohibition is warranted and in at least two of the previous five years there have also been conditions that warrant or or justify a fireworks ban. Those are the findings that the state requires us to make every year.

Okay. But yeah, there's there's nothing that says it has to be within certain dates. So yes, that's a long answer of saying yes, you can do that. You can say we are going to ban them for calendar year 2026 and then we will revisit this in January of 2027. And can we ban fireworks but allow open fires?

Yes. So the the all the require all the things that I've just been talking about are specific to fireworks. the our authorization to um ban fires comes from a separate section of the code that um is isn't nearly as prescriptive as the fireworks section of the code is. So you can treat them separately. So we could make one motion with two dates.

In fact, the ordinance is set up that way. Um the four 4-9-2 talks about fireworks. 4-9-3 talks about open fires and so you you could already kind of um amend that accordingly. But given that open fires don't include a fire in an approved fire pit, do we even want to allow open fires this year with the where they are?

That's what we talked about with whether it was the chief or Tyler in addition to the fireworks last year. I we kind of asked him that a similar question and you know they do the whole permitting checking relative humidity and because you know, right? We worried that if we extended that burn ban into a date that made it unfeasible for people to do what they needed to do on their properties. So, I feel like there is a little bit of oversight there with the burn with the open burning. Not that I'm saying October 15th is the correct date for that. But I feel like if he were here, he would be saying, "Well, you probably don't want to out and out ban burning."

Yeah. I'm guessing that there are people that are going to want to, you know, burn weeds and such during um certain times of year and and Yeah. And they'd have to have a permit. Whereas, if we banned them, they couldn't even burn with a permit. So, Okay. Right. And and I think that's That's reasonable. Fireworks get rid of. Yeah. Did you say you have a motion that I hope it covers all Tom's bases here? So, you let me know. We'll let you know. Jack will let you know. That's right. Nowhere do I use the words.

Redevelopment reconstructing a fire. The town council has reviewed the proposed ordinance 202612, an ordinance prohibiting open fires and discharge of fireworks in the town of Springdale during the 2026 fire season. It makes the following findings which support a complete and total ban of fireworks within the town limits of Springdale until such times as the present restrictive conditions subside. Town Council finds that it's the duty to reduce the threat of fires in the town limits that cause could cause extensive damage to lives, homes, businesses, public facilities, infrastructure, and natural surroundings of Springdale. Further finds that the Hurricane Valley Fire Special Service District shares the town's goal of reducing the threat of fires in Springdale and supports the measures intended to lower ignition risk during the 2026 fire season. Council further finds that the Utah law expressly authorizes the town to prohibit discharge of fireworks in areas with existing and historical hazardous environmental conditions pursuant to title 53 chapter 7 part two section 225 of the Utah code. Town council further finds that the Utah division of forestry fire and state lands identifies the town of Springdale as a community at high risk of wildfire. The town council further finds that the use of ignition sources, including explosive and other fireworks, substantially increase the risk of fire ignition and rapid fire spread throughout town. Council further determines has determined that existing and historical hazardous environmental conditions throughout Springdale necessitates strict control of ignition sources, including a complete prohibition of ignition and or discharge of fireworks during the 2026 season. Council further finds that all property within the boundaries of Springdale is subject to the hazardous environmental conditions, including areas covered in

brush, dry grass, areas within 200 feet of waterways, trails, canyons, washes, ravines, and other similar features and areas located in the wildland urban interface. Council further finds a Springdale is particularly affected by the state's Utah the state of Utah's wildland urban interface code because wildfire risk conditions extend throughout the town rather than being confined to isolated areas resulting in a communitywide wildland urban interface concerns and heightened fire protection needs recognized by state law. Almost done. Not really. Council finds that hazardous conditions exist throughout town, a partial date restriction would be inadequate to protect the public and only a complete townwide prohibition is reasonably calculated to reduce the risk of fire ignition. Council finds that the ongoing drought and historically dry winter of 2526 have exacerbated wildfire conditions for the 2026 season have have increased the need for preventive fire restrictions. Council finds that a wildfire ignited within Springdale could endanger residents, visitors, emergency responders, private and public property, transportation corridors, and the economic well-being of the town. The town finds that the town's closure area properly includes State Route 9 and all areas of the town on both sides of State Route 9 as shown on the 2026 fireworks restriction map. Uh by reference, this is ordinance 26-12. Town council further finds pursuant to Utah code sections 10856 and 10884 the prohibition of fireworks and open during 2026 season is necessary and proper to preserve the health and safety of the town citizens, visitors, and promote the prosperity of the town and protect property within the town. Town council further finds these restrictions should remain in effect until such time

as the present restrictive conditions subside as determined by town council based on a fire danger drought conditions and the advice of fire and emergency management officials and the town further finds that these hazardous conditions have existed in two of the prior five years. Based upon the foregoing findings, the council adopts the 202612 ordinance with the following change and it will read 4-9-2 fireworks prohibited. It's unlawful to ignite, discharge or cause to be ignited or be discharged any firework within the town of Springdale beginning and we can pick the date. Today's date,

today's good May 13, 2026 and continuing thereafter until the town council determines that the hazardous environmental and fire danger fire danger conditions necessitating this prohibition have subsided. The term fireworks under the section is defined under title 53 chapter 7 part two section 202 Utah code annotated 1953 as amended and authorizes the mayor to sign Did instead of saying it starts

it could have been so it doesn't have to come back to us to determine is that 27 26 or January 1st 2027 have to revisit it yearly. So why don't we put like February of 2027 and then we can address it in the January meeting. Is there a second? So can I just clarify the language would then would say beginning May 13, 2026 um until such time as fire conditions have subsided or February 1st, 2027. Okay, I'll second. Motion by pass, second by Kyla.

Barbara, I.

Next item is review and possible adoption of the fiscal year 2627 town of Springdale tentative municipal budget. And this is Tom and Don. Um, so the council reviewed the um the I'm sorry, I'm just going to read from my notes here. So um the Utah law requires the council to review and adopt a tenative budget during our first meeting of May. So that's what we're doing here tonight. Um to prepare for this, the council held a work session in April where we uh discussed a staff budget. At that time, you expressed general approval of the expenditures and projected revenues in the staff budget and uh directed the staff to prepare a tentative budget based on that staff budget. Um we have done so. There are a few minor changes to the tentative budget versus what was discussed in April at your work session. Those changes are discussed in the staff report. They're also highlighted in yellow on the budget sheets in the tentative budget except however there's some um rogue yellow highlighting in the water and sewer funds which uh which is not supposed to be there. So I apologize about that. Um all the other yellow highlighting that you see in the budget reflect the changes that were made from the between the time of the staff budget and the tentative budget. Um so the council's action tonight is to adopt the uh fiscal year 2026 27 tentative budget. Um you you state law requires that you do that tonight. However, welcome to say to give staff direction on changes that need to be

made to that tentative budget and the preparation of the final budget. So, what you're approving tonight isn't necessarily lock you into the the budget that you see before you. It's just tentative in nature and you're welcome to give staff direction on necessary changes. Um, and then the the other thing that you're required to do tonight is to schedule a date for the public hearing to gather community input on the final budget. and staff recommends that you do that in your regularly scheduled June council meeting um which will be on June 10th, 2026 at 5:00 pm. I have a couple of questions. One is the Paute Tribe donation $500. What is that?

So, uh the Pyute tribe every year holds something called the restoration pow. Um and for a number of years we they they ask for sponsors for that powow. And for a number of years, we've been contributing $500 to the trib's restoration pow. And then my other question is whether the windscreen at the pickle ball courts is sort of a done deal. Um like is has that decision been made or do we need because it's in the budget?

That's that's in the tentative budget. So one of the things that you're you're doing is um talking about how you're going to distribute the wrap tax funds. So earlier today you you took action on a couple of community organization proposals for use of that wrap tax funds. The tentative budget has proposed expenditures for the rest of the or or or much of the rest of that wrap tax. So, $14,500 for pickle ball wind screens, $8,000 for improvements to the restrooms near the pickle ball courts, $1,000 for an AED at the pickle ball courts, um, and $8,000 for a public art fund contribution. Those are all tentative at this point. If you want to make changes to any of those, you are welcome to do so. thought it was

when Rick was here it was 11. Oh, I thought it was 10. Well, and then it went to 10. So that I don't know that we've ever made that contribution before. This is new. Um, so so it's it's actually going up by $8,000 because we've never done it before. You are correct. That's one way to look at it. Yeah, you are correct that as as we've talked about it in in previous discussions, there's been a few figures kind of bantered around um between 8 to10 to 12,000. So, yes, this is on the low end of that. And again, if you'd like to allocate your RAP tax differently and and um put more into the public art fund, absolutely you can.

Well, you're just trying to spread it out and that's what you came up with. Correct. Is that wrap tax or is that something else or it it's tax? It's wrap tax. Okay. So that that's the fund that's the proposed funding source for that public art fund. Yeah. If you wanted to fund it with different money, you could you could do that as well. Okay. Um and this is a public hearing, right? Oh, it is. Oh, no, no, no, no. Sorry, my bad.

It's not. So, while we're talking about pickle ball courts, um I will say uh without hesitation. I am pro- AED and think we should probably have some type of outreach that trains people how to use the one since we do have one in the community center. I think and maybe there will be one in the pickle ball court and that we need to make people aware that they're available and they're here and we need to not just wait for 911 if we were to need them. Yeah. You want to train people to use them if they're there. So, I don't

And I guess if I could just say real quick on the wind screens on the pickle ball court, I think a fair amount of work has already been done on that. So I So ugly screen is the pictures I've seen. Yeah,

it is. and and and I I'm going to speak very honestly. When those tennis courts were put in, that was a community effort, right? that money was raised. Sweat, hard work, lots of lots of um dedication went into raising the money and for tennis courts and they I know I'm bringing up bad blood that I was not a part of, not maybe not bad blood, old history. Now we have two pickle ball courts and they are they are also well-loved and they have great attendance but this feels like a lot of money and if they're ugly um that's also a concern I have and I just is this like constantly going to be something we're always chasing is like the best pickle ball courts when we could be contributing to something else in the community and kind of spreading spreading the the the contributions and spreading the the money that we have and and also like feeding other groups of other interest groups. That's just my two cents.

Well, I mean I think sometimes you have to look at function over appearance and I mean you are talking about something That's incredibly common on pickle ball courts. Windscreens are wind screens are. Yeah. Because it's a it's an issue. You know, the balls and the and the court is well used. I just It's well used. But when you say function over form, that's not the world I lived in. I came out of a form and function are both important world. That's what I'm struggling with. But,

you know, I know I know they're well used and and everything like that. And maybe we just need to take a little bit more time to to try and address that as best we can and see if there's something that is a little more transparent. You know, the material that would be a good start just but but I if a lot of work has already been done, I'm not I'm not one of the pickle ball players. I shouldn't make the decision. So, everybody should weigh in on that. And if it's if it's well along, then I'm not going to stop it. Okay. Then I'll just let it out. I personally will just let correct correct Tom.

Well, he he's he's researched and he's he's identified some things. So, so in that regard, yes, he's done quite a bit of research and and trying to figure out what could be done. But correct. But it's it's not as if um he's uh like made preparations to install them or things like that. He's he's just done the prep work to know what's available and what the approximate price is. just do the best he can with with appearance and if and it is what it is at that point. Okay.

Yeah, I'm less concerned about the cost and the way the picture that he sent it just we have such a beautiful environment out there and looks real fakey. So, okay. Any other complaints, questions, whining on the budget other than me? Other than me. I was the whiner. Hint taken from Barbara then.

That's Any other questions, comments? Okay. Do we have a motion? The motion remembers should schedule the date as June 10th for the hearing times. Uh, that's the other budget hearing. That's next year. So, that's closing it out. Closing out last year's budget. No, no motions. Yeah. To approve the tenative and schedule the public hearing for our meeting in June.

10th. I move to approve the tenative 2627 budget and schedule a um meeting for June 10th public that will be a public hearing. Yeah. And it's just a clarification. It's a tentative budget we're approving. Will you accept talk about a whiner? approve the the tenative 2627 budget and schedule a public meeting for June 10th. Okay, I'll second. Motion by Jack, second by Kyla. Pat I. Randy, Barbara. Jack.

Kyla. I

Okay. Review and possible award of contract to bike Utah for community engagement services regarding trails in Springdale. Um Tom, I guess you'll do this in Ryan's absence. That's correct. So, in uh the previous meeting, the council awarded our um consultant selection for our public our our trails public outreach effort to Bike Utah. Um in the time since you've made that selection, we've worked with Bike Utah on um a contract for their services. the Greg and his team have reviewed that contract and have have um found it acceptable and so we're now sharing that with the council. This will formally engage Bike Utah to do our trails public outreach efforts. Um it's 80 $100 80.

Um and the the scope of work is is attached to the contract. Any questions from the council? They were very thorough in their list, their timeline and their list of what they're going to do. I thought that was great. Is it important to have the amount um in the motion? It you it doesn't hurt. I don't think it's required. I just mentioned $8,100. It's an expenditure fund, so it's good to Yes, it's good to say it. Okay. Okay. Are we ready for a motion?

Yes. I move to approve the contract between the town of Springdale and Bike Utah in the amount of $8,100 for community engagement services regarding trails in Springdale and direct the mayor to sign. Second motion by Kyla, second by Randy. Barbara I

Kyla I. Next item on the agenda, local consent request for an off- premise beer permit to sell alcohol at Hotel Denovo located at 2400 Zion Park Boulevard, Springdale, Utah 84767. The applicant is Sam Patel and the staff contact is Kindle. Excuse me. As you said, San Patel requests local consent to apply for an off-remise beer permit through the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Services at Hotel Denovo located at 2400 Zion Park Boulevard.

And he's only going to sell beer there. That's what I'm reading. Probably out of their little store there. Yes. The off-remise beer license um will be for 5% alcohol by volume or less beer to go from retail businesses

and they well probably the restaurant already has or does the hotel already have like a like room service type of license? Do we know? I'm not sure, but I'd be happy to look that up. Well, it was just more of a curiosity like this is brand new to they have a a full bar menu, so they must already have a license. I think what he said in this application is that he wants to be able to sell it at their little convenience store in the in the hotel.

Yeah. In order to stay with the Hilton brand in line with what the Hilton brand requires. Okay. I have a motion if we're ready. I move to approve the local consent request for an off- premise beer permit to sell alcohol at Hotel Denovo located at 2,400 um Zion Park Boulevard and direct the mayor to sign. Second motion by Kyla, second by Jack Barb. Kyla I. Is there any other discussion?

You're allowed to speak.

So, I think all of us I don't know, Kyle, if I saw you, but all of us were at the Eric Duck and I I got to tell you, sitting there, I thought, what a great event and how appropriate for Springdale. And it's just so unfortunate that we don't have more events like that. And so, I just kind of wanted to throw up the idea of, you know, whoever would like to take the ball and run with it. The idea of like kind of a springfall um music series for at the gazebo just to bring into some some performers, you know, a couple times during the year because it was such a great event. It was, you know, and you know, I wasn't sure if that's something the arts would want to take on or how that would happen, but it sure was nice. So,

well, that one I think was planned and u taken on by the 250 committee which is includes Kindle. Thank you, Kendall. That was great. And maybe you can discuss another one in the fall. Um and it was nice that it was a local artist, a local musician, too. You know, somebody not Springdale, but but still local. And it's pretty great. Um I think that would be a great idea. Um, I don't know if the America 250 committee will be going past the 4th of July, but it's okay. Something that we can definitely think about.

I guess a question is I mean, would we want to do a placeholder for wrap tax for something like that? Yeah. So that that's just what I was going to mention that we were fortunate not fortunate we were fortunate to have Kindle who was very skilled at getting funding for the Eric Dodge to that that paid for him to come in. You know, he's he's he's not free. So if we wanted to do that, we would um need to figure out how to allocate resources to it. So yes, if you want if you wanted to um you utilize some of the wrap tax for that, you could. That would be a trade-off with some of the other things that you've already already mentioned.

Bill, how much? I I was I was, you know, not going to say that, but I'm glad you did. That would give us more bang. Um, I mean, at least I was at least heard. Anyway, Kendall, how much money um did we receive from America 250? like what do we need? What kind of goal would we have to to to accomplish an event like that?

So, we got two stipens stipens from the state. One was 1,500, one was 1,200 and then Robin Sanders actually applied for a concert sponsorship which helped cover the Eric Dodge concert and that was 2,000. Eric Dodge himself was was about two grand. that at least gives us an idea of like what kind of money we need to think about.

Yeah. And then we also had a food truck which we we didn't purchase that. Um and then we had the large outdoor event but the fees were waved. So it really was only Eric that that we paid for and he was fantastic to work with. Part of it you know the question is is like how grassroots do you want it? you know, because it sounds like we've got some pretty amazing local talent, you know, so maybe, you know, it could be done for much less for, you know, people who would like to get up.

Well, Jack, what if the what if the art board put out a call for local talent that that wants to do this that that would be willing to do a concert at the gazebo like we do for other things? Instead of visual art, have it be like Yeah. I mean, performing arts are arts, too. What do you think, Nile? Would that fit within our?

Yes. I think if the art review board wanted to branch out into performing arts, that would be something they could do. I also think maybe the community health coalition which is maybe going to be called something different in the future but we're working on that another word smithing activity um maybe because it is bringing people together um that maybe the community recreation committee might have some potential energy in that same direction. We don't have a budget. Just saying. Don't come after my money. Um, well, if you come up with some ideas and we could we could ask for the budget, you know, ask for the funds and see if we have them, if we can find them.

Yeah. At least it sounds like we're open to the idea of exploring it. Great. Um, I am not sure with the new policy if I should ask, but I thought that the information that, um, um, Superintendent Brady Ba had on the screen today was very informative and I would like that to be in the packet material or if that kind of presentation just automat. You're talking about the mosquito presentation. No, Brady Ba the spending authority spending but maybe the mosquito information. I thought you said omit. I'm sorry. No, sorry. Brady bought and and and while we're at it, let's just add the mosquito stuff, too, because it's fascinating.

It it really is specific Springdale data. And I don't know if that's like redundant of me to say it, but I know we just kind of talked about when we want things added into the minutes and when we don't. Um, the chart that that Jeff Brady Bos showed was not something that would be easily understood to just see it without an explanation. But it does demonstrate how little of the money that is collected at the gate goes to the park. So what do you think, Jeff?

I I mean I thought at the very bottom of it that was pretty telling of how much you know of the entrance fee, what's left over from it for park priorities. We could put it in and you know there's nothing. It's not going to hurt to have it in there. If someone doesn't understand it, then they know what they know already, right? So, well, and if they're listening to the maybe the visuals are there if they're on YouTube, that's the part I always Yeah, that's not my thing. Um, if they're just listening to then maybe they would want to go back and see. So, anyway, okay. I move that we adjourn.

Motion by Kyla, second by Paty. Barbara. I acts like he's ready to leave. Is this the our longest

Randy? And I