2022.12.14 TC MTG AGENDA & MINUTES
Town of Leeds
Agenda
Town of Leeds Town Council
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
PUBLIC NOTICE is hereby given that the Town of Leeds Town Council will hold a PUBLIC MEETING on Wednesday, December 14, 2022, at 7:00 pm. The Town Council will meet in the Leeds Town Hall located at 218 N Main, Leeds, Utah.
Regular Meeting 7:00pm
- Call to Order/Roll Call
- Invocation
- Pledge of Allegiance
- Declaration of Abstentions or Conflicts
- Consent Agenda:
a. Tonight’s Agenda
b. Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2022
5. Citizen Comments: No action may be taken on a matter raised under this agenda item. (Three minutes per person).
6. Announcements:
a. Wreaths Across America, December 17, 2022 , 10:00 AM at Leeds Town Cemetery
b. Dog and Cat Vaccination Clinic, Saturday, January 7, 2023, 1-3PM with Dr. Bice
c. Leeds waste collection rate increase due to the Washington County Solid Waste
District actions.
7. Public Hearings:
a. Community Investment Board Grant Application
8. Action Items:
a. Action regarding Community Investment Board Grant Application
b. ORDINANCE 2022-05, AMENDED MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN
c. ORDINANCE 2022-08, CHAPTER 9-PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR HAZAROUS
AND OTHER USES ADDENDUM
e. ORDINANCE 2202-09, LEEDS AMENDED RESIDENTIAL WASTE COLLECTION AND
ADMINISTATION FEES
9. Discussion Items:
10. Citizen Comments: No action may be taken on a matter raised under this agenda item. (Three minutes per person).
11. Staff Reports:
12. Closed Meeting- A Closed Meeting may be held for any item identified under Utah Code section 52-4-205.
13. Adjournment
The Town of Leeds will make reasonable accommodations for persons needing assistance to participate in this public meeting. Persons requesting assistance are asked to call the Leeds Town Hall at 879-2447 at least 24 hours prior to the meeting.
The Town of Leeds is an equal opportunity provider and employer.
Certificate of Posting.
The undersigned Clerk/Recorder does hereby certify that the above notice was posted December 12, 2022 atthese public places being at Leeds Town Hall, Leeds Post Office, the Utah Public Meeting Notice website http://pmn.utah.gov, and the Town of Leeds website www.leedstown.org.
_____________________________________________
Aseneth Steed, Clerk/Recorder
Town of Leeds
Town Council Meeting for
Wednesday, December 14, 2022
Regular Meeting 7 PM
1.Call to Order/Roll Call: 7:00
ROLL CALL: | ||||
Present | Absent | |||
MAYOR: BILL HOSTER | X | |||
COUNCILMEMBER: DANIELLE STIRLING | X | |||
COUNCILMEMBER: RON CUNDICK | X | |||
COUNCILMEMBER: STEPHEN WILSON | X | |||
COUNCILMEMBER: KOHL FURLEY | X |
Town Planner Scott Messel present.
Invocation: Councilmember Wilson
Pledge of Allegiance:
Declaration of Abstentions or Conflicts: None
Approval of Consent Agenda and Minutes Tonight’s Agenda
Councilmember Cundick moved to approve tonight’s agenda of December 14, 2022. Second by Councilmember Wilson.
Motion passed in a Roll Call Vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: | ||||||||
Yea | Nay | Abstain | Absent | |||||
MAYOR: BILL HOSTER | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: DANIELLE STIRLING | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: RON CUNDICK | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: STEPHEN WILSON | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: KOHL FURLEY | X |
Town Council Meeting Minutes of November 9, 2022
Councilmember Cundick moved to approve meeting minutes of November 9, 2022. Seconded by Councilmember Wilson. Motion passed in a Roll Call Vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: | ||||||||
Yea | Nay | Abstain | Absent | |||||
MAYOR: BILL HOSTER | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: DANIELLE STIRLING | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: RON CUNDICK | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: STEPHEN WILSON | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: KOHL FURLEY | X |
Citizen Comments:
Lynn Potter: According to Robert’s Rules of Order, I asked for everything said be put in the written record. We’ve been trying to communicate through emails, and maybe you didn’t get them and so I’m here in person to kind of work some things out in regard to the dust permit that we received a week ago or so. Two weeks? I don’t know. So, we asked about the sign because it requires a sign. It says there’s standards and an example attached. There is no standards or example attached and we’ve sent emails and we’ve gotten nothing back. So, we went ahead and just put up a sign of our own design. It’s on the property. I guess if there’s a problem with the sign that you don’t like you can contact us, and we’ll change it. We contacted you last week. Yeah, about the mud track out which in the permit it talks about how important it is that we do not track any mud onto city property and city roads. Okay. And we sent you an example of what we’d like to put on the easement, which is city property, which is what is typically used around here. It’s a cobblestone you put down a bit of dirt and then you put down cobblestones and then you drive over the cobblestones it shakes everything off of the truck, so you don’t track the mud onto the city streets. The email we got back from you was non-committal. Okay, other than that looked like it may work. And after talking with the lawyer, we felt that that was insufficient for us to move forward and put it on the property because it wasn’t our property. It’s a Leeds property. We sent an email back asking for definitive permission to install something like that on town property, which is our easement on town property, but we didn’t hear anything back. Okay. And we have not been put on the agenda. We didn’t hear anything back and we didn’t get put on the agenda. So here I am tonight asking if you could answer this question. It’s not necessarily an action item is just communication in public. Can we put down a mud preventative tracking system, which is typical for the area on the easement?
Mayor Hoster: Mr. Potter, I’ll go ahead and stop the clock. This isn’t the time or place for that, I will address it. The fact is that I can’t warrant that a third-party product is going to work and be able to meet expectations. The city ordinance is for not having any debris on the roadway. I can’t warrant that. Now, your ability to put something temporary on the easement is not an issue with us. But you’re more than welcome to call us. I did realize that Scott’s email was sitting in draft, and I responded back to him on that. But, you know, again, this isn’t the place for that. But I’ll go ahead and address it here. I can’t warrant that that product is going to work. If it doesn’t work, and I’ve given you the affirmative that it could work, why then you can see the issue there.
Lynn Potter: It’s not necessarily a product, it’s just a method that we use around here.
Mayor Hoster: A method or system, sure.
Lynn Potter: [to Scott Messel] Help me out here, buddy. This is typically what is used to stop mud from being tracked.
Scott Messel: Yes, it’s typical practice or else the metal track out.
Lynn Potter: It works. You know, it’s about an 80%. You still have to do some cleanup. But you know, can we put this down?
Mayor Hoster: If it’s a temporary placement, yes, then certainly. That falls within the permission of an easement and on the ability to make sure that it’s not tracking debris onto the roadway. Again, I can’t warrant that. If it does do that, you’re responsible for it.
Lynn Potter: Yes, we’re responsible for any additional mud track out that’s on the town property. We’ll put down the dirt base, and we’ll put down the cobblestones and the permit is good for year. So, we’ll probably be there for a year or until the permit expires, then we’ll take it up because we don’t want to be driving across this thing. I don’t know if you’ve ever driven across one, It’s terrible. Yeah, it’s like the worst possible. Okay. So, it’s not something we want to leave on the easement. Okay. Thank you for giving us the approval for this. Good enough. Thanks. Okay. Thank you, have a good night.
Susan Savage: This is regarding the Master Transportation Plan 4.0 project , I-15 Leeds North interchange and project 4.2, North Babylon Road. My comment might take more than three minutes. So, I’ll sit down at the end of three minutes if you say.
Mayor Hoster: You’re fine. No, it’s just a request and a guideline.
Susan Savage: I know that Ron has been out to see the site where the Grapevine Wash goes under the freeway on the west side. I wonder if either one of you have been out there?
Mayor Hoster: Yes.
Councilmember Wilson: I do not know the exact spot but I kind of know the general area at the end of Wonder Lane.
Susan Savage: I usually have to open the gate for people.
Mayor Hoster: I’ve just gone out to the end of Wonder lane there. That’s as far as I’ve gone.
Susan Savage: I just want to say that one of the first things that early settlers learned when they moved into this area, was where not to build things. They started close to the water and then moved upstream as they had trouble with drainage. When the Grapevine Wash developers, I don’t know what year that was about 2012 or 2013, proposed the interchange at the juncture of 900 North and Main; I attended that meeting. They had at that particular meeting an older man there who hadn’t been there before. He seemed to be kind of an engineer; someone they referred to anyway. They said the reason they chose that location was because they were concerned. They felt like the people who lived in Silver Reef and Eldorado would object to the lights. They were concerned about the big billboards, and that they would object to the constant lighting and The freeway interchange. And so, they chose a lower spot. They could see on the topographical maps, which was a little spot in elevation. So when the meeting was over, I stepped back to this older man and said, Have you actually been on the ground there?
He said, No.
And I said, I’ll be going take care of I said, it’s a major drainage. That’s why it’s low.
And he immediately said, we can’t put it there then.
I don’t know as there’s talk of an interchange going maybe farther north or something like that. There are some challenges with it. There’s the light challenge, but certainly the drainage challenge. I feel like sometimes that we who’ve lived here a long time and seen things happen, that sometimes our input is kind of received as quaint. An example of that is, maybe Scott can help me with this. How many years ago was it when Washington had trouble with flooding?
Scott Messel: 2014, 15. Like down there on Main Street?
Susan Savage: It happened at least twice, several times maybe. They had flooding from storms that caused a lot of havoc. I said to one of the old timers, what’s going on, because I’ve lived here all my life and never heard of floods getting into Washington. He said, Well, the early settlers had floods but when the Civilian Conservation Corps came through one of their projects was to build these little retainer walls up above there. They did a study of the rain, and they built those walls that would prevent floods. But the Town Council permitted a development to go in up there. They just kind of thought that probably those old things weren’t too important, so they approved the development and took out those retainers and then there was nothing to guide the water. That was one example.
When Quail Creek Reservoir was built. Then there were old timers who tried farming out in that area. And so they went to the Conservancy District and their engineer and said, you can’t keep water in the ditch out there. It is gypsum. It dissolves, somebody had tried taking the water down closer to the river on the east, they tried taking it out into the area where the prison is and they couldn’t. They just couldn’t manage it. But the engineer was sure that he could make it work and they kind of smiled. Even the state engineer said, the way you’re doing it, isn’t going to hold and it didn’t. That earthen dam on the south side was breached, and cost millions and millions of dollars in damage and the rebuilding, reengineering, and rebuilding and so on. So, I feel like that people who’ve moved in recently to the area and especially in our area up here, in Harrisburg area too, but especially about between here and Silver Reef, they see the contour of the land, these little undulating places and the little ravines that come down, and don’t realize how those were made. They were made from flooding events. Wes and Kathy Powell, for example, live just this side of one of those little ravines and so whoever did the road there, just you know, came along with their equipment, and filled in the dirt so that the water would not come through there, but water doesn’t care where the dirt is. It keeps going. They have major problems in their yard because the water just went right through there. What we’ve seen along the Grapevine Wash is that area on the west side was a place where, when they built the freeway, they had a big crusher plant in there. They took all that area out. The area used to be just as narrow on the west side as it is on the east side and as it is onto the West, and like in Eldorado when it comes under that bridge. They took all that area out for gravel, and they took out the gravel right up against where the freeway is. So, then we had one of those floods come through after the plant was gone. There where the freeway crosses the Grapevine Wash, they but the tunnel under. That’s a 12 by 12 foot square tunnel , they were still working on the freeway on both sides and when those floods came through, it cleaned out all the cottonwoods along the Grapevine Wash and piled the debris against that tunnel and backed water up and made a reservoir of that gravel pit. The pressure was strong enough eventually, it started eating away the debris but in the meantime, the engineers were getting ready to dynamite that section of freeway so it didn’t help tear out more of the road. These kinds of events, they don’t happen very often. But when you see when you never forget it, and I’ve seen a flood in that wash that had boulders the size of the small car that were bouncing like rubber balls. A unique thing, I know Lynn Potter and others have said that Leeds has the reputation of being difficult to work with but we do have unique issues. The runoff issues are one. Geologists in their latest studies say that Pine Valley mountain probably was two or three times as big as it is when it first rose and it could have risen in as little as a 100 year period. They think it was much bigger because all of the granite boulders are Volcanically made. They all come from Pine Valley mountain. So if you look around Pine Valley mountain, the other places have volcanic rock and sandstone, Washington, St. George, Gunlock, those areas, but we have the boulders. A lot has happened. The floods from places where there have been wildfires on the other sides of the mountain, the water gathers the silt. They’ve come down and had those big floods in the Santa Clara creek that took homes and so on. The ones here, if you just look at this area from the top of the Hurricane Hill you can see that there’s a huge drop in elevation. The floods are fast running, the Grapevine Wash, and Quail Creek. The actual quail Creek is the one that people call Leeds Creek, it comes down from Oak Grove and so those deep canyons. The Grapevine Wash, which is north of that from a different section of the watershed, they’re deep canyons. They’ve been carved out by not only the volume, but the velocity of those floods that have come down. All I’m saying is that’s a difficult area, the Grapevine Wash. No matter how you look at it.
Going on to the issue with Wonder Lane, when the UDOT built that, they didn’t connect Wonder Lane across there. I talked to them, and they said it was because, at that time we were just trying to give people access to their ranches. There was a ranch on the north side and then our farming property on the south side but the farming property on the south side, it didn’t need more access than it had with Wonder Lane. They could have made an additional access because we have property on the north side of the Grapevine Wash, but they didn’t, which is interesting. They came to that place where the gravel was taken out of the gravel pit and it created this 300 foot long span right up against the freeway. This is where that one flood was that built the reservoir, and the water was rising before they started breaking away at the debris. The water was rising to the level of the freeway. It is just an area that I think would be really expensive to build a bridge that big. Where if you took the frontage road down through the wash, then it’s vulnerable to the floods, again. It would be an ongoing financial burden. My thought about it is, if there’s an interchange out there north of the Grapevine or somewhere farther north or wherever it handles the needs of all those properties on the north and on the east where the developments come in. Those of us on the south don’t need more. And what would happen is, the Master Transportation Plan talks about the recommended 110-foot width for frontage road and I’m not quite sure where you start measuring it, but I stepped it off, this does impact us. It would impact us to bring all that traffic through there and so my thought is I don’t think the traffic needs to come through there if it has the interchange that collects it so they have access to the freeway. What it would do to us who already lost our home and a lot of farmland to the freeway, is, if you measure from the freeway fence up towards the house, that 110 foot width would come right up to the front gate of the little yard there. If you measure from the edge of the pavement, it comes right up to the steps. So you’d be stepping out of the house right down onto the pavement, and it would take out all the shade trees, and then it would take out the power line along there. It would take out a whole strip of farmland with structures and facilities and so on. It just seems to me like they aren’t both needed. There’s a freeway interchange on the north that shouldn’t be where the Grapevine Wash is because it’s too vulnerable. It would take care of all this new development, and without having to construct a hugely costly bridge to bridge the Grapevine Wash, connect to Wonder Lane again or to go down through the wash and be vulnerable to having it constantly torn out every time a flood came through.
That’s my thoughts. Thanks for your patience.
Mayor Hoster: those are great insights, Susan. Conversation with our engineering partners did evaluate some of those comments that you forward. I sent them over to as well and their feedback was this is a conceptual plan. It’s nothing that says this is what we’re doing. They said that interchange could be at that location, it more likely will be further north. But it’s something that the engineers at the time will assess with multiple other studies. For them to be able to access any funds planning has to be in place. And so, they over plan in this Master Transportation Plan versus under plan so that they can receive the funding should they be able to do something like that in the next 20,30 or 50 years. That was the purpose of trying to put those things in. That was explained to me as they presented that information because we were very adamant about not intruding on anyone’s private property with any of the suggestions they had. One of the comments that came back was, how do we access for secondary relief in case of an emergency or a flood if that is not available? Or it’s collapsed? And they’re not available to go from east to west across the I-15? How are they able to escape out of there? They can’t go to the south because the Bluff is there?
Susan Savage: What about connection of the frontage?
Mayor Hoster: Now, that was one of the options that they recommended. Depending on what the development does, in that Zions Landing area, they may be able to put one further to the west up in there and not be able to do the other. They just over engineered and said, here’s all the possibilities we can do so that they can apply for the funding at the time they make those decisions. There’s a lot of decisions or a lot of checks that have to happen before any dirt gets moved. So, I appreciate the perspective. We noted it well with the engineers and making sure they knew we did not want to intrude on any private property with this Master Transportation Plan. Realizing the fact that they had to have secondary access routes for emergency evacuation in that area, they wanted to have the two options.
Susan Savage: Thank you for passing that on. I’ll probably keep commenting on it. And I understand that this plan is brief. Appreciate your explanation. One of the things that happens, I think Alan Roberts has mentioned it, is we suffer from a lack of continuity. One of the things about the emergency access, when this has come up in years past, people in Eldorado, they talked about it and we granted an emergency access to our property and said we’ll put in a gate so that the fire trucks and whoever needs to get in there can get out. But the people in Eldorado would still have to cross the Grapevine Wash if they’re bridge were washed out or something like that. When Wrights, who bought the property just to the north of us, they’ve already put a road in along that fence. It is just a rough thing that they’ve cleared out. So that’s an option that goes along the fence in over to connect to Wonder Lane. Then on the south side, and this is what is lost in the lack of continuity I guess, over the years then people have said there are roads that go out of Silver Reef into Hidden Valley. There’s the old road that goes by the Catholic cemetery. I think it’s on this map, it kind of looks like it’s drawn on there as an option for people to get out of the there. Evacuate, if they needed to, and to get out to the freeway. That should not be lost in the conversation because the connection of Wonder lane, which will be expensive and vulnerable, is not the only option. There are other areas to go.
Mayor Hoster: There are three options. One of those is the one you mentioned. And the other one, connecting the Eldorado side over to where the Wrights property is, is another one that’s in there. All three of those were put in to say, well, if one of those ends up getting chosen as the pathway after development occurs, then they can pursue the funding to do that. But without it being in the plan, they can’t do anything.
Susan Savage: The other thing that concerns me in the Master Transportation Plan was it said, these things will be done as needed. That says to me, maybe this isn’t what that means, but that says to me, if there’s enough development that we need that, then we’ll put it through. Those other options don’t have the vulnerability of a major drainage, and flooding events coming through. The one going through Wrights down by the cemetery. And the thing about saying, well, we’ll wait, you know, to see what happens with development is that if the development goes in and comes down 900 North if it looks like it did with the Grapevine Wash development planners, that their traffic plans said they would bring all that traffic through Leeds, that we need to widen the streets and put in the stoplights. We’ve seen that in other areas, it takes out homes, it affects those homes just like widening Wonder Lane would do. It has destroyed neighborhoods. So that’s a real concern that we had with that. If you wait until you have so much traffic that’s already done. Anyway, you have some interesting things to think about. Thanks for your service.
6. Announcements:
a. Wreaths Across America, December 17, 2022 , 10:00 AM at Leeds Town Cemetery
b. Dog and Cat Vaccination Clinic, Saturday, January 7, 2023, 1-3PM with Dr. Bice
c. Leeds waste collection rate increase due to the Washington County Solid Waste District actions.
Mayor Hoster: We do have a rate increase that occurs for 2023. This is not a fee increase initiated by the town but a pass-through increase as a result of the Washington County Solid Waste District’s actions. This rate increase will be in an action item on an ordinance. It’s a 10% increase on the year over year that the waste district implements but we have to have an ordinance because we’re collecting from you.
A couple more announcements I’d like to make. The first is that I’d like to thank everyone who participated in the tree lighting ceremony that occurred here. That was a fantastic event. And a lot of people contributed to that, from different faiths from different neighborhoods. It turned out to be about seventy-five people. Plus, that were out here. We had music, we had food we had our tree out here that stays lit until 11 o’clock every night. Two ladies went up, a mother and a daughter, and cut that tree for us and brought that in for us. A lot of great actions occurred for that. And I just hope everyone who was involved and participated in that knows how much this town appreciates them. I also want to make an update on some of the annexation concerns that have been going on the Zions Landing in the Wright property annexations are shelved for the moment. Due to request on their behalf, we were trying to expedite those to get them through before the first of the year for tax purposes for that of the town. But as a result of other internal facilitations. Legally, those have been pushed back a little bit. So, we’re not hurrying as much. But anticipate picking those back up in the near future, like within the next 30 days is the word I got this morning.
7. Public Hearings:
a. Community Investment Board Grant Application
Councilmember Wilson made amotion to open the public hearing. Councilmember Cundick seconded the motion. Motion to passed in a roll Call Vote:
ROLL CALL VOTE: | ||||||||
Yea | Nay | Abstain | Absent | |||||
MAYOR: BILL HOSTER | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: DANIELLE STIRLING | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: RON CUNDICK | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: STEPHEN WILSON | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: KOHL FURLEY | X |
Mayor Hoster: This public hearing is enabling the public to comment on options for the town to participate in a grant. The way this occurs, the town is required to have a public hearing. For the options to apply for this grant in that process, we can look at different things. I’m not supposed to give you ideas according to the paperwork. I will give ideas of what other places have done, which are investments in the community’s infrastructure that can help bring in support for special needs, support for seniors, support for the youth some of those concepts. If that can help jog some concepts that you would like to see for us to apply for. After we close the public hearing will be able to take those comments, present them to the to the board in our application. This is the first time we’re applying for this one that I’m aware of. This is a new one. This isn’t the regular grant application that CIB usually does. This one is a little different. I think they have about $800,000 that are available, but it’s for five counties that are applying. So pretty competitive. And our ability to compete on this, we don’t have staff, in case y’all hadn’t noticed. So, we’ve got to do all of this ourselves. We have had Troi my wife going into a lot of the meetings which are required to attend for us to apply. And we’re also going to be writing the grant ourselves and trying to see what we can get. So we’ll go ahead and open the open the public hearing. And anyone who has any comments about options for this. Please approach the mic and or the podium and state your name and, and thoughts.
Bill McLaughlin: Thank you Troi for going to those meetings. Seems like just the year, with COVID so that seniors could get rides through the Hurricane Valley assistance to get groceries go to medical. is that something we can apply for the grant? There are probably a number of citizens in the area that need assistance from rides, and it could help, especially for medical, being able to go in and see their doctors. I don’t know if we have the ability to talk to someone who’s written the grants. I know that’s big in corporate. We outsourced and hired people who would go after grants, and they knew exactly the proper way.
Mayor Hoster: We were fortunate that we have staff at Five Counties that is dedicated to helping us, but we have to write it, and then they guide us on whether it’s good or not, or go back. And but yeah, we were hoping they would do more than that. But that’s it. That’s all we’re getting.
Mayor Hoster: I think that is an option for us to apply for. The things we’re not able to do with it. We can’t, we can’t do wages. So, we can’t hire people with it. We can’t use travel costs. We can’t apply toward costs involved in the preparation of the environmental review, and other contract costs for professional services associated with the program administration. Those are prohibited. But a walking path doesn’t seem to be something that would be prohibited for us to apply for.
Question from Zoom: Can you use the money for a walking path on silver reef road?
Mayor Hoster: I think that is an option for us to apply for. The things we’re not able to do with it. We can’t, we can’t do wages. So, we can’t hire people with it. We can’t use travel costs. We can’t apply toward costs involved in the preparation of the environmental review, and other contract costs for professional services associated with the program administration. Those are prohibited. But a walking path doesn’t seem to be something that would be prohibited for us to apply for.
Robin Snyder: just want to inform everyone and you may not realize that there’s been a hospital built and Hurricane next to the HC facilities. And I know that I just found that out. And I don’t know how many people went down, realize that. So that’s all
Citizen: When they mentioned a walking path, what about coupling it with cycling.
Rhonda McLaughlin: I just wanted to confirm how much we get total if we were to get
Scott Messel: That amount of money is being spread out over all the communities that would be applying. There may be projects that they kind of a sales pitch in a way trying to get as much as you can, for whatever project but you don’t know how much you’ll get.
Mayor Hoster: They do want to see the town put some money toward it.
Councilmember Wilson: So you mentioned it could be for infrastructure as well. We do have some drainage issues in town to that possibly can be something.
Mayor Hoster: Okay, are there any other comments for the public hearing with regard to application ideas for the grant available for the five counties, which is about $800,000, that it’s intended to be spread throughout those counties. But identifying any needs that the town of Leeds should apply for? Okay, seeing none, I’ll ask again of the of the Council for a motion to close the public hearing.
Councilmember Cundick moved to close the public hearing. Councilmember Wilson seconded. The motion passed in a Roll Call Vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: | ||||||||
Yea | Nay | Abstain | Absent | |||||
MAYOR: Bill HOSTER | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: DANIELLE STIRLING | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: RON CUNDICK | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: STEPHEN WILSON | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: KOHL FURLEY | X |
8. Action Items:
a. Action regarding Community Investment Board Grant Application
There’s no action there. Okay. So, we’ll be the action will be one that doesn’t require a vote for us to be able to provide the comments of the of the public hearing for the application. The next action item is ordinance 2022. Tax 05. This is the amend the Master Transportation Plan. As was discussed prior.
b. ORDINANCE 2022-05, AMENDED MASTER TRANSPORTATION PLAN
Mayor Hoster: We have received the Master Transportation Plan from our civil engineering partner Sunrise Engineering, as such that made that Master Transportation Plan, again, is a template for concept of the town of Leeds. For the purposes of options in utilizing capital to facilitate transportation needs in the future, it does have a multiyear plan that extends out significantly on that. The last I believe Master Transportation Plan for the town was done, I believe, almost fifteen plus years ago. So nonetheless, I don’t anticipate another one, you know, between now and then. But, again, those are the purposes of this. And for the town to facilitate closing the general plan, the Master Transportation Plan has to be a part of that we do have an outstanding invoice in a significant amount of which was for the MPO grant that we receive funding for once we are able to close and confirm that all items have been received by the town approved and processed on the general plan. And so therefore we’ll need a motion to accept ordinance 2022-05, Amend the Master Transportation Plan and it’s significantly long if council would like to go ahead and review that before making a motion in a vote. If you’re, you’re in a position to make a motion to approve it.
Councilmember Cundick: I just want to mention that it’s a long-term guide. This was the concern that Susan had and it is in writing. It reinforces that idea. This is a guide only.
Councilmember Wilson made amotion to approve . Ordinance 2022-05, Amended Master Transportation Plan seconded by Councilmember Cundick. Motion passed in a rollcall vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: | ||||||||
Yea | Nay | Abstain | Absent | |||||
MAYOR: Bill HOSTER | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: DANIELLE STIRLING | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: RON CUNDICK | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: STEPHEN WILSON | X | |||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: KOHL FURLEY | X |
c. ORDINANCE 2022-08, CHAPTER 9-PERFORMANCE STANDARDS FOR HAZAROUS AND OTHER USES ADDENDUM
Mayor Hoster: This is a housekeeping ordinance to connect the previously approved amendment. We just needed to connect this ordinance within this year. It’s already been passed. It’s simply to connect an ordinance to the approved amendments.
Councilmember Wilson made amotion to approve Ordinance 2022-08, Chapter 9-Performance Standards For Hazardous And Other Uses Addendum Councilmember Cundick seconded. Motion passed in a roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: | |||||||||
Yea | Nay | Abstain | Absent | ||||||
MAYOR: Bill HOSTER | X | ||||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: DANIELLE STIRLING | X | ||||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: RON CUNDICK | X | ||||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: STEPHEN WILSON | X | ||||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: KOHL FURLEY | X |
e. ORDINANCE 2202-09, LEEDS AMENDED RESIDENTIAL WASTE COLLECTION AND ADMINISTATRATION FEES
Mayor Hoster: As noted earlier, we have received a price increase from the Washington County Solid Waste Management District. Again, this is a pass through. You’ll notice the fees documented in exhibit A denote that we’ll be collecting on a quarterly rate of $44.25 for the trash collection. And then for recycling, it’ll be $20.52.
Councilmember Wilson: All these rates were previously discussed the done over.
Mayor Hoster: Yes, and there’s nothing we can do about them. Right. It’s part of the waste services, correct? Yeah. But we do have to have it in an ordinance to collect those fees.
Councilmember Cundick made amotion to approve Ordinance 2202-09, Leeds Amended Residential Waste Collection and Administration Fees.
Councilmember Cundick seconded. Motion passed in a roll call vote.
ROLL CALL VOTE: | |||||||||
Yea | Nay | Abstain | Absent | ||||||
MAYOR: Bill HOSTER | X | ||||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: DANIELLE STIRLING | X | ||||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: RON CUNDICK | X | ||||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: STEPHEN WILSON | X | ||||||||
COUNCILMEMBER: KOHL FURLEY | X |
Discussion Items: None
Citizen Comments:
Staff Reports: Mayor Hoster: This has been a pressing issue for the entire Hurricane Valley Fire District Special Service District. I’ve been in meetings all day today on this. It was proposed for an 89% Hike increase of taxes. The board turned that down. We voted on it, and we turned that down. As a result, we went back to the fire department, administrative personnel insisted they provide a new budget of which they provided. But it still is higher than it needs to be. As a result, they’re having to pull into their slush fund and borrow from themselves essentially to finance their activities. Two options have been proposed. The first one is moving to an EMS tax, and EMS tax would be something on sales tax, not on property tax. Right now, we’re on property tax. So the property tax one is in in the entire board’s opinion, a bad way to fund the fire department, and, and EMS with sales tax we can move and mitigate some of that burden onto those who visit versus just the citizens who own property in the district. The other option was to move for a fee, the fee would separate from your property tax, it would be significantly lower for some or equal for others. When looking at this fee, it was identified we would have to do a fee assessment. This is something that could take several months to do to identify how much would a trailer pay versus an apartment versus a home versus a hotel versus a warehouse. And so all of those fees would have different structures. And each one of those would have to have an assessment associated with it for a fair and equitable means of assessing those fees. And it would not require a public hearing. It is something that the board could vote on and execute immediately. And so, a lot of considering shins going into something like that. On top of all of that the board was extremely critical of the fire administration’s budget. All of the line items were scrutinized with absolute candor and asking, Do we really need this? And there were a lot of raised voices. And I can tell you that meeting was three plus hours with all of the administration, but I do believe we’ve gotten we’ve made a lot of progress on this. We do have another meeting that is going to be held on the 20th. We do have another public hearing that will be happening during that time. This will be over at the La Verkin city offices but that is available also on the on the county’s public hearing website.
Normally, we have Angie Rohr for DTAC, but she’s not here tonight on I got a call from her but I was in meetings all day was unable to get back to her. So, I’m assuming she was unable to bring us any updates for that tonight. Those are the two areas that I have.
Adjournment: 8:28
Approved this Eleventh Day of January 2023.
_______________________________
Bill Hoster, Mayor
ATTEST:
_________________________________
Aseneth Steed, Clerk/Recorder
Share on Facebook Share on Twitter Share on Pinterest