DANIEL TOWN COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION,
PUBLIC HEARING MINUTES
MONDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2016 AT 6:00 PM
WASATCH COUNTY SERVICES BUILDING, ROOM 126
55 SOUTH 500 EAST, HEBER CITY, UT
Quorum present: Council members Glodowski and Bunker were present when Mayor Turner called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. Council member Blotter arrived at 6:08 PM. Council member Bateman was absent. Also present were Treasurer Sherri Price, and Lynne Shindurling to record the minutes.
Members of the Planning Commission in attendance were: Jaye Binkerd, Gary Weight, and Secretary Kathy-Jo Percy.
Members of the public in attendance were: Shelly Bunker, Brent Waterman, Shane Whiting, Blake Allen, Scott and Melanie Coleman, Maverick Peterson, Wes and Mary Sweat, Mike Eriksson, Kendra Giles, Adam Knight, Brandon and Marla Larson, Lisa Dinga, Hugh Barker, Bret and Mona Webb, Lee and Tori Skinner, Bryan Simpson, Joe Witt, Bart Wilde, Mark and Jamie McAllister, Rex Reeder, Steve Meyer, Kent Bethers, and Ryan Taylor.
Mayor Turner welcomed the public and thanked everyone for coming.
1) PUBLIC COMMENT CONCERNING ANY ISSUE NOT ON THE AGENDA
Lisa Dinga introduced herself and expressed interest in having a social media page for the Town of Daniel as well as Storm Haven area. She stated she is still concerned about having signs replaced in Storm Haven. She feels social media presence would reach more people for announcements, etc. Mayor Turner thanked her for the comment and stated he would like to see this subject as a future agenda item.
2) PRESENTATION BY TROY MORGAN, WASATCH COUNTY FIRE WARDEN, ON WILDFIRE RISKS AND MITIGATION
Mr. Morgan was unable to attend the meeting, but Mike Eriksson from the State Division of Forestry, Fire and State Lands came in his stead. Mr. Eriksson presented a wildfire risk index map for the Town of Daniel showing where the greatest and least amounts of risk of fire lie within the Town boundaries. In the past municipalities have been billed for resources used in firefighting in their cities and towns, but the State has instituted a new program which municipalities can opt into based on risk delineating prevention, preparedness, and mitigation. The value based on the data for Daniel is $2,122. This is not money paid by the town but, rather, a match with the State. The Town could prepare a Community Wildfire Protection Plan as an example of an effort toward matching funds. For cleanup of debris to create fire breaks surrounding properties the federal volunteer rate would come into play to help establish value for the effort. All projects performed during the year would be turned in at the end of 2018 to create the total value achieved. If the total was in excess of the $2,122, the balance would carry forward to the next couple of years. This type of program puts the onus on the community to invest funds into local projects to make their community safer.
Council member Glodowski asked if this is a nationwide program. Mr. Eriksson explained this is a Utah program only which, if it proves beneficial, may be tried in other states throughout the country. It is a cheap insurance program without expending actual dollars on the insurance but improving conditions within the Town to reduce wildfire risk.
Council member Bunker mentioned he has been following this through the legislature and asked if the interim committee suggested there would be approving the projects performed and tying up communities in paperwork. Mr. Eriksson stated the intent is to be lenient with the forms and procedure as a way of encouraging cities and town to opt into the program. He also stated the option to participate is annual, but communities would be included on an ongoing basis until and unless they submitted something in writing stating they would like to opt out, in answer to a question by Mayor Turner.
Council member Bunker inquired if the numbers in the upper right-hand corner are only Daniel figures. Mr. Eriksson replied yes, and thinks the numbers are on the high side and may actually drop. The reflected numbers are the worst case scenario. The numbers are from the Utah League of Cities and Towns data compiled from past fires and the costs involved in fighting them. The figures state $2.00 per acre for medium risk and $3.50 for high risk acres. Low risk acres in Daniel are listed at 1,282 acres (61% of Daniel); medium at 497 acres (24% of Daniel); and high risk at 322 acres (15% of Daniel), which includes a good portion of the Storm Haven area.
3) DON ROBERTSON PRESENTATION ON POSSIBLE ANNEXATION OF PROPERTY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 3000 SOUTH AND U.S. 189 INTO DANIEL TOWN
This item was skipped as Mr. Robertson was not able to attend the meeting.
4) PUBLIC HEARING ON DANIEL MUNICIPAL CODE 8.25 HOME OCCUPATION PROPOSED CHANGES, PUBLIC INPUT
Council member Blotter moved to close the regular meeting and open the public hearing, which motion was seconded by Council member Glodowski. The motion passed unanimously and the public hearing was opened.
Mayor Turner began by stating why this hearing is taking place. With the number of home businesses increasing and complaints from residents being made about conditions within the Town, the Council wants to address the code which was adopted originally from Wasatch County as well as input from code of communities of a similar size. He explained that this is an opportunity for the legislative body to rewrite code that will work for everyone. The Town Council and Planning Commission have met previously to go over the language, have revised some language preliminarily, and would now like to hear suggestions and comments from business license holders and others in regards to the Home Occupation Code only.
Brent Waterman first asked what complaints have been made, if there is a compiled list. He stated without knowing what the complaints are, how can the business owners address them. Since the process is complaint driven, dealing with the specifics would be a good starting point. Mayor Turner explained he wants to deal with the code as written, not the complaints, per se.
Mr. Waterman reviewed the language in Section 8.25.03 stating “the planning staff may waive all or part of the requirements,” noting it has been proposed to strike the sentence. Language containing the word “may” to his understanding leaves it to the discretion of the Planning Commission and why strike it. Commissioner Weight stated having the language contain “may” begs the question, well, you let him do it, why not me. Elimination of that sentence gives everyone the same fairness.
Council member Blotter offered that the redlining done so far is not what the Town officials are proposing, only what has been brought up in discussion thus far. He stated the current code appears to have been written for a business conducted entirely within the home; i.e., a hair salon, flower shop, perhaps a dog kennel. It does not address businesses such as plumbing, electrical, welding, trucking. He suggests perhaps having two sections of code dealing with different businesses. Mayor Turner mentioned establishing conditional uses has also been considered.
Shelly Bunker thanked everyone for coming as she had done some phone calling to get the word out on the hearing. She stated people do not get a copy of the code when issued a business license and so people are unaware of the code language. She thinks reading each sentence of the code in question may be helpful to the audience. If complaints are put in writing they can be dealt with, rather than just an oral complaint which may have no basis. After investigating a written complaint, Planning Director Bunker, as the enforcement officer, can determine if there is a violation and write a citation for same. Verbal complaints can be too vague to allow any action to take place and are made on emotion at times rather than facts.
Mayor Turner stated different zones exist within Daniel Town. The home business code occurs within the RA5 zoning. Commission Weight asked those present to state what should be allowed in this zoning, what do you need to have in the code to conduct your business lawfully.
Mr. Waterman asked for a definition of “home occupation” to make it clear to everyone. Council member Bunker turned to Section 8.25.01 Purpose for a definition. Council member Blotter stated in the “definitions” portion of the code in Section 8.04 it is listed as definition 103 appearing on page 106. “Home Occupation: A nonresidential activity, conducted entirely within a dwelling unit, which is clearly incidental and secondary to the use of the dwelling for residential purposes.” Council member Bunker stated in Wasatch County Code the definition is found in Section 16 rather than Section 8. To conform to business currently conducted in Daniel, Mr. Waterman thinks the definition first needs to be changed, that it doesn’t cover 80% of the current businesses. However, agricultural endeavors are allowed as this is Residential/ Agriculture 5 acres.
Joe Witt stood up to discuss Section 8.25.06 Home Occupation Standards. He thinks here the code is loose and sloppy, difficult to enforce. He suggests elimination of this entire section. He asked, for example, currently would a daycare facility be allowed? Would an electrical business be allowed with business trucks on site? Someone giving horse riding lessons for pay? Council member Blotter stated they’re all good questions which go right to the question of what works and what doesn’t as the code stands.
Commission Weight stated if you delete the standards, then no businesses would be allowed within the residential zone. Comments are needed from the citizens on how the language should read. Mr. Witt wants the definition changed so business can occur outside of the dwelling and there should be a reasonable standard of nuisance. Perhaps allow items to be stored behind a home and out of sight.
Mark McAllister stood up and first addressed a question mark beside Section 8.25.03(9), which prohibits outside storage of items. He thinks current businesses do store items outside.
Mayor Turner inquired whether the amount of outside space should be limited to a certain percentage of a property, amount of square feet, unlimited space. Should items be allowed on a property for short-term storage before going to a job site. Commissioner Binkerd stated a nuisance clause is difficult to uphold because you must deal with personalities. Council member Blotter asked the public to help define the happy medium amongst Town residents.
Scott Coleman stated he has industrial property and asked if he can do whatever is allowed in that zone even though it is in the backyard of an RA5 residence. Council member Blotter stated he would be glad to help locate within the code the sections dealing with properties zoned as industrial. Mr. Blotter also emphasized in creating the new code, people should keep the Town’s General Plan in mind regarding maintaining a rural atmosphere, agricultural base.
In referring to 8.25.06 standards, (b) states the business in a dwelling may only be performed by family members. Mr. Coleman is certain businesses do hire outside employees. With the question mark written there he wonders if the Council is open to discuss this issue. The Mayor stated that’s why we’re all here. We need to revise every aspect of the code as written. Jamie McAllister stated a daycare business most likely would have non-family employees.
Council member Blotter asked if there could be a limit on the number of employees placed which would satisfy everyone. Is it 50, something less? Some feel it will cap itself. Hugh Barker suggested perhaps classifications of businesses could be put into place with conditions placed on each type. Gary Weight mentioned 3000 South, as an example, could be rezoned commercial. Shelly Bunker asked if a conditional use permit should be connected with each business license. Council member Bunker said conditional uses are too hard to enforce as conditions can be eliminated in a court of law after the appeals process, thus leaving a conditional use unlimited.
Adam Knight put the number of employees at 10-15. Mayor Turner added that with that many employees, parking and traffic become issues that impact the residential roads. Some businesses like landscaping have a higher number currently but they do not come to the business license holder’s home, just show up at a job site. Home construction companies are operated in a similar fashion. The number of employees actually coming to the home could be capped.
Mr. McAllister next moved to Section 8.25.06(c) dealing with use of accessory buildings or yard space for storage of equipment and materials. He said obviously a lot of businesses currently need to use space outside of the home to conduct their business.
Commissioner Binkerd commented that since only business license holders were sent letters inviting them to the public hearing, the attendance at the hearing is biased. She doesn’t like the idea that all of the residents were not personally invited. Because many residences are built on five-acre parcels, a lot of “junk” and “garbage” appears to pile up on lots. She would like to see businesses needing additional space move to a commercial zone and feels the home occupation license should only be granted to those conducting a business entirely inside the home, as the code is currently written.
Scott Coleman asked how a business conducted at a residence before Daniel became a town is treated. Mayor Turner commented those businesses and uses have continued as they were conducted within the County previously. Council member Blotter clarified that if a business was legally established within the County before incorporation of Daniel Town, that use has continued on. Council member Bunker commented businesses before and since cannot enter into conduct which violates the nuisance law involving smoke, dust, odor or noise.
Jamie McAllister commented this being RA5 zoning, it does allow agricultural activities involving equipment with diesel engines. Trucking operations within the zone have similarities to some farming operations. There is no limit on pieces of farming equipment, which can also impact a residential community. She would like access to complaints that have been made to try to work things out neighbor to neighbor. She wants the Council and Planning Commission to keep in mind the history and uses of land in the valley over time. Land in Daniel is less expensive for an industrial use than land in the commercial zone.
Steve Meyer added landowners in Daniel conduct business from their homes to be cost effective. Mayor Turner stated that the neighbors, however, to a home occupation business should not have to bear the brunt of appearance and noise in a residential zone. Mr. Meyer went on to say his perception is the business owners near him keep their yards looking good where many other properties within Daniel are full of “junk. “
Mr. Waterman expressed his thought that the content of the complaints needs to be made public so they can be addressed. Melanie Coleman also added knowledge of the complaints driving the discussion should be divulged.
Joe Witt added, to his knowledge, small businesses are being conducted in ag buildings which don’t impact anyone, but according to the current code they are in violation.
Commissioner Weight stated he is very pro agriculture. He asked those present if they would rather see their neighbor bale hay three times a year or live with a subdivision of 350 homes next door.
Commissioner Binkerd stated those present were sent letters inviting them to the hearing because they hold a business license. She would like to see businesses being conducted within Daniel held accountable and encouraged to become licensed. Comment was made even though a business may hold a license in another municipality, if they do business within Daniel they must have a license there as well.
Mr. McAllister asked if the public will be allowed to comment once the Council determines their perceived final home occupation code. The Mayor and Council and Commission replied absolutely. The Town holds open public meetings and welcomes public input. Council member Blotter stated comments can be made via email to any town officials whose addresses are located on the website www.danielutah.org.
Council member Glodowski moved to close the public hearing and move into regular session, which was seconded by Council member Blotter. In further discussion Council member Bunker suggested continuing the public hearing to the next Council meeting on October 3rd at 6:00 PM. Council member Glodowski withdrew his motion and moved that the public hearing be continued on October 3, 2016. The second from Council member Blotter remained in effect. The motion passed unanimously.
Council member Blotter stated he would like a letter sent to all residents within Daniel Town of the continuation of the public hearing on October 3rd.
Council member Glodowski moved to go back into regular session, which was seconded by Council member Blotter. The motion passed unanimously and the regular session of the Town Council was reopened.
5) UPDATE ON 3000 SOUTH ALIGNMENT ANNEXATION INTO DANIEL TOWN
Mayor Turner stated a letter withdrawing the petition for annexation into Daniel Town by Messrs. Golub and Petersen was received via email on September 12, 2016.
6) STORM HAVEN WATER MATTERS AS NEEDED
No water personnel were present at the meeting, but Lisa Dinga, a Storm Haven resident, reported water issues in the community are better since the Town took over the system. She asked that residents receive updates on work in the system and would love to have contact through social media. She offered to aid the clerk in posting information on the website where the YouTube videos of all Town meetings are located.
7) DANIEL MUNICIPAL WATER ISSUES AS NECESSARY, INCLUDING CONTINUED DISCUSSION OF PERSONNEL WAGE INCREASE
As mentioned above, no water personnel were present to report on issues.
Council member Glodowski moved to continue the discussion on the personnel wage increase. The motion was seconded by Council member Blotter and passed with all “ayes.”
8) BUSINESS LICENSE APPLICANTS
Planning Director Bunker produced two applications for license renewal, those being Doctor Fix It and Tender Touch Massage. Planning Secretary Kathy-Jo Percy mentioned that Simpson Fence is delinquent on their renewal, and Shelly Bunker produced a check given to her at the meeting for their renewal. The Council approved the renewal application for Simpson Fence and all three business licenses were renewed.
The test results for Daniel Municipal Water were produced showing it absent for cloriform. The Mayor made note that DMW does have chlorine added to the system but Storm Haven does not yet. Marla Larson asked if Storm Haven was going to get a larger storage tank, and if so, would residents be given more water on a monthly basis. Ryan Taylor said the future plans call for a new well and more storage, both of which must be accomplished before volumes to residents will increase. Brandon Larson asked if consideration of leaks comes into play when looking at usage in the area. The Mayor and Council replied they are constantly monitored and repaired as necessary. The issue of a rate increase will be reviewed as more water becomes available for distribution. Council member Bunker stated data is being collected on an ongoing basis since the system was acquired by Daniel Town.
9) DISCUSSION ON JED SEUS BUILDING PERMIT
Planning Director Bunker stated the application for a building permit passed through the Planning Commission, but the requirement on setbacks in regards to the placement of the septic system remains in question. The current code calls for 200’ of separation between septic fields. He wants to require 100’ each direction, north and south, from the property line between Seus and Binkerd, which makes the placement difficult on the Seus property. Commission Weight stated if the builder on the Seus lot received a statement from the property owner to the south stating moving the Seus system closer to his lot was permitted, the septic system could be moved further south to provide the 200’ of separation. Ryan Taylor stated his opinion that the code states 200’ between systems, has no reference to a property line, and thinks the builder can place the home and septic closer to the Binkerd property line.
Blake Allen, the builder of the Seus home, has had discussion with Wasatch County officials, and he stated their code calls for just 10’ from a property line. He has received approval from the County for placement as shown on his plans. Septic systems must be 100’ from a well or water source. He mentioned there are projects where some neighboring homes share septic systems. Because of the irregular shape of the lot, the septic cannot be moved to the back of the Seus lot in an easterly direction. He is of the opinion perhaps the 200’ requirement was a mistake when adopted from the County code years ago.
Since Commissioner Jaye Binkerd has the adjoining lot to the north, she stated Mr. Allen meets the 200’ code language and she has no problem with his proposed placement on the lot.
Brent Waterman stated he has the largest septic system in Wasatch County and owns a public water system on his 160-acre parcel and feels the 200’ requirement is ridiculous. He has three wells on the same property and has never had a bad water sample where he must sample on a regular basis.
Council member Bunker stated the four lots in question were lots of record, but no legislative body in the Town has said they were buildable lots. Council member Blotter expressed concern over code language stating no septic systems may be placed on lots of less than five acres. The lot in question is around one acre.
Mr. Allen would like the Council to address the language of 200’ between septic systems for building in the future and change the code. Water source does not come into play here as all four lots in question can hook into the Daniel Municipal Water system. Mr. Taylor does not think a system can be installed on the lot in question if 100’ from each property line is required.
Council member Blotter expressed concern that the Town Planner is overriding code in approving projects within the Town. Mayor Turner stated the Council does have a right to override code in making decisions to be equitable to the residents.
Council member Glodowski moved to allow the placement of the Seus septic tank to be 200’ away from the existing septic tank on the lot to the north and 100’ from the southern property line, or requesting a signed letter from the property owner to the south of the Seus lot accepting such placement if his lot is impacted. Mr. Glodowski corrected his motion to state 200’ away from the existing drain field on the lot to the north. The motion was seconded by Council member Bunker.
In further discussion, Council member Bunker asked the Planning Commission members present for their opinions. Commissioner Binkerd stated her interpretation of the Town accepting the four lots as lots of record meant they were also buildable, or the opposing position should have been stated upon their acceptance as lots of record. She is agreeable to having the drain fields 200’ apart as between hers and the proposed Seus septic system, even if not 100’ from the property line. Commissioner Weight concurs with allowing building on this lot and perhaps scrutinizing further whether lots in the future are recognized as lots of record without stating whether or not they are buildable.
Council member Blotter stated his opinion that it is not the Town’s responsibility to educate the public on whether or not a lot is buildable; that Town officials do not need to provide code pertaining to their request, whether it be for a building permit or a home occupation business license. Council member Bunker stated the Town application for a building permit is signed by the applicant stating they are in conformance with the code; therefore, inferring they have read it.
The vote on the motion on the table was as follows: “Aye” votes from the Mayor and council members Glodowski and Bunker, with a “nay” from Council member Blotter. The motion passed.
Council member Blotter moved that if Planning overrides any code, that it ought to be addressed by the Town Council. Planning Director Bunker stated he does that every day in fulfilling his duties as Planner. Commissioner Binkerd stated the recommendation that if code is overridden, it should come before the Town Council for rethinking. Planner Bunker stated if it is an issue, it is on his monthly planning report brought before the Council. However, he does have the right to interpret.
10) PLANNING DEPARTMENT REPORT, CODE VIOLATIONS AND ENFORCEMENT
Planning Director Bunker produced his monthly planning report. He mentioned a request to build a home on the Mary Huntsman property on Highway 40, a lot just over three acres. The owner has not been able to produce a lot of record certificate.
A lot line adjustment on the Gerald Smith property on 3000 South was discussed by Ryan Taylor. The parties are unclear whether the matter of plat approval by the Council after moving the water meter on the Sweat property was necessary. A copy of the April minutes was produced and the language of the motion made by Council member Glodowski read into the record. Council member Bunker stated the Town offered to have a contractor move the meter for $2,500 and thought the plat would then come back before the Council for approval. Maverick Peterson, the contractor who constructed the Ranch Drive waterline, was in attendance at this meeting and stated he would honor the price and move the meter for $2,500. Council member Blotter would like to see the plat after the meter is moved for final approval. Mr. Taylor stated he has the application with a plat submitted and the Council may review it at the next Council meeting.
Council member Glodowski moved that if the plat is approved by the Planning Staff upon their review, the matter does not need to come back to the Council. Mayor Turner stated he would like the opportunity to see the plat for Council approval.
Council member Glodowski amended his motion to say he moves that if the Planning Staff approves the plat, the matter will then come before the Council for final approval. Council member Bunker stated the motion as stated is not necessary as the normal course after Planning Staff approval is to come before the Council for their approval. Mr. Taylor stated the matter is on hold until he receives the monies to move the water meter. The motion was seconded by Council member Bunker and passed unanimously.
Review with the Council continued on Planning Director Bunker’s monthly report. The M&I water conversion was reported on by Council member Glodowski. This issue deals with converting water shares used for field irrigation to yard use. The $3.50 per share is currently subsidized by the federal government, but upon conversion it is no longer subsidized and the property owners are responsible for the full amount of money for the water. All irrigation companies in the Heber Valley have requested the M&I conversion, and Council member Bunker produced a draft contract from the federal government to facilitate the conversion. Twin Creeks Irrigation is the first company to request the conversion at this time. The State will take a cut of the water share upon conversion.
Council member Blotter commented he would like the Council to consider hiring a full-time employee as Mr. Bunker spent 142 hours in Planning and 50.75 hours on Blue Stakes matters in the month of August.
At this point the Planning Commissioners Binkerd and Weight were excused from the meeting.
Mayor Turner requested Council member Bunker to send a second letter on the code violation in the Wasatch Mobile Home Park. He will do so and attach a timeline produced by Mr. Taylor of his attempted contact with the owner of the trailer in question.
11) APPROVAL OF COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES OF AUGUST 8, 2016
Council member Glodowski moved to accept the minutes from August as written, which was seconded by Council member Bunker. The motion passed with the following vote: “Aye” votes from Mayor Turner and Council members Bunker and Glodowski. Council member Blotter abstained as he was not present at the meeting.
12) RECORDER’S OFFICE: WARRANT APPROVAL, ANNOUNCEMENTS, ESTABLISH DATE FOR BUDGET AMENDMENT PUBLIC HEARING
Handling the warrants for Daniel Municipal Water first, discussion was had in regards to the Heber Light & Power bill being at a lower amount for the third month in a row. Maverick’s Excavation has submitted a change order in the amount of $17,468.75 for Council approval. Mr. Taylor explained the four items comprising the change order amount. Maverick Peterson of Maverick’s Excavation explained why there was an additional amount for asphalt on the project.
Council member Blotter moved to accept the change order from Maverick’s Excavation, which was seconded by Council member Glodowski. Council member Bunker suggested including the amount in the motion. The motion was amended by Council member Blotter to accept the change order in the amount of $17,468.75. The second of the motion stood and the motion passed unanimously.
Presentation of the rest of the warrants was made by the clerk. She explained that engineering and contractor billing on the Ranch Drive waterline is actually contained under an impact fee category on the new software. Mr. Taylor explained oversite of the project done by Epic Engineering over a six-week period was included in their invoice.
On the Storm Haven Water system, note was made of the higher HL&P billing. Mr. Taylor’s assumption is this was due to the impending failure of the motor and should be lower next month. Mention was also made of the bill from Danny’s Electric Motor for replacing the motor in one of the pumps.
Council member Blotter moved to approve the warrants as presented. The motion was seconded by Council member Glodowski and passed unanimously.
The clerk mentioned because the chip seal road project was performed and paid for in the current fiscal year, budget amendments need to be prepared for FY 2015-2016 and FY 2016-2017 as the amount for road repair was included in last year’s budget.
Council member Blotter moved to hold a public hearing to deal with budget amendments in conjunction with the October 3, 2016 Council meeting, which was seconded by Council member Glodowski.
Council member Bunker asked if consideration of the cost of a solar permit in the Town should be addressed at the same time in a public hearing. Inspections on solar permits is running more than the cost of $250 for the permit. Mr. Taylor stated Heber Light & Power has changed their process which involves more time by Epic individuals and creates a higher cost. Brent Waterman mentioned Heber Light & Power has their own meter installed as well. Mr. Taylor explained Epic Engineering is doing most of the legwork on the installation for solar. Council member Blotter suggested putting the responsibility back on the power company and cutting Epic time involved. The Council concurred. Mr. Taylor will explain the Council’s desire to the power company and try to reduce Epic’s costs before asking that the permit cost be increased by the Town.
The vote on the pending motion was all “ayes” and the motion passed.
Council member Glodowski moved to adjourn the meeting, which was seconded by Council member Bunker. The motion passed unanimously and Mayor Turner adjourned the meeting at 10:12 PM.