[{"_1":2,"_85":-5,"_86":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":59,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":65,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6597385,"mediaKeyId","3408724-e5a0ab4a178f4ab824feb1ccbbe3903b","parentId",3408724,"title","At a glance: Mayfield council approves engineering study, road chip‑seal contract and local hires","audioSeconds",1808,"startMs",5737000,"endMs",7545000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=3408724-e5a0ab4a178f4ab824feb1ccbbe3903b&start=5737&end=7545","thumbnailUrl","https://d352y6ypj4mjo3.cloudfront.net/AudioPlaceholder.png","articleUrl","/articles/6597385/Utah/At-a-glance-Mayfield-council-approves-engineering-study-road-chipseal-contract-and-local-hires","mediaUrl","author","Mayfield Town Council","date","2025-04-09T19:00:00Z","article","Mayfield Town Council on April 9 approved a series of administrative and procurement actions to advance road maintenance and planning work, and approved local part‑time hires and a community pantry initiative.

Key approvals recorded during the meeting included: selection of a consultant to prepare an impact‑fee facility plan and analysis; awarding a chip‑seal contract for the 2025 road maintenance program; hiring a part‑time cemetery/caretaker; and approving placement of a small food‑pantry “little free pantry” unit on town hall property for an experimental period.

Impact‑fee analysis: The council reviewed two proposals to perform an impact‑fee facility plan and analysis to support possible developer impact fees for roads and parks. Ensign Engineering (Richfield branch) submitted a proposal for $8,820; a second proposal from EFG Consulting totaled $24,750. The council voted to proceed with the lower‑cost Ensign Engineering proposal for the impact‑fee facility plan and analysis; councilors said the scope covers roads and park planning and will be used to evaluate legally defensible impact fees.

Road maintenance: Councilors approved a bid from JCI (chip seal contractor) to chip‑seal approximately 17,408 square yards of town roads in the 2025 program year. The approved contract amount recorded in the meeting was $61,025.66. Councilors noted the town expects to use Class C road funds and prior budgeted amounts to pay for the work and emphasized annual maintenance is intended to prevent larger future repair costs.

Local hires and staffing: The council approved hiring Vanden (Brandy) Neilson (transcript name variants) as a part‑time cemetery/grounds worker for the summer; the application was the only one received. The council also received three applications for a cabin‑cleaning position and agreed to schedule interviews rather than make an immediate hire.

Community pantry: The council approved placing a small food‑pantry unit (a skid‑mounted box similar to Little Free Library boxes) on town property as an experimental pilot. Dave Thomas — a volunteer with the regional food pantry organization — proposed the unit, and the council agreed to allow a unit on town hall property for at least a year, with staff or volunteers checking it periodically.

Finance and claims: The council received the third‑quarter financial report showing total town funds of roughly $780,729 across general, utility and cemetery funds and discussed revenue and expense percentages through the fiscal year. The council approved the invoice registry and claims for the period as presented; the meeting record shows a roll‑call affirmation for the invoice registry.

No competing bids or protests were recorded at the meeting for the contracts awarded. Councilors said they will monitor the impact‑fee study and chip‑seal project during implementation and will follow up on the cemetery hire if more applicants appear for related openings.","mediaType","Audio","parentTitle","Regular Meeting - 250409_0058","oneSentenceSummary","The Mayfield Town Council approved a local engineering firm to perform an impact‑fee analysis, awarded a chip‑seal contract for town roads, approved a part‑time cemetery hire and authorized a small community pantry unit on town property.","taxTitle","Mayfield, Sanpete County, Utah","taxId",80053,"location","Utah","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":50,"_51":82,"_53":-5,"_54":55,"_56":57,"_58":83,"_60":61,"_62":63,"_64":84,"_66":67,"_68":69,"_70":71,"_72":73,"_74":73},6597389,"Mayfield council opens wide public review of trailer, animal and yard ordinances",1276,248000,1524000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=3408724-e5a0ab4a178f4ab824feb1ccbbe3903b&start=248&end=1524","/articles/6597389/Utah/Mayfield-council-opens-wide-public-review-of-trailer-animal-and-yard-ordinances","The Mayfield Town Council on April 9 held an extended public discussion on whether to revise long-standing town ordinances governing recreational vehicles and trailers, large animals and livestock setbacks, limits on dogs and rules about yard storage and abandoned vehicles.

The discussion drew multiple residents, who described both long-standing local practices and neighborhood nuisance problems. Mayor (unnamed) and town staff said the purpose of the meeting was to gather public input before deciding whether to reopen or amend ordinances that were adopted or last substantially revised in 1998.

Council and staff framed several specific issues. On recreational vehicles, the ordinance currently allows a temporary, conditional use permit for a construction trailer while building a house (typically for up to one year) and permits occasional recreational use subject to “self-contained” requirements for wastewater. Several residents asked whether different types of trailers—camping trailers, car haulers and utility trailers—are being treated consistently by the town code. One resident said some properties have long-held arrangements (grandfathering) and asked how those fit with the present rules.

On livestock, town staff described the ordinance’s square‑foot requirements: the code as written was explained to require a house plus 29,000 square feet for a first large animal (which staff explained would amount to roughly 39,000 square feet when the 10,000 square feet minimum for a house is included), and roughly an additional 20,000 square feet for a second animal, which would put two animals at about 1.125 acres under the ordinance text discussed at the meeting. Staff said other Utah towns (Centerfield, Gunnison, Sandy) use smaller per‑animal footprints. Residents and council members emphasized that many complaints concern animal care (manure, flies, odors and visible neglect), not just animal counts, and suggested the town consider rules that focus on maintenance and nuisance reduction as well as numeric limits.

Dog limits drew sustained comment. The current ordinance language cited in the meeting states two dogs per property. Council members and the town’s code officer said enforcement has been inconsistent and that strict enforcement now could force some long-time residents to reduce dog numbers; they discussed options including reaffirming the two‑dog limit and pursuing targeted enforcement of nuisance behavior (excessive barking, feces not removed) rather than broad, immediate crackdowns.

Yard storage and abandoned vehicles were also elevated by multiple speakers. The 1998 ordinance language the town cited prohibits storage or dismantling of junk, inoperable vehicles, building materials and similar items “at a level which constitutes an established junk or automobile wrecking yard,” except where allowed in specific zones. Residents described parcels where equipment or old vehicles have remained for years and said this can create safety and sight-line problems at intersections. Council members said the letters the town recently mailed were intended to explain what the ordinances require and to start a process of community input about whether the rules should be revised or enforced more consistently.

Town staff and councilors outlined next steps: staff will collect sample ordinances from nearby towns, consider technical questions such as setbacks and definitions (for example, distinguishing a camping trailer from a car hauler), and schedule additional hearings focused on single topics where needed. Staff also noted the state Land Ombudsman’s office can review municipal land‑use rules and was identified as a resource for clarifying how the town’s ordinances align with state law. Mayor (unnamed) and staff said councilors want to balance protecting neighbors from nuisances while preserving the rural character that many residents said attracted them to Mayfield.

Residents were urged to read the town code (staff said links are posted on the town website), and to attend future public hearings that will be scheduled if staff drafts ordinance changes. Council members said they will aim for topic‑by‑topic public hearings rather than adopting sweeping code changes without additional input.","At an April 9 Mayfield Town Council meeting, residents and council members debated whether existing 1998 ordinances on recreational vehicles, large animals and yard storage remain appropriate. Councilors said they will gather more information and hold further public hearings before proposing specific changes.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

At a glance: Mayfield council approves engineering study, road chip‑seal contract and local hires

Mayfield council opens wide public review of trailer, animal and yard ordinances