Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Municipal Finance And Operations topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Pine Springs council approves 4% levy increase, adopts setbacks and clears routine business

City of Pine Springs City Council · September 1, 2024
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

At its Sept. 3 meeting the Pine Springs City Council adopted a 4% levy increase for 2025, revised line-of-sight setback measurements in Ordinance 31, approved August financials and several routine motions, and approved September bills excluding a contested Washington County invoice.

The Pine Springs City Council on Sept. 3 approved a series of motions covering the city budget, ordinance revisions and routine business.

Budget and levy: Mayor Christensen proposed a 3% levy increase for 2025, but after discussion Councilmember Kardashian moved to raise the levy 4% for 2025, with Councilmember Kinney seconding. The motion passed unanimously (motion 24-88), increasing the levy for the 2025 budget.

Ordinance 31 and line-of-sight: Council agreed to a 45-foot line-of-sight setback on Hilton Trail (roads with posted limits of 40 mph or higher), 30 feet on side streets, and an additional 100 feet for line-of-sight at stop signs. Randy moved that Gary revise the line-of-sight language and have the attorney incorporate legal revisions; Adams seconded and the motion passed (motion record shown as 24-87).

Routine business and financials: The council approved the August financial summary (motion 24-87) and approved the September bills after excluding an invoice from Washington County pending further information (motion 24-86). The minutes were approved after correcting a reference to sewer location (motion record 84-85). The meeting adjourned at 9:09 p.m. following Mayor Christensen’s motion (motion 24-89).

Recorded votes and motion details appear in the council record for motions 24-86 through 24-89; the council did not specify dollar amounts for Long Lake Road repairs and asked for cost estimates before discussing assessments.