Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Parking topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Council advances 300 North no-parking ordinance to public hearing after cemetery parking concern

Willard City Council · August 1, 2026
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

Willard City Council voted unanimously to advance Ordinance No. 2026-10, a proposal to prohibit parking along 300 North, and directed staff to refine the legal description to exclude an informal cemetery overflow parking area before the June 11 public hearing.

The Willard City Council voted unanimously on May 28 to advance Ordinance No. 2026-10, which would ban parking along the full length of 300 North, to a public hearing set for June 11. City Engineer Zach measured the proposed restricted length at approximately 0.58 miles; the council asked staff to refine the ordinance's legal description to exclude an informal cemetery parking area near the road's low end.

Council members discussed signage and enforceability. City Attorney Amy Hugie noted that "the ordinance had been deliberately drafted to be enforceable whether physical signs are posted, as a safeguard against sign theft," and the council agreed that signs should nonetheless be placed on both sides of the road along the restricted segment. Council Member Mike Braegger raised concern that the current draft would eliminate long-standing overflow parking for cemetery visitors; the council directed the City Engineer to re-measure and identify a specific exclusion point so the restriction would begin after the cemetery parking area.

City Recorder Diana Mund confirmed the required public hearing has been posted for the June 11 Council meeting. Council Member Jacob Bodily made the motion to advance the ordinance to a public hearing; Council Member Rex Christensen seconded it and the motion carried unanimously. The council's action at this meeting was limited to advancing the ordinance to a hearing; no adoption vote occurred.