Dec 3rd City Council Meeting

The Wimbleton trails were vote on by City Council on Dec 3rd.

Vote to dispose of the trails:

  • Ed Dennis (lame duck vote)
  • Tim Irwin (lame duck vote)
  • Scott Smith

Voted to keep the trails:

  • Brian Braithwaite
  • Kurt Ostler

One city councilman declared he had a personal interest in the meeting. See info here: (https://youtu.be/eq7M7R7TpiY?t=7866). This same councilman has been trying for years to purchase the trail property behind his home. He served on the Open Space Committee for years, and later become a city councilman. He was instrumental in moving Wimbleton to the “optional” trail category. When this occurred, it made it possible for him and the subdivision he lives in to put together a petition that could cause the City Council to then vote on whether to keep or dispose of the optional trails.

In our opinion, the trails never should have been designated as optional. Clearly there was a fox in the hen house when that was going on. The trails are used, but before they could be voted on to be disposed, they had to be designated as “optional”. They are paved. They are not “go-to-nowhere” trails. We feel this sets a negative precedence to dispose of usable trails (optional or not).

This same councilman who lives in the subdivision worked closely with Wimbleton residents. He coached them. And even helped acquire signatures for past petitions. In spite of the appearance of a conflict of interest, he brought the issue to the council for a vote ONE LAST TIME. He did admit he had personal interest in the meeting. But he did not recuse his vote. (https://youtu.be/eq7M7R7TpiY?t=7866)

Many residents find that decision to be unethical. It is legal according to state code for a council member to vote if a conflict is declared. This councilman publicly, and openly declared in the meeting that he had a personal interest, yet he decided to NOT recuse himself, and he still voted. (https://youtu.be/eq7M7R7TpiY?t=7866), We are pretty sure that anyone reading this can judge for him/herself whether or not that sounds appropriate.

You can find the full discussion at 3:13:20 here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eq7M7R7TpiY

During this meeting, Councilman Ed Dennis and Scott Smith tried to limit the time for public comments. And then, before Kurt and Brian could have any discussion with the council and city personnel and city attorneys to bring up any concerns… legal or otherwise… Scott Smith and Ed Dennis quickly moved to question (vote) and promptly seconded it, and Tim Irwin went along with them on the vote.

We believe what happened in that room was upsetting and not what we would expected from our elected officials.

This is NOT THE WAY our “representatives” should operate. It appears that the 3 who voted for this trail buyback came to the meeting with a predetermined outcome.

Ultimately a referendum will be less expensive than a lawsuit for the city. WE DO NOT WISH TO HAVE A LAWSUIT.

Thank you so much for loving our beautiful city!

Timeline

  • 3:14:00 Neighborhood Option Trails (materially injury)

  • 3:29:20 Start of Wimbleton Action
  • 3:41:45 Terrence Edwards – organizer of petition
  • 3:56:26 Julie Durham – wants to keep trails
  • 3:57:34 Johnny Walters – read statement by Mayor
  • 4:01:54 Doug Cortney – pointed out materially injury items
  • 4:04:20 Mark Hafen – for disposal
  • 4:07:12 Dirvl Barfus – gave a great background-keeping trails. Served on Open Space committee
  • 4:10:25 Teri Jerman- for saving
  • 4:13:04 Colby Gibson – for disposal
  • 4:16:23 Scott Thompson – for saving
  • 4:19:40 Wayne Tennaka – for saving
  • 4:22:52 Julia Nelson – for saving
  • 4:25:06 Kyle Pettit – for saving
  • 4:27:31 Jason Hawkins – for disposal
  • 4:30:34 Scott Smith – tries to close public input
  • 4:31:10 Karalee Pettit – for saving
  • 4:34:39 Mike Sandstrom – For Disposal
  • 4:35:40 Public hearing closed, council debates – Kurt Ostler voices concern about materially injury, Several property owners that did not sign, what happens if its not bought
  • 4:38:20 Was the phasing known to the owners when they signed? It was NOT part of the petition
  • 4:39:25
    • Ostler: When you went and got the applications signed was the phasing proposal part of the signed
    • Edwards: No, I don’t believe it was? (that is correct, the packet that the petition signers signed, was NOT what was presented to the council. The organizers added more material. We know that if we alter the packet for the referendum, it is thrown out. Why is it fair for the petitioners to alter their packet of petitions?)
  • 4:40:51 Ostler:
    • There is material injury if the trails are sold, and fair market value
    • There are no supporting documents to support the value
    • Just sold to lehi over 6.00 sq ft
    • Great concerns about city council that we are not getting market value